There are 484 replies in this Thread which has previously been viewed 264,094 times. The latest Post () was by Moonshine_Sally.
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!
One thing i dont like usually about modern remakes the pump the violence up a lot, what this like in that regard, im pushing myself to go anyway, but if it's an and out blood bath im not going.
Thats one thing about the classic westerns, the generally knew where th e line was.
The violence in the new one mirrors that of the original almost exactly.
Seen it. It was alright, but liked Duke's better. The little girl was good. Didn't like the way Matt Damon was protraid in the movie, and Josh Brolin was alright, but not much to him in this version.
Cheers 
Finally saw it, twice. It was better than I expected. I really tried to be honest when viewing it and not go in with preconceived outlook. I felt the movie over all was better than the original and had to remind my wife it had the advantage of 40 plus years of modern film making technology. I felt every character was better played in the remake except for one. Jeff Bridges is a very good actor but was wrongfully cast in this movie. His character just didn't fit the lawman image. He just didn't seem. . . tough enough. Can't put a finger on it. Duke did a much better job.
ET
Finally saw it, twice. It was better than I expected. I really tried to be honest when viewing it and not go in with preconceived outlook. I felt the movie over all was better than the original and had to remind my wife it had the advantage of 40 plus years of modern film making technology. I felt every character was better played in the remake except for one. Jeff Bridges is a very good actor but was wrongfully cast in this movie. His character just didn't fit the lawman image. He just didn't seem. . . tough enough. Can't put a finger on it...
ET
He isn't The Duke. 
Duke mostly protrayed a tough yet gentle man. I don't know any current actors that portray toughness except mickey rourke,I don't think he could hav played rooster i wonder if tommy lee jones could have played rooster we will never know. I don't care for duke remakes, I know the plot and only one man didi it and did it well, John Wayne was his name and kickin bad guys rears was his game!!!
Duke mostly protrayed a tough yet gentle man. I don't know any current actors that portray toughness except mickey rourke,I don't think he could hav played rooster i wonder if tommy lee jones could have played rooster we will never know. I don't care for duke remakes, I know the plot and only one man didi it and did it well, John Wayne was his name and kickin bad guys rears was his game!!!
Hear, hear! You are so right! 
I'm new to this board so feel free to take what I say with a grain of salt. I have thick skin, so should you...
Couple thoughts...
It's freaking fabulous that anyone even made a Western at all in the past 10 years. The fact that its a re-make is even more astounding. These days a movie with the title "What my Facebook page did last summer" would be of more interest to the studio money-men.
I didn't see the new movie till a month or two ago on cable. I grew up in a household where a John Wayne movie on TV trumped *everything*. If my father wanted to watch the Duke and it overlapped something else, there was no doubt what would win out. So I saw my share of his films. When the original True Grit came out it made a big impression on me, but I hadnt seen the movie in 10 or 15 years when I watched the re-make- so the initial impressions of the new film were entirely based on memory, not a frame by frame analysis. So, my opinion is:
Final thoughts ( if you've read this far you should be relieved by those two words ) are that I found that I was able to watch and enjoy the re-make because of some of the key differences in the two films. I had no expectations, so I was pleasantly suprised. More than anything I credit the re-make with making me want to see the 1969 version again, and having done that it that re-kindled my John Wayne interest. So much so that I am visiting the True Grit filming locations in Ridgway, Ouray etc. next month.
Display MoreI'm new to this board so feel free to take what I say with a grain of salt. I have thick skin, so should you...
Couple thoughts...
It's freaking fabulous that anyone even made a Western at all in the past 10 years. The fact that its a re-make is even more astounding. These days a movie with the title "What my Facebook page did last summer" would be of more interest to the studio money-men.
