OT: True Grit, 2010 - movies and book comparison

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:11 pm

My wife brought home the Coen Brothers version of True Grit today. I never made it to the theater to watch it so I've been really looking forward to it.

To be simple and to the point, I was not disappointed. The movie is enough different from the John Wayne version that it can stand alone. The characters are more human and realistic. Hailee Steinfield was a better Matte Ross than Kim Darbie. I believe that's because Darbie was too old for the part, not due to acting ability.
Matt Damon was much better as LeBeaf ( can't spell French names.) But that wasn't hard at all. Jeff Bridges did a pretty good Rooster Cogburn. Very believable and just crude enough to keep you from really liking him.

The movie was made from enough of a different perspective to almost be a totally different movie. But I did miss the cat and some of the other parts seen in the Wayne version, but only because I've seen it so many times.

All in all if you haven't seen the movie yet, spend the money and buy it.

Joe

Nate C. · Post by **Nate C.** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:32 pm

I literally just finished watching the remake for the first time, less than 5 minutes ago. I'm not trying to take anything away from the Duke, but I actually liked the new version better.

Bob Winchester · Post by **Bob Winchester** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:16 am

Just finished it myself on my DVD. I saw it 2X's in the theater. Don't think there was a better film made last year.

Rube Burrows · Post by **Rube Burrows** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:18 am

Seen it two times at the movies and then seen it on DVD last night. I like the story.....always have.

hayabusa · Post by **hayabusa** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:40 am

My 19 year old son & I just finished watching the DVD at 11:58 pm tonight & we both liked the John Wayne version much better. The 2010 version was okay for us. I guess we are both JW fans. This is the first time either of us have watched it.

BUSA

olyinaz · Post by **olyinaz** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:58 am

It was fantastic. I now like it even better than the classic version.

Oly

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:43 am

I sat here and watched the DVD version on the computer. My wife got home just about 10 minutes from the end. We're gonna watch it again on the TV today.
After the movie ended I checked my email and there was one from my step son telling me not to waste my money on the movie.

He said: "Hello, If you want to see the movie true grit the new one rent it do not buy it not worth the money just got it via PPV and was very disapointed in it. Nothing like the orignal true grit with john wayne."
I responded: "Too late. Your mom brought it home today. I enjoyed it. You are right, it is not like the Wayne version, but it is closer to the book than Waynes was. I believe the actors did a better job than the ones in the Wayne job too. Especially the guy who played LeBeauf.
I did miss the cat thought."

The thing is this new version is closer to the book than the Wayne version and yet still leaves a lot out. In my opinion you really need to read the book then watch either or both movie versions. I've done so and can fill in the blanks the movies leave in the story.

Or like the two Wyatt Earp movies: Tombstone and Wyatt Earp that tell the same basic story, but from two different perspectives. If you watch them both you get a more complete story.

Joe

PS; The strange thing is this movie has made me want a 7.5" Colt SAA or replica to play with. IJ needs a companion. So many guns so few dollars.

vancelw · Post by **vancelw** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 9:23 am

I thought the original (seen it 3 or 4 times) followed the storyline from the book (read it twice) much better,

But the Coen brothers 2010 version (saw it at the theater twice) captured the essence of the book much, much better.

I love them both, but the newer one gets top vote. I have to go buy it on my way home tonight. Maybe I can watch it before the Mavericks play.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 9:31 am

The ending of the Wayne version is totally different than the ending in the book. The Coen version is much closer in that respect.

Joe

gak · Post by **gak** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 9:55 am

My vote goes to the new one as well. I like both, and the differences make for two good viewings, though I agree the
acting the the newer edition is superior. The young gal especially I think was right in there competing to steal the show from Bridges. I like him a lot, and his variation on Rooster, but thought he might have taken bumbling/drunken incoherency over the top. Wayne was more understandable! But I guess that's part (much?) of the point to Bridges' depiction of the character. The Rooster-Mattie outhouse scene is a new classic cinematic moment.

