True Grit (2010)

There are 484 replies in this Thread which has previously been viewed 265,592 times. The latest Post () was by Moonshine_Sally.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

Register Yourself Login

    Whenever I'm really looking forward to a movie I am almost always disappointed when I see it. I've been looking forward to this one for almost a year. I loved it.


    It's the like the first one and yet it's different. It looks great. Matt Damon and Hailee Steinfeld are so much better than Glen Campbell and Kim Darby. It's not bleak and it has funny moments. I don't know how you could hate it if you like Westerns but I'm sure people will. It's 18 minutes shorter than the original.


    There were 18 people, mostly males, at the noon showing. I thought that was pretty good.

    Quote from may2

    I don't know how you could hate it if you like Westerns



    Westerns are and always have been my favorite movie genre but to me, it's almost sacriligious that someone would remake the only film that John Wayne, the most popular actor of all time, scored a Best Actor Oscar.

    Why the devil couldn't the Coens have picked another Duke film? Even "Rio Bravo", my favorite Wayne movie, wouldn't have bothered me as much as a remake of "True Grit".

    De gustibus non est disputandum

    Hel-lo?!


    We all know why it was done. Contrary to what you hear from the "Coen Camp" as to their reasons for doing this movie, it's a safe bet (I'm not the only person with ties to the industry to believe this, BTW) that taking on iconic movies and roles, AND putting their OWN stamp on the
    film helps strengthen their status as major players.


    Remaking movies isn't new. It's been done in Hollywood since the early days. Heck, John Ford did his share, and used JW to help him do it.


    What burns folks up is the lame reason used when they're confronted - "This will be more faithful to the book than the original..." even though the '69 version was (save for the ending) pretty much straight out of the book.


    The other thing people get out of all of this is a dislike for Bridges, and that's just unfair to him.


    No matter what, he can't fill JW's shoes, because he's NOT JW. He's also not Hank Fonda, or Cary Grant. He's a very fine actor who's very good at what he does - just like JW, although he'll probably never reach the level of stardom as JW.


    This is about respect. Plain & simple. They feel they can do a better job than Hathaway did with the original. A more "up-to-date" approach, if you will. The BS about being faithful to the book is EXACTLY that. My issue with it all is that they aren't being open about WHY they're doing it, and they think the public is too stupid and unsophisticated to realize what's going on.


    The movies will be viewed in a different way, and that's the way it should be, as they're NOT the same film.


    I respect the viewpoints of others on this board who might not agree with me on this, but it's OK - my shoulders are very broad.

    Quote from may2

    It's not Wayne's best performance.



    I personally think "The Shootist" was his best performance.

    Shortly after I joined our group (5 or 6 years ago), I created a bit of resentment among certain members for stating my belief (and I was sincere in this belief) that the Duke wasn't a particularly gifted actor, as actors go, but that he was still my all-time favorite for the overall sense of great character that he projected both on and off screen. I just think the Duke had a charisma that puts the rest of 'em to shame.

    De gustibus non est disputandum

    May2, I never said they weren't. I said they were doing this (in part) to "strengthen their status" as major players.


    That's the name of the game in any business - increasing your market share, and most of the time it's done by creating a bigger name for yourself. You can accomplish THAT by not being a cookie-cutter type company (unless you make cookie-cutters!!). This is what I was saying before.


    Not everyone has the same taste in movies, so a variety is needed to allow for the biggest cross-section of movie goers possible. Personally, I loved "O brother, where art thou," even though it had a few issues regarding accuracy to the period (big deal, right? Happens all the time in movies), it's a movie I have on DVD, and try to watch whenever it's on cable...


    That's a Coen Bros. movie, and I'm fine with it. I'm not sure how I'll feel about True Grit v2, but I'll be objective while watching, and try not to "think" myself out of enjoying a good movie.

    I find it very hard to believe that they "never" seen the original except for when it came out and they forgot about the story. Come on!! You are remaking a movie that an actor won a Oscar for and you haven't seen it in almost 40 years and you cannot remember what it was about? Talk about blowing smoke up the public's butt!! Gees.......that is why people are sick and tired of Hollywood. They are so out of touch with real people. If they were truly students of cinema, they would have done research while writing and producing the new version which would have included watching the original.

    Life is hard, its even harder when your stupid!!
    -John Wayne

    The Coens have said repeatedly they were making their movie based on the book. There was no reason in the world for them to rewatch the original film.



    It looks to be a hit.


    http://blog.boxofficespy.com/


    Yesterday's only other new wide release, True Grit, the film directed by the Coen Brothers and starring Jeff Bridges, Hailee Steinfeld, Matt Damon, and Josh Brolin had a far more auspicious debut.


    The Paramount Pictures released western earned $5.5 million on its first day of release, December 22, 2010, debuting in third place.