I didn't see the new movie till a month or two ago on cable. I grew up in a household where a John Wayne movie on TV trumped *everything*. If my father wanted to watch the Duke and it overlapped something else, there was no doubt what would win out. So I saw my share of his films. When the original True Grit came out it made a big impression on me, but I hadnt seen the movie in 10 or 15 years when I watched the re-make- so the initial impressions of the new film were entirely based on memory, not a frame by frame analysis. So, my opinion is:
- The fact that it got made at all: HOORAH
- The fact that the Coen brothers make polarizing films and dared to mess with a classic: Well. I would bet you the Duke would have been pleased that someone took the risk to make a Western, would have been happy that they chose decent material rather than something hashed together by some Hollywood "suits", and would have made comments to that effect in the press. I feel that Wayne felt strongly about his image and craft, but never believed his films were "Art"...as long as someone sought him out and explained the plan to make the film, I think he would have been OK with it.
- Jeff Bridges as Rooster: Solid B+ performance. Struggled at times to maintain the gravitas required for the role, but even attempting it would have had most actors crapping their pants. There was only one John Wayne, but Kudos to Bridges for taking the risk.
- Matt Damon as Laboeuf: I'd say B- performance. Better in the part than Glen Campbell, which is understandable. I would have liked to have seen more friction between Rooster and Laboeuf.
- Hailee Steinfield as Mattie: An A- performance. I think someone here called Kim Darby's original performance "like something out of a 1960's Disney movie, like That Darned Cat or something..." Very true, but it seemed a more appropriate portrayal at the time True Grit came out than it does now, and I bet that is as much a directorial influence as the actress herself. Hailee's Mattie is likewise a combination of acting and what was asked of her by the Coens.
- Josh Brolin as Chaney: A C performance in my opinion. Not "skeery" enough for a murderous lout.
- Barry Pepper as Ned Pepper: I'd have to say A+. Of all of the actors in the re-make, I believe this guy could have held his ground in the original film.
Final thoughts ( if you've read this far you should be relieved by those two words ) are that I found that I was able to watch and enjoy the re-make because of some of the key differences in the two films. I had no expectations, so I was pleasantly suprised. More than anything I credit the re-make with making me want to see the 1969 version again, and having done that it that re-kindled my John Wayne interest. So much so that I am visiting the True Grit filming locations in Ridgway, Ouray etc. next month.
I agree with a lot of what you've said except I thought Bridges' performance was A+ material, just in a more serious mien than the Duke's.
As for the other main characters, I liked the originals better, especially Mattie and Lucky Ned. I thought Robert Duvall's performance was Oscar worthy.
I agree with a lot of what you've said except I thought Bridges' performance was A+ material, just in a more serious mien than the Duke's.
As for the other main characters, I liked the originals better, especially Mattie and Lucky Ned. I thought Robert Duvall's performance was Oscar worthy.
As one "..Umpy" to another, I respect your opinion. I too prefer the original, and certainly Duvall's performance got passed over.
After I read your post I was trying to imagine which of the performers in the 2010 film could hold their weight if they were in the 1969 film, now that's an interesting proposition !
"what my facebook page did last summer "" lololololololol
First of all, the 'new' "True Grit" is not a remake. Like the Three Musketeers is a new take on the book not a previous movie. I enjoyed the hell out of both. One because I am a Duke fan and enjoy good movies and two because I love good movies from good books.
Example: I remember telling my sons that although no movie ever got it right, the two Wyatt Earp movies ('Wyatt Earp' and 'Tombstone') made me ponder, why can't Hollywood just tell a good honest non-fiction (history) or fictional (novel) story without mucking around with the facts or actual story in the book. Add to it the actual quality of the film making.
I will always state that 'Lonesome Dove' is not only the finest Western movie/television production but it was pretty darn faithful to the book...I wouldn't change a thing. If the people in Hollywood had taken the script from 'Wyatt Earp' and used the sets, costumes and actors from 'Tombstone' you would have had a great film. Of course 'the fly in the buttermilk' was that you had two great "Doc Holiday"s...Val Kilmer and Dennis Quaid. Right now you are asking yourself..."What in the hell does this have to do with 'True Grit'".
I reread "True Grit" and because I was in a western frame of mind I also reread "Lonesome Dove" and my thoughts turned to 'production values' of the visual incarnations. It came to me that as far as 'True Grit' was concerned, the John Wayne film was more faithful to the novel with the exception of the ending but the new movie had the sets, costumes and actors more in tune with the book. Add to that, both movies had two great "Lucky Ned Pepper"s.