The autumn setting in the San Juans of Southern Colorado in Wayne's version wasn't to be be beat, so it was probably wise the Bridges' movie was a grittier, less colorful backdrop--maybe appropriate to its interpretation of the story.

I certainly didn't miss Campbell's "acting," but kinda wish the iconic True Grit theme would have been there (just as instrumental/orchestration) in the background!

As I said, both good viewings, for completely different reasons.

olyinaz · Post by **olyinaz** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:21 pm

gak wrote:As I said, both good viewings, for completely different reasons.

Absolutely.

Oly

t.r. · Post by **t.r.** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 3:10 pm

I enjoy both versions. But I also liked the new version a bit better. The characters and costumes were more believable.

TR

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 3:13 pm

It's been sold out everywhere I've seen the displays... so it must be hittin' someone's "I need this movie list!"

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 3:22 pm

Griff wrote:It's been sold out everywhere I've seen the displays... so it must be hittin' someone's "I need this movie list!"

My wife got ours at the local Wal-Mart.

Joe

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:07 pm

J Miller wrote:
Griff wrote:It's been sold out everywhere I've seen the displays... so it must be hittin' someone's "I need this movie list!"
My wife got ours at the local Wal-Mart.
Joe

Them too.

Rube Burrows · Post by **Rube Burrows** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:50 pm

I love John Wayne and his movies but I love it when directors spend the money to make a movie right. This movie was not as colorful as the original which I like. I like the darkness of this new movie. The clothes, the guns......many things make this movie good in my opinion.

M. M. Wright · Post by **M. M. Wright** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 5:00 am

Went to see it with Indian Territory Single Action Shooting Society. There were about 60 of us in period costumes and eye patches. We loved it. Was my third viewing. Some wide eyes from the other patrons.

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:12 am

It's on the Netflix que!

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:20 am

I watched the new movie for the second time yesterday with my wife.

The acting is better all the way through. Jeff Bridges played Rooster Cogburn where as John Wayne played John Wayne in an eye patch.
The other characters were much better as well.
They seemed, well more like watching real people rather than actors.

For those who have a very clear screen the shooting parts were pretty good. When Cogburn shot Quincy in the face it was about as realistic a GSW as I've seen without being overdone. And at the end when LeBeouf shot Lucky Ned Pepper you can actually see the bullet impact on the ground on the far side of Pepper. Attention to detail like that is not often seen.

There are two parts to the movie that have me confused though.
First: the weird guy in the bear skin and the trading of the dead body. That was macabre to say the least.
Second: the abuse of the Indian boys at Bagbys. I know they were tormenting the mule, but Cogburns physically throwing and kicking them off the porch was something unexpected. You just don't see that in modern movies. I'm surprised some do-gooder group didn't protest.

I think I'll watch it again today.

Joe

Post by **Old Savage** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:49 am

Bridges in this and in Wild Bill constantly sounds like he is doing a phony voice, never liked Sam Elliot for the same reason. And I never found Duvall believable - always seemed like he was acting and of course they are all actors but have to draw you in to achieve suspension of disbelief. They never did that for me except Duvall as the southern preacher and Elliot in Tombstone. But to be fair - I didn't like the first True Grit, and never thought he should have received the Oscar for it. He did deserve it for others - The Quiet Man and She Wore a Yellow Ribbon. Someone asked John Wayne one time what his method of acting was and he reportedly replied - Ma'am I play John Wayne in every picture. He didn't there in my estimation.

BTW my wife doesn't like me to comment on her TV dramas - you can maybe see why.

RIHMFIRE · Post by **RIHMFIRE** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:54 am

I have not seen the movie yet....but from the previews,
Matt Damon looks just as rediculous as Glen Cambell did..
His character just does not look....."real"
Maybe its because i dont care fore his acting
Next time I go to wally world i might pick it up!
Sound like most of you enjoyed the film....

