Just a joke, Mr. Conspirator.
"It is to laugh!"
Posted on 12/22/2010 12:04:45 PM PST by EveningStar
No, he fares better in the novel (by the end, you realize that he has plenty of his own grit).
I read the book right after the film came out, and - this was a first for me - actually found that I wished the film had adhered more closely to the book.
Mr. niteowl77
I used to sell that paper in my neighborhood.
No, if you read my post you’ll see I’m responding to an article (not a review) in the NYTs this week. Ebert writes for the Chicago Tribune. I read his review: not bad and he admits to having a crush on Kim Darby. Hard to believe from that mean old man!
In the NYTs article, it talks about Mattie’s religiousity and glee in watching three men being hanged. That spooked me. In both the novel and the original film, she is sickened by the hanging.
I assume you saw the movie and that the Times reporter is another east coast lib jerk who only sees what he wants to see, lol!
Probably because Kim looked like a 14 year old boy in that movie. ;)
I always wondered why the people in the 1969 film talked so funny.
Good point! For years, when he hosted Siskel and Ebert, I thought he was gay!
Actually, I’ve always thought YOU talked funny.
Just a joke, Mr. Conspirator.
Does this new version have the “one-eyed fat man/fill your hand” exchange like the first ?
I have not seen the movie yet, but Personal Responsibility has. Perhaps he can confirm or deny what you’ve heard about the movie.
I’m just reporting what I read in a NYTs article. No big deal; don’t want to start anything with people who enjoy the movie.
Or “You can’t serve a writ on a rat.”
True.
True.
My brother sold it, too—for 3 cents/copy. He earned a lot of nice gifts, including a bicycle, which was a very big deal for a family who lived on a very low income as we did.
In A Narrative of the Life of David Crockett, by Himself, the term “real grit” is used in the familiar sense: “I verily believe the whole army was of the real grit.”
It appears first, though, in what I believe is the original meaning, that is “gold” : “I sold my part of the beef for five dollars in the real grit, for I believe that was before bank-notes was invented”
I don’t see this meaning given anywhere as the origin of the term, but there it is, and it makes perfect sense.
Just a joke, Mr. Conspirator.
"It is to laugh!"
It would be, if the silent version wasn't forgotten by history and probably a lost film. Remakes are always compared to the definitive version. Thus, any new version of The Wizard of Oz will be in the shadow of the 1939 movie, not the silent version, or the original novel. For example, the 1986 film "Return to Oz" was officially a sequel to the original L. Frank Baum novel and NOT a sequel to the 1939 movie. However, it was obviously influenced by the MGM film and borrowed several elements that were in the original movie but NOT the novel (Ruby slippers, people in Oz looking like people Dorothy meets in Kansas, etc.). Many film goers at the time went to see the film precisely because they expected to follow the 1939 movie -- they had never even read the 1900 novel.
The 1996 version of "Romeo & Juliet" was VERY different from the 1968 film, but it stood in the shadow of the earlier filmed version (as opposed to the 1936 version or any earlier movies), since 1968's Romeo & Juliet was the definitive take on the story.
Despite vowing that the new Willy Wonka had nothing to do with the 1971 movie, it borrowed several elements that were in the earlier movie and NOT in the novel, mainly because they worked better for cinema (like the 5 kids touring the factory being accompanied by only one parent and not two like in the book). The areas were it tried specifically to separate itself from the 1971 movie and show that it was "not a remake" (like reinventing Willy Wonka as a Michael Jackson-Marilyn Manson hybred instead of a wise eccentric old man like the book) were often the areas where it failed in comparison to the earlier film.
>> There’s reason to believe this film will improve on the original. The Coen Brothers are better film makers than Henry Hathaway. <<
I am willing to keep an open mind, however there is also the fact that very few remakes are superior to the original, and most of them are horror films (The Fly 1986 vs. The Fly 1958, The Thing 1982 vs. The Thing 1956, etc.). A few remakes have managed to EQUAL the original film, though (Scarface, The Karate Kid, etc.), and I respect the Coen brothers so it's possible they may produce a different but equally enjoyable version of the story. However, I am fully aware that the track record of rehashing old stories is not that good in Hollywood, usually the newer version is inferior. Hollywood needs to tell more original stories.
>> They also tend to remake because they are now bereft of ideas. So they make and remake and remake every classic movie almost never improving on the original. <<
This is essentially my point. It's obviously that "True Grit" was green light for production and not another critically acclaimed (but little known) novel, because of name recognition. Hollywood doesn't want to take risks. This new "True Grit" may end up being one of the decent remakes, but that doesn't change the fact I would much rather see new films than stories that have been told before. IMO, the only time they should focus on remakes is when the original film is hopelessly outdated, or was a poor adaptation of the source material. For example, I would be eager to see a new version of Charlie Chan, or Bonfire of Vanities. True Grit, not so much.
I did not read the book. LaBeouf is not lame as a character but Matt Damon is...well...Matt Damon. If he brought half of the life to his character that Bridges does this version the movie would be an all time great too.
Thanks, I do plan to see it. Bridges can be counted on to deliver (he’s been on a roll lately) and the trailer I saw impressed me with the young lady.
Well, Matt Damon... like his buddy Ben, they found a magic lamp and the genie gave them a wish... they both said “I want to be an actor in the worst way!”
I’m a sucker for westerns anyhow...
I saw it this afternoon. I didn’t think she took glee or was sickened by the hanging. The only emotion she displayed at all was anger toward her father’s killer. She was an emotionless seeker of vengance. Her emotional range was like Wednesday Adams. Or Arnold as the Terminator. Single minded, goal oriented and willing to do whatever needed to be done to accomplish her goal. There was no emotion shown in anything that was extraneous to that task.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.