Imagine if Wayne's "True Grit" had tacked on the 'new' "True Grit" ending with the adult Mattie arriving to see Rooster in St Louis right after the ride to McAlisters (Fort Smith in the book)...in other words, lose the "Well, come see a fat old man sometime." line. Of course, like 'Tombstone/Wyatt Earp' conundrum, who would be the best 'Lucky Ned'...Robert Duvall in the 1969 film adaption or Barry Pepper in the the 2010 version...hmmmmmmm. Why didn't either John Wayne or Jeff Bridges wear a big 'handlebar' mustache as Rooster does in the book...also, (and this irritated the crap outa me)...why, in the new version, did they have the hanged man...mountain man...dentist thing or why they had LaBoeuf ride off...show up at the cabin...get roped, shot and bite his tongue...what the devil was all that about?
For those who have never read "True Grit" (or "Lonesome Dove" for that matter)...I suggest that you do so. They rank up there with Mark Twain's "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn"…Stephen Crane's "The Red Badge of Courage"…F. Scott Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby"…Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird"… ...Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings "The Yearling" and even Hemingway's "The Old Man and the Sea".
I've broken down the plot of the book...SPOILER ALERT...so you can see the frames of reference I'm talking about.
True Grit
Chapter Summaries
Chapter 1
-Mattie Ross begins her story with: Tom Chaney shooting and robbing her father. Her father went to Fort Smith for Texas mustangs for deer hunting ponies Yarnell Poindexter a freedman to look after the place Her father rode on a horse named Judy. Mattie kept books for her Dad. Tom Chaney got drunk, lost money, got rifle to go back and shot Mattie's father when he went to stop him.
Chapter 2
-Mattie and Yarnell went after the body -They arrived on the day of a triple hanging of two white men and an Indian (on the borders of Indian Territory to be Oklahoma) They say their last words. The Indian is too light. Judge Isaac Parker may watch the hangings. -Irish funeral director has the body. The sheriff will not hunt the murderer so Mattie hears about Rooster Cogburn while Yarnell returns with the body. -Mattie stays at Mrs. Floyd's Monarch Boarding House with Grandma Turner for $.75 a night, in a cold room.
Chapter 3
-Mattie goes to Col. Stonehills' stock barn and with tough bargaining and the use of Lawyer J. Noble Daggett's name she sells back the horses at a profit. -She arrives at the courthouse as prisoners and arriving and Rooster Cogburn is testifying at the Odus Wharton trial. Rooster obviously doesn't closely follow the law. -She hires Rooster for $100 and he is going after Tom Chaney and Ned Pepper's gang. -He's drunk and he shoots a rat.
Chapter 4
-Mattie is sick in the boarding house for two days. Mrs. Floyd wrapped a turpentine and lard smeared rag around her neck and gave her Dr. Underwoods' bile activator, containing codeine or laudanum. -Texas Ranger LaBoeuf arrives looking for Tom Chaney alias Theron Chelmsford who killed a state senator in Texas. They argue about who gets Chaney. Mattie tells him about Rooster Cogburn.
Chapter 5
-Mattie gets a letter from Lawyer Daggett commending her deal with Stonehill but admonishing her to come home. -Stonehill regrets coming to Fort Smith. Mattie goes to see Rooster, tells him she wants to come along. -Mattie insults Rooster. As he goes to grab her, she holds his expense sheets over the wood stove flames. They argue on expenses and Mattie's going along. Mattie buys back a horse she sold for $20 for $18 plus shoes. She rides Little Blackie around town. -She goes to Rooster's. LaBoeuf is there trying to "throw in" with Rooster. He offers a $500 share of the rewards in Texas. Mattie doesn't want LaBoeuf along. The men agree. Mattie leaves in anger. Gets supplies an sleeps in Stonehill's barn. -She arrives at the boat before Rooster and LaBoeuf. They turn her over to the boatman, but she escapes and swims her horse across the river. The men try to outrun her, then 'ambush' her but Rooster decides she can come along.