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:01 am

RIHMFIRE wrote:I have not seen the movie yet....but from the previews,
Matt Damon looks just as rediculous as Glen Cambell did..
His character just does not look....."real"
Maybe its because i dont care fore his acting
Next time I go to wally world i might pick it up!
Sound like most of you enjoyed the film....

Say what you will about Matt Damon, but his version of LeBeouf is 10 times better than Glen Campbells. And his character is supposed to be just bit over the top and full of himself.

Just a suggestion, but when you go buy this video be sure to get the set with the special features. I enjoyed them nearly as much as the movie.

Joe

Post by **Old Savage** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:11 am

Rube the rough look is the new chic in the Hollywood Westerns iy it is not authentic either. I haven't seen the whole thing but now I guess I have to but they usually mess up when they try the rough look too. That I suppose will jump out at me. But the suppliers now have a lot of old stuff. Sometimes they film scenes out of sequence and the stuff gets progressively banged up and you can see that out of sequence. Most notably look at John Wayne's hat in Rio Bravo.

vancelw · Post by **vancelw** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:07 pm

J Miller wrote:
First: the weird guy in the bear skin and the trading of the dead body. That was macabre to say the least.

That was simply the Coen brothers putting their mark on the movie. I'm glad they kept it in check.

J Miller wrote:
Second: the abuse of the Indian boys at Bagbys. I know they were tormenting the mule, but Cogburns physically throwing and kicking them off the porch was something unexpected. You just don't see that in modern movies. I'm surprised some do-gooder group didn't protest.

You need to read the book again. Indians were considered sub-human then and white men felt they had no rights. Neither did kids for that matter. They were treating the mule cruelly and Rooster paid them back with interest.
"See that you mend your ways, boys, or I will come back some dark night and cut off your head and let the crows peck your eyeballs out..." - Rooster

One thing that surprised me was the movie had Yarnell riding in the passenger car with Mattie. Most likely (in 1878) he would have been forced to ride in the freight cars. In the book, he was, and Mattie rode back there with him.
(EDIT: I looked at the book and I'm mistaken. There were no seats in the passenger coach due to everyone flocking to Ft. Smith to see the hangings. Mattie had to ride in the colored coach with Yarnell, where he was verbally abused by the conductor.)

The "True Grit" refers as much to Mattie as to Rooster. It applies to the whole situation. Gritty.

The Coens used a lot of dialog right out of the book, but took several liberties with the story. A lot of it is for length, but some is to add shock factor, Coen-style.

oic0 · Post by **oic0** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:53 pm

The fact that this movie did as well as it did restored some of my faith in mankind. It had a poor opening and didn't open in near as many theatres relatively but still rounded out 13th for the year with $171,050,443. Two things from that. Theatres didn't think people would like it but they really did and word of mouth carried it. Means we will see more like it. Though know how stupid hollywood is they will prolly try to make 3 sequels or find some other way to mess it up.

Topside · Post by **Topside** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:57 pm

J Miller wrote: Second: the abuse of the Indian boys at Bagbys. I know they were tormenting the mule, but Cogburns physically throwing and kicking them off the porch was something unexpected. You just don't see that in modern movies. I'm surprised some do-gooder group didn't protest.

I think I'll watch it again today.

Joe

Speaking of the indian kids being treated rough, I'll mention this even though it doesn't compare much. My dad who passed in '84 was born in Fort Smith in 1908. He used to tell my brothers and me that when he and his little brother were quite young and wearing short pants in town, the old men sitting outside the saloon would spit tobacco juice on the boys legs as they walked by. Young'uns back then had it tough I guess, around the drunks anyway.

I watched the movie this week for the first time having rented it from RedBox for $1.05. Now there's a bargain! Much as I'm a great fan of the John Wayne version, I truly enjoyed this one too. I thought the cast did an exceptional job.
T.

rjohns94 · Post by **rjohns94** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:03 pm

watched it tonight. i think I liked it better than the first one. Love the Duke but this was very well done.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:22 pm

Well, I just watched the John Wayne True Grit ... again. I still like it. At this point I'm going to say that these movies are opposites. One brighter and cleaner, one dirtier and darker. Both have many more similarities than you'd imagine and of course obvious differences.