    That's significantly higher than expectations, and a strong number regardless.


    True Grit should be looking at a five-day extended opening weekend gross between $32-$35 million, which would be higher than even high projections.


    New reports have come in that True Grit had a rather modest budget of just $40 million, which means the film doesn't have to go far to be considered a success.


    Combined with the holiday season which gives way to small weekend declines, strong daily earnings, and already positive word-of-mouth, True Grit should be headed to a hefty domestic total.


    In fact, the movie has an excellent chance at becoming one of the five highest grossing westerns of all-time, although that's unadjusted for inflation.

    Edited once, last by may2 ().

    I keep reading articles about how very close to the novel the Coens stuck...and then, I read articles about this Bear Man character, part of LaBeouf's tongue getting ripped out, Mattie sleeping in a coffin at the funeral home, excerpts of dialogue which were nowhere in the novel or the original film & it just makes me wonder......what is the definition of "close"? It will be next week before I would even be able to see the new film. What are the impressions of members of this community who have seen the new film?

    Quote from Dexter Woodruff

    I keep reading articles about how very close to the novel the Coens stuck...and then, I read articles about this Bear Man character, part of LaBeouf's tongue getting ripped out, Mattie sleeping in a coffin at the funeral home, excerpts of dialogue which were nowhere in the novel or the original film & it just makes me wonder......what is the definition of "close"? It will be next week before I would even be able to see the new film. What are the impressions of members of this community who have seen the new film?


    SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER WARNING!


    I saw True Grit today. Er, LaBeouf's tongue is NOT ripped out -- but when he's shot he nearly bites through it. But after that scene the only after-effect is he speaks a bit (just a bit) thickly.


    It's been years since I've read the book so I can't really say how much more faithful the new version is, other than this time Mattie is played by an age-appropriate actress, thus highlighting to a much greater degree how very very young she is (and making the disparity of age between her and Rooster Cogburn even more noticeable... and LaBeouf's declaration about thinking of stealing a kiss from her even more creepier) and this time she does lose her arm at the end, as in the book.


    Now that that's out of the way, I thought this was a terrific film and I really enjoyed it. My only complaint really is that compared to the original, the actors just don't have that larger than life, colorful quality that the actors in the 1968 version have -- especially Rooster. I have been a big Jeff Bridges fan for years but he's up against a National Monument in the form of John Wayne, who is so singular and iconic a presence that there's just no way he can top Wayne's performance, or make Rooster as memorable by going in another direction. Plus Wayne, in playing Rooster, was playfully subverting an image he'd inhabited for decades and brought a huge amount of subtext to the role simply by being who he was. That's not there with Bridges simply because he's never been THE western hero that Wayne was.


    But taken on its own, trying not to compare it to the first one, this is a most excellent film. That final sequence where Rooster desperately races towards town with the snake-bit Mattie in his arms is a real gut-wrencher. Definitely on my thumbs up and recommended list.


    P.S. The new version is definitely more violent and gorier than the original.

    Thanks for the link! It's true (I vaguely recall) that Cogburn suggests just ripping out (or cutting out? can't remember) LaBeouf's tongue -- and yes, there is a lot of blood -- but LaBeouf rejects the offer. ;)


    That shootout with Ned's gang, staged mostly in longshot, is done masterfully. I also loved Barry Pepper as Ned Pepper. Obviously Barry was born for the role! ;)

    May2 -


    Others of us are trying really hard to keep an open mind about all of this, but you can't seem to. We know you like Bridges as an actor, as you've stated before, and that's perfectly fine.


    Your defense of the Coens in nearly aspect of this film, from it's inception until now has been REALLY intense, even in the face of very clear evidence about their misrepresentations regarding WHY they made the film.


    As a composer/arranger, if I were to undertake completing a new arrangement that was based on...let's say "White Christmas," further stating I was going to stick closer to Irving Berlin's original composition that how Big Crosby (you know, the guy who's most famous for doing it - AND selling all those records of it for all those years) performed it....


    I would be a FOOL to attempt this without:


    1). Listening to the most famous rendering of the song of ALL-TIME, to see how close IT was to Berlin's original before I made the claim that MINE would be closer (BTW - more than once, to be sure I knew what I was looking for...), AND


    2). I wouldn't SAY I'd never listened to the original, because everyone in the industry would know I was lying. It's too well known, and too closely associated with a single artist for me to be able to back that up.


    The same is true in ANY profession. If you want to be good, you study the past to see what made others good, and WHY you got into the industry to start with. You don't start making hits in movies without seeing how others did it before you, then try to avoid making critical mistakes that caused films to flop.


    If anything, this movie will cause a new generation to go back to the OTG and look at it with new eyes, and say "I like the '10 version better," or "I like the '69 version better." maybe they'll want to see more JW movies...win/win in my book!