Chapter 6
-They stop at a store where two boys are "torturing" a mule which Rooster cuts loose and then kicks the boys into the mud. Rooster says his name is James (Jesse) and gets the boys to take them across the river. -Rooster learned Ned Pepper was at McAlester's store but not Tom Chaney. -The men argue about Rangers and Marshalls. They find Moon and Quincy in a dugout. The bandits shoot at them. Moon is wounded in return fire. Rooster gets Moon to talk and Quincy kills him and Rooster kills Quincy. Rooster plans to ambush Ned Pepper and his band. Rooster talks about Ned's tactics and sets up an ambush. Rooster talks about his background. He drove freight, rode with Quantrill during Civil War. After they (Rooster/Potter) robbed a government payroll. Rooster bought an "eating place" the Green Frog, and married. he lost it, hunted buffalo, robs a bank, gets in a fight with a trail drive owner, gets arrested. Potter, a Marshall, takes him in custody from the soldiers, and Rooster becomes a U.S. marshall. -Ned Pepper's gang rides up and LaBoeuf fires too soon. Three gang members shot (2 of them killed). Ned escapes with some others. Rooster wants to take the bodies in for a reward. Rooster and LaBoeuf get to arguing over Quantrill's Raiders, Civil War fighting, Texas Rangers, etc. -They get to McAlester's store (later McAlester, Oklahoma). They meet Capt. Boots Finch of the Choctaw Light Horse. They identify the bodies. The railroad man is slow to part with a reward etc. -Rooster tries to leave Mattie, but she comes. Boots tells them Odus Wharton escaped. The three men get into a corn dodger shooting contest. They ride 50 miles form McAlester's and make camp. Rooster is drunk
Chapter 7
-While Mattie is filling canteens in the river she spots Tom Chaney, whom she shoots, much to his surprise. Tom takes her prisoner. Mattie hollers; the bandits and Rooster and LaBoeuf come running. Mattie is taken prisoner. Ned tells Rooster and LaBoeuf to ride off. Mattie is left with lucky Ned Pepper, the original Greaser Bob, Harold and Farrell Permalee and Tom Chaney. Ned leaves Tom with Mattie, telling Tom he will send someone back with a horse. Bob wants his share of the money. Mattie forges checks for Ned. -Mattie is left alone with Tom Chaney. He threatens her with a pit of snakes. She throws hot water on him and runs for the woods. Tom Chaney hits her head with a pistol and LaBoeuf arrives. Rooster faces four bandits, Ned, Bob and two Permalees. Even after he knows Mattie is all right he wants to arrest Ned and Bob. They charge each other. Harold is shot, Farrell next and Bob escapes. Rooster trapped under his horse hears Ned say "Well, Rooster I am shot to pieces!" LaBoeuf hits Ned with shot of 600 yards. -Chaney smashes LaBoeuf with a rock and Mattie shoots Chaney, but the recoil knocks her into a pit of snakes, breaking her arm in the fall. Mattie slips farther down, to a ball of rattlesnakes in a ribcage. Tom Chaney, still alive taunts her until Rooster smashes his head, knocking him into the pit. Rooster climbs down with a rope and gets Mattie out as Little Blackie (and LaBoeuf) pull on the rope. -Rooster and Mattie ride Little Blackie to death. Rooster carries her a long ways and then takes some hunters' wagon. Then an Indian farmer loans them some horses. At Fort Smith Dr. Medill gives morphine to Mattie and removes her left arm above the elbow. -LaBoeuf takes Chaney's body to Texas. Lawyer Daggett apologizes to Rooster, after blaming him. Later, Rooster kills Odus Wharton and shoots two others and has to give up his badge. He ends up in a Wild West show but dies right before Mattie sees him again. She has his body reburied in her family plot. She never married and owns a bank.
As you can see, the John Wayne 'True Grit' has the more faithful storyline, the new version has the...pardon the pun..gritter look and feel. By the way...the Duke could have really looked like Rooster with the proper facial hair....
