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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I rarely watch any movie made in the last 20 years, but was pleasantly surprised. However, I watched it for what is was, not constantly comparing it to another movie from another age.
Sorry. The Dude ain't the Duke. It seemed like Bridges&Company were going through their paces. It was reported that no primary player watched the original version. I find that hard to believe. Besides, Wayne was more charming and likable as Rooster. Gritty realism doesn't make for a more entertaining movie either. And entertainment is what movies are all about. The Coen’s like to make dark, off beat, artsy fartsy films. They succeeded with TG 2010.
I hear the book was better than either movie. A masterpiece. Has anyone read it?
The “remake” as you call it was based on the novel which is different that John Wayne’s version. I own both moves on DVD.
She was the lone star of the movie. Bridges sucked and I effing hate Matt Damon. And I don’t believe what the Coen Bros. actually said they “have never seen the original movie” ...
I fell asleep several times through the movie. There was too much superficial dialog. Jeff Bridges’ salt of the earth accent was too heavy and hard to follow. The original with John Wayne was far more entertaining.
Other way around. To my amazement, the new movie completely eclipsed the old. Horses for courses.
It was more realistic. They used period garb and talked like they actually talked at that time.
Do not, instead of Dont, Can not, instead of cant. etc.
But, nobody can beat the Duke.
The kid was a total robot.
If you watch the two films - one after another - you will notice that almost half of the kid’s dialogue is removed. Why? Because she could not handle it. Kim Darby - whatever her failings - was a young adult and was able to shoulder tons of exposition and dialogue. She was a trained actress (although I am still not overly fond of her performance, she’s Duse compared to the other one) and the kid was just used as stunt casting. (Hey! I’ve got an idea! Let’s use a 14 year old to play a 14 year old.)
Her one accomplishment is that she appeared to be a very good horsewoman.