Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

This is not a remake of the 1968 film. It is a new adaptation of the original novel.
1 posted on 12/22/2010 12:04:45 PM PST by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Borges; DollyCali

ping


2 posted on 12/22/2010 12:09:13 PM PST by EveningStar (Karl Marx is not one of our Founding Fathers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: EveningStar

Can’t hold a candle to the original John Wayne film.


3 posted on 12/22/2010 12:09:15 PM PST by Ev Reeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: EveningStar

The language people use in the book is so odd. I wonder if people ever actually spoke like that.


4 posted on 12/22/2010 12:12:40 PM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: EveningStar
John Wayne only played one role his entire life... that of John Wayne.
7 posted on 12/22/2010 12:37:24 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (DEFCON I ALERT: The federal cancer has metastasized. All personnel report to their battle stations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: EveningStar

Pass. It was done right the first time.


10 posted on 12/22/2010 12:41:13 PM PST by Sybeck1 (Memo to Mitt Romney: Just go away.............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: EveningStar
>> This is not a remake of the 1968 film. It is a new adaptation of the original novel. <<

Yeah, they said the same thing when the godawful Willy Wonka with Johnny Depp came out... "NOT a remake of the 1971 film, has nothing to do with the original movie, just a new adaptation of the novel... blah blah blah"

When you film a story that's already been told, it's a remake. The film that was already made will influence the new film, no matter how much the director, crew, and cast vow otherwise. It's always the 800 pound gorilla in the room that the new film will suffer inevitable comparisons too. Sometimes they even end up ruining the story by going out their way NOT to be like the superior original movie for fear of being labeled a "remake". And if the original film did an good job bringing the material to the screen and holds up well today, there's no reason to adapt it over again.

14 posted on 12/22/2010 12:47:00 PM PST by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: EveningStar

I just came back from seeing True Grit and it was very good. Jeff Bridges is great. Matt Damon is bad. The girl who played Mattie steals the show. I think she was fantastic.

The story is as solid now as it was when John Wayne did it. The dialogue, scenery and overall feel of the movie was excellent.

I’d give it an 9/10 but Matt Damon brings it down a peg. 8/10


30 posted on 12/22/2010 1:43:35 PM PST by Personal Responsibility (The more the plans fail the more the planners plan - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: EveningStar

I always wondered why the people in the 1969 film talked so funny.


45 posted on 12/22/2010 2:36:42 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator (Vayo'mer Mosheh '''Asurah-na' ve'er'eh 'et-hamar'eh hagadol hazeh; maddua` lo yiv`ar haseneh.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: EveningStar

Does this new version have the “one-eyed fat man/fill your hand” exchange like the first ?


48 posted on 12/22/2010 2:59:11 PM PST by PLMerite (Fix the FR clock. It's time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: EveningStar

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.


55 posted on 12/22/2010 3:44:20 PM PST by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: EveningStar

Saw it, thought it was great. I even liked Matt Damon in it, but then I don’t dislike Matt Damon at the outset like so many on here do. In fact, I generally like him in movies. So far no actor has so annoyed me that I can’t watch and enjoy their films. Kanye West is the only entertainer who has earned that distinction.


68 posted on 12/22/2010 9:13:15 PM PST by Mr. Blonde (You ever thought about being weird for a living?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson