Posted on 10/03/2011 9:53:58 PM PDT by mirkwood
I just watched the remake of True Grit and I was disapointed to say the least. The kid did well, but the whole movie seemed to be a lukewarmed version of the original. This movie had all the stuff, just like a c on a term paper. Blah. When you watch the original you get involved in the movie. This is a sad satire of a classic.
I was disappointed by the early acting of rooster, and then the ranger disappeared. WTH?
I loved the movie. A great work of art and you’re quite a few months late.
I loved the movie. A great work of art and you’re quite a few months late.
Nobody can top the Duke. The one and only Rooster.
The raid of the camp along the river....totally screwed up. The original movie is still the best. All in all I rate this one: go buy the John Wayne dvd.
Kim Darby was twice the actress the new girl was.. the rest of the movie was pretty good.
I liked the movie and in any event, it’s a lot better than the standard hollyweird films. That said, producers are addicted to remakes and sequels.
The old movie was superior in many ways. The only thing better in the new version was the actor’s hairstyles.
I hated Darby and Glenn Campbell’s hair.....and it always took me awhile to get past their hairstyles. The new girl with pigtails was so much better.
More than a few months late. I just did not like the way they took a classic movie and then made it stupid. The accents were embarrassing. The story line got confused after 16 minutes. Rooster Cogburn was a pathetic attempt at acting. There is only one man that can do that role. He has passed. God Bless.
That is funny as heck. The hair. I noticed it but didn’t ........
Different tastes I suppose. I loved the remake.
I hated how the new Rooster used a captive bolt pistol instead of a real gun.
I can like them both.
It bothered me for a bit that somebody was going to re-make the movie, until I found out it was the Coen brothers. If anybody can be trusted with a story, and strong characters, it’s the Coen brothers. They are ~all~ about characters in their movies. I loved the original, and I love this one too. No violence was done to The Duke. If anything, it was an homage to John Wayne.
Kim Darby..Thank you..She was perfect for that role. I was so disappointed when the new one was haggling about the horses. The original was so much more real.
I prefer this one to the original (with all due respect to the Duke). And I am old enough to have seen the original in the theater. Come on, the rhinestone cowboy (Glenn Campbell) was just that, and Damon did much better even though the part was a little thin. I always thought Kim Darby’s acting was insipid, Hailee Steinfeld is the hands-down winner. The Duke defined the role, but I really believe Bridges more than did it justice.
So in case you couldn’t tell, I loved the remake. But there were a few things to make fun of...
http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6383545/true-grit-with-subtitles
I don't really agree. The girl in the new version was much closer to the girl in the book. The Duke's version had the girl a little too old, when she should've been younger. That was part of the whole point of the story.
From the beginning they expressed they weren’t attempting to “remake” John Wayne’s True Grit, they were making a whole new True Grit movie. As far as I know they used nothing of the old True Grit script, they always stated they were following the book itself.
Unfortunately everyone assumes, because of Hollywood’s infatuation with ‘remakes’ that this was only just a remake. Most people went to watch the movie expecting to see everyone attempt to do their best impression of the characters in John Wayne’s True Grit.
A lot of people got surprised when it was far from similar and seemed like a different movie altogether.....because it was an altogether different movie. John Wayne’s True Grit didn’t follow the book very much while the Coen Bros. used it as a roadmap for the whole script. Then there was Bridges’ portrayal of Rooster Cogburn, which wasn’t based off of Wayne’s portrayal but was his own construct.
Anyway, I like the new one better because if you’ve seen John Wayne in 1 western you’ve seen his range of acting for all his westerns. John Wayne was great in his own right, and no one can replace him as a king of the westerns. But John Wayne is always just John Wayne. People just need to realize that they weren’t trying to replace him with the 2010 True Grit.
Jeff Bridges was excellent, by the way. Not once did I ever try to compare him to John Wayne nor did I think I was watching Starman in a western. Jeff Bridges embodied the literary Rooster Cogburn, not the John Wayne Cogburn.
The young girl was excellent as well. The Coen Bros. really made an excellent movie.
Where was the John Wayne salute? The fence?
Sorry, but the original stinks by comparison, and Wayne was part of the problem.
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.