Sorry to ramble for so long...it's just been bugging me.
Great 1st post, MartyB2. I agree with you about Lonesome Dove. Great book and mini-series.
Mark
...why can't Hollywood just tell a good honest non-fiction (history) or fictional (novel) story without mucking around with the facts or actual story in the book...
I wish I knew- But it does seem to be a Hollywood tradition. Perhaps the temptation is too great to put one's personal "stamp" on an artistic work, as if to say "There, I improved that lame book in my film". Then notice that very few Hollywood types have ever actually written a decent book themselves.
.also, (and this irritated the crap outa me)...why, in the new version, did they have the hanged man...mountain man...dentist thing or why they had LaBoeuf ride off...show up at the cabin...get roped, shot and bite his tongue...what the devil was all that about?
The producers brother in law came up with the ideas over too many drinks one night and since they owed him a lot of money, they agreed to add those sequences to the film. (Its as good an explanation as any...)
See above...Duke made a picture. The Coens made Art. cough cough.
Duke made a picture. The Coens made Art.
Agreed 100%. Duke, if he was nothing else, was certainly a man with absolutely no pretense whatsoever about him. The Coens, on the other hand, are nothing but pretense, from start to finish.
Out of curiosity I watched the new one today, I found the characters hard to warm up to and shallow. Jeff Bridges seemed like he was trying too hard to be able to keep making his voice sound the way it did instead of worrying about his acting. I have read the book and enjoyed it but this movie took away from the story to much to get me to be very interested. For these reasons it didn't make me compare it to the 1969 version at all.
Most art movies fail miserably. True Grit made $249,250,624 worldwide.
I don't recall anyone calling Raising Arizona, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, Intolerable Cruelty, Burn After Reading or The Big Lebowski art films.
Hi All,
I felt the remake was worthwhile and admittedly it did copy the original movie almost like for like there were some noticeable differences and the tone was much darker. I believe Charles Portis penned a very rich story that comes to life magnificently in this version as it does in the original but in a different way. The Texas Ranger character is much better in the 2010 version than in the 1969 version (sorry Glen) but nobody surpasses the Dukes!
For me, the remake of True Grit kinda went against the 'grain' !
Very hyped, in fact, I was not overly impresed by the statement ... better than the original
However, I was intrigued by it so I decided to 'bite the bullet' and go and see it
I have to say that I was not impessed with Jeff Bridges, I could not hear what he was saying due to his constant mumbling
Matt Damon usually a good actor did not seem happy in his role
The girl as Maddie Ross did a good job ... so young too
Overall I shall award it 5 out of 10
Finally the Coen Brothers are over hyped, they are over-played by the media
The original is still the best ....
The remake was okay at first, and I enjoyed the little girl playing Mattie Ross, but after I thought about what I had seen, the film began to bother me. I went back to see it second time. Later I rented it.
I don't like it. I'm writing up a review to post here soon.
There's only one True Grit and it stars John Wayne.
Richard
Most art movies fail miserably. True Grit made $249,250,624 worldwide.
For me, the remake of True Grit kinda went against the 'grain' !
Very hyped, in fact, I was not overly impressed by the statement ... better than the original.
However, I was intrigued by it so I decided to 'bite the bullet' and go and see it.
In hindsight, this movie did make an incredible amount of money, and I suspect that the Coen brothers were clever enough to realize how many John Wayne fans were out there who would be 'motivated' by remarks such as "better than the original" and would be compelled to go see it.
As this thread would indicate, some sort of interest was there. Almost 250 people have viewed it, and there are over 450 posts in this thread. Who wouldn't have at least a little bit of interest? Did you read a single article ANYWHERE about this movie, that did not have at least one mention of John Wayne? Clever, indeed!
By the same token, so much interest was generated that the original has certainly seen more attention, and probably an increase in sales. I know my kids had opportunity to share the original with many friends, who previously had not seen a John Wayne movie (and many of whom have since had a greater interest in his movies!).
While we may agree many of us prefer 'the original', the newer version has not been a bad thing for John Wayne.
Chester 
