New true grit vs. old true grit
-
Jep_Gambardella — 11 years ago(November 15, 2014 05:34 AM)
Sorry, I don't remember the specifics of why I wrote what I wrote. Let me assure that I do watch and appreciate many older films, so it's not just that they are unfamiliar to me.
Don't give me songs
Give me something to sing about -
movieguy82 — 15 years ago(January 08, 2011 06:32 PM)
Is it blasphemous to say the new film version of "True Grit" is better than the old one? Don't get me wrong, John Wayne is great, but the Coen Brothers' version seems to have better supporting actors (more of an ensemble). Plus, it sticks to the (voice over) narration from the book. That's my two cents.
-
kkm_22 — 15 years ago(January 09, 2011 07:30 PM)
Just saw the original today and I liked it in spite of the fact that I don't usually watch westerns. Sure some of performances weren't top notch, but I liked John Wayne and the chemistry between the trio of characters. Plus, there was a lot of that wry humor sprinkled throughout.
I am a fan of the Coen's bros, but I wasn't sure if I wanted to watch the remake. Now that I know they based it on the book (didn't know it was a book), I'm eager to see their version. -
Thirdover4 — 15 years ago(January 10, 2011 06:27 AM)
I've always been a fan of John Wayne but, at the risk of getting tarred and feathered, I really wasn't fond of his performance in True Grit. Part of the problem is that it is one of his films I did not see when I was younger, but heard so much about. To me, it felt a little over the top. I thought he was trying to work a outside of his comfort zone with a more brazen, more comedic role, but it seems to get a little clownish at times. I haven't seen the new version but the performance by Bridges (in the trailers) looks to me a lot more polished. Part of that is the acting and directing styles of the period. Now, John Wayne in "The Shootist" is subtle and convincing in my opinion.
Another actor who seems oddly off to me in True Grit is Dennis Hopper. He seems young and inexperienced compared to his performance in Easy Rider that was released the same year. Interesting that that film is often credited with helping launch the transition from old Hollywood style movies like True Grit, into the more contemporary style films with the crop of young directors that would follow. -
robbl12 — 15 years ago(January 10, 2011 07:43 AM)
Very difficult to compare in many ways. I think the modern version is the superior film, but it's easy to forget how the original was such a great film for the time that it was made. Modern filmmaking and resources, when utilized to their full potential, should produce better films, and the Cohens managed to do that brilliantly.
I've recently rewatched the original, and the good news is that one version does not detract from the other. The original holds up very well. I now will have to read the book. -
rcocean3 — 15 years ago(January 10, 2011 07:04 PM)
The New Grit is a fine movie and LOOKS better than the Old Grit - but it doesn't have Wayne, Robert Duvall or Strother Martin. It also doesn't have the humor and drama of the '69 version.
Advantage Old Grit. -
-
Chaco1942 — 15 years ago(January 14, 2011 08:40 AM)
A recent Hollywood Reporter story made something out of the fact that Jeff Bridges actually rode the horse in the big shootout at the end, while in the earlier version John Wayne was filmed in closeup while riding on a vehicle.
Well, pilgrims, the Duke was 67 years old, had one lung, and was filming at elevations of 9000-10000 feet up in the San Juan mountains of Colorado.while Jeff, at age 60, had both lungs and considerably more eneregy to contribute.
Like I've said before, both versions are quite enjoyable on their own merits. -
csimpkins53 — 15 years ago(January 18, 2011 04:37 PM)
I agree with the points you are making, however I have one correction. The Duke was not 67 when he made True Grit. John Wayne was born on May 26, 1907, therefore he was about 61 when the movie was filmed and about 62 when it was released. Jeff Bridges was born Dec. 4, 1949, therefore he was about 60 when the new True Grit was filmed and about 61 when it was released. John Wayne and Jeff Bridges were very close to the same age when they portrayed Cogburn in their respective "Grit" movies. Your point though concerning The Duke's poor health is certainly correct.
-
MisterGumby — 15 years ago(January 14, 2011 12:12 PM)
I very much agree. I found myself considerably off-put by the ending of the new one. The Duke was right on the money when he talked about the good reasons the screenwriter of the 1969 version had to change the ending.
-
csimpkins53 — 15 years ago(January 17, 2011 10:48 AM)
I agree. I don't like the ending in the 2010 version at all. The 1969 ending was light years better! (Cogburn's discussion with Mattie at her family plot, and Rooster's great jumping of the fence with his new horse)! That's the way to end "True Grit!" I also like the beginning of the 1969 movie much better. The 1969 version has the story of the ponies, the establishing scene of Mattie as bookkeeper, the gold pieces, the father's gun, the theft of said gold pieces and the murder of Mr. Ross acted out by the actors. In the 2010 version all of this is reduced to a very brief and ineffective narration. This is an extremely weak way to begin the movie compared to the 1969 version. However, most everything in-between the beginning and the ending is just fine. 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?!" My seat mate and I did this as well. More often than not our response to each other was: "I don't know." When the DVD and/or Bluray come out perhaps we will finally understand him by turning on the subtitles! Also, I miss the scene when Cogburn shoots the rat! Another important scene that is missing from the 2010 version is the revealing of J. Noble Daggett! In both versions Mattie goes on and on about what a great lawyer she has in J. Noble Daggett and everyone is suitably intimidated. In the 1969 version Daggett shows up towards the end of the movie and he turns out to be a dorky, wimpy little guy with a high pitched squeaky voice who could not intimidate anyone. Great laugh, What a hoot! The scene with Daggett is sorely missed in the 2010 version.
-
MisterGumby — 15 years ago(January 17, 2011 10:52 AM)
I had the same problems with the speeches! And at least the 1969 version had that funny scene with the rat.
http://www.imdb.com/list/TNxI-Raigt0/
My ever-changing Top 100 Movies -
csimpkins53 — 15 years ago(January 19, 2011 09:20 AM)
Oh yes, the rat! I miss that scene in the new version as well. Also the scene towards the end of the original when "lawyer Daggett" appears. All through the movie (the original as well as the new) Mattie goes on and on about what a great lawyer she has in Daggett. Then, in the original movie, he finally shows up in the end and is portrayed as a wimpy, dorky little guy. What a hoot! This scene is sorely missed in the 2010 version!