New true grit vs. old true grit
-
csimpkins53 — 15 years ago(January 19, 2011 10:06 AM)
Oh yes, the rat. I miss that scene in the 2010 version as well. Another thing I miss in the new version is the Lawyer Daggett. In both versions Mattie goes on and on about what a great lawyer she has in "J. Noble Daggett." In the original he shows up towards the end of the movie as a dorky, wimpy little guy with a high-pitched squeaky voice. What a hoot! This scene is sorely missed in the 2010 version!
-
misspaddylee — 15 years ago(January 17, 2011 01:26 PM)
My main complaint concerning the "meat" of the movie is that it is sometimes difficult to understand Jeff Bridges' mumbling. Several times during the movie I noticed people all around the theater looking to their seat mate and asking "What did he say?!"
A common complaint leading to some funny stuff:
http://blog.collegehumor.com/post/2640374274/true-grit-with-sub-titles -hes-a-man-with-true
"Madame meets many people, but she usually avoids the mad ones." -
CheeryToes — 15 years ago(January 27, 2011 06:26 AM)
I have not seen the new one, based of course on it feeling like sacrilege and that even in the commercials for the new one I kept saying to myself, "what did he say?" when JB spokeplus I don't know if he says it, but every time I see the commercials all I can hear is John Wayne yelling "fill your hands you sons of bitches!" can't bring myself to hearing anyone else saying anything even close.
"I jumped off a roof for you" -
Trismegistos4 — 15 years ago(February 11, 2011 10:13 PM)
"I couldn't understand a think Bridges said either. Both movies are good, but if I hadda pick, it's the old one"
Your grammar indicates that you should have been able to comprehend the ramblings of Rooster Cogburn. -
rileyrott — 15 years ago(March 16, 2011 02:52 AM)
John Wayne pulled all of his past roles together to play Rooster perfectly! I just watched the original again last night in Blu-Ray and was reminded what a great actor can do with the perfect part. To say "what a dud" shows no insight to Wayne's career or the roles he has played over the years. John Wayne NAILED Rooster Cogburn, hands down!
-
joegerardi-1 — 9 years ago(October 30, 2016 08:53 PM)
By this banal and trite statement it's obvious you've hardly ever seen any John Wayne movies.
It's not for nothing that directors like Stephen Spielberg think The Searchers a masterpiece; that many people believe Wayne's Oscar should have come for Red River; that his nuanced and subtle performance in She Wore a Yellow Ribbon is considered his best by many. And that's just the short list.
But you go on- continue to spout off the old "always the same character" line. Free speech and all
..Joe -
lakealice — 15 years ago(March 03, 2011 09:24 AM)
I agree that the "old" one is much, much better, particularly the beginning and end. The 1969 version ends on a cinematic note you never forgetCogburn jumping the fence on his horse and riding off, fullfilling the title. That makes it a MOVIE!
The new version's end seemed sour and half-hearted to me. I would never want to see it again. I thought the Coens were trying hard to teach us a lesson about the futility and awful price to pay for seeking revenge and that when people get killed it's not a pretty sight. That is true in real life, but it doen't make a great movie. We don't want to be taught lessonswe want to see stirring scenes, combined with music, clearly spoken great dialogue and unforgettable characters. All of that is in the 1969 version.
I thought Kim Darby was much better in the role than the actress in the new one, who I thought was stiff, wooden and forgettable. I thought the new version was pretty boring up until the snake pit scene, when all of a sudden there was some compelling action. In contrast, the old version has abundant action and characters with depth.
Of course, it has old-fashioned color, and a lot of people get killed and Mattie wounded, and the Coens want us to be sure to realize how bad that old Western code of revenge was, and they don't want us to sugar-coat it but see it for how it really wasand, phooey, it's still a great stirring classic MOVIE, which I doubt that this new mumblecore version will be. -
Rey_Kahuka — 15 years ago(January 30, 2011 07:02 AM)
I thought they were both great. The original is a little dated at this point, but the story, scenery, characters and dialog more than make up for it. People have the tendency to watch older films through a modern lens, and you can't always do that. I think the original Grit, though dated, still holds up pretty well. The remake is just as good for its time as the original was for its time.
-
Shiny-NZ — 15 years ago(February 05, 2011 05:51 PM)
Feel like I'm going against the tide here (also, we're on the original True Grit page) but as much as I love John Wayne, I think I liked the new True Grit more. It was definitely more similar to the novel, but I don't think that's why and I love the Coens but I can't put my finger on it I almost cheered several times while watching it.
-
mac57 — 15 years ago(March 05, 2011 08:53 PM)
I just saw the new True Grit a couple of days ago. The only reason I saw it was a friend of mine said it was better than the original, so my expectations were pretty high. I wouldn't say it was terrible, but it was close. I thought Jeff Bridges was very mediocre, the story was choppy, and Matt Damon was terrible. As a comparison, I had recorded the original True Grit the previous week and watched it as soon as I got home. There's no comparison. John Wayne nails it. And the ending scene is terrific. For those on this board who like the new version, do yourself a favor, check out the original and then post your thoughts.
-
Remnant_Of_The_Abyss — 15 years ago(March 26, 2011 07:57 PM)
LOL Robert Downey Jr. was basically an incomprehensible mumbler in Sherlock Holmes.
Maybe mumbling is a new trend for Hollywood.
ROTA Top Foreign Language Films:
http://www.imdb.com/list/qQvbXmXhhCU/