They each can stand alone.

Joe

Old Time Hunter · Post by **Old Time Hunter** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:37 pm

Like 'em both, but the new one fits my perception of the reality of the 1870's...clothes got washed when it rained on them and a bath is when you crossed a creek.

C. Cash · Post by **C. Cash** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:53 pm

Topside wrote:
J Miller wrote: Second: the abuse of the Indian boys at Bagbys. I know they were tormenting the mule, but Cogburns physically throwing and kicking them off the porch was something unexpected. You just don't see that in modern movies. I'm surprised some do-gooder group didn't protest.

I think I'll watch it again today.

Joe
Speaking of the indian kids being treated rough, I'll mention this even though it doesn't compare much. My dad who passed in '84 was born in Fort Smith in 1908. He used to tell my brothers and me that when he and his little brother were quite young and wearing short pants in town, the old men sitting outside the saloon would spit tobacco juice on the boys legs as they walked by. Young'uns back then had it tough I guess, around the drunks anyway.

I watched the movie this week for the first time having rented it from RedBox for $1.05. Now there's a bargain! Much as I'm a great fan of the John Wayne version, I truly enjoyed this one too. I thought the cast did an exceptional job.
T.

I was raised by my Grandparents(mom side) who were born very near Ft. Smith in 1907...on the Leflore Co. OK side. Sure loved to hear their stories as a kid. My favorite is the story of a man who ran off on his wife and newborn son. They tracked the man down and gave him the horsewhipping of his life!

What a different time and place than where we are at today. I thought Jeff Bridges caught the dialect of the region very well.

Topside · Post by **Topside** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 4:13 am

C. Cash wrote:
Topside wrote:
J Miller wrote: Second: the abuse of the Indian boys at Bagbys. I know they were tormenting the mule, but Cogburns physically throwing and kicking them off the porch was something unexpected. You just don't see that in modern movies. I'm surprised some do-gooder group didn't protest.

I think I'll watch it again today.

Joe
Speaking of the indian kids being treated rough, I'll mention this even though it doesn't compare much. My dad who passed in '84 was born in Fort Smith in 1908. He used to tell my brothers and me that when he and his little brother were quite young and wearing short pants in town, the old men sitting outside the saloon would spit tobacco juice on the boys legs as they walked by. Young'uns back then had it tough I guess, around the drunks anyway.

I watched the movie this week for the first time having rented it from RedBox for $1.05. Now there's a bargain! Much as I'm a great fan of the John Wayne version, I truly enjoyed this one too. I thought the cast did an exceptional job.
T.
I was raised by my Grandparents(mom side) who were born very near Ft. Smith in 1907...on the Leflore Co. OK side. Sure loved to hear their stories as a kid. My favorite is the story of a man who ran off on his wife and newborn son. They tracked the man down and gave him the horsewhipping of his life! What a different time and place than where we are at today. I thought Jeff Bridges caught the dialect of the region very well.

C. Cash could be your grandparents and my dad, being born a year apart might have been acquainted. Small world!

We had a story in our family on my dad's side that his uncle was a US Marshall there in Ft. Smith or Van Buren not sure which. Truth is he might have been a county deputy sheriff or a shop keeper or both. Probably over the years he "grew" to US Marshall as the story got traded around among relatives. He lived for a time with my grandmother in Ft. Smith. My dad used to say this Uncle Frank would come home pretty well lit on Friday and Saturday nights, and the boys, my dad and his little brother who were in bed could hear him when he came through the front door. He'd be cussing as he kicked their toys out of the way as he stumbled up to bed. What a guy! Probably made a wonderful peace officer! Well we had some darn good folks in the family too, most of'em educators. I guess stories about the upstanding ones are more boring so they don't get passed on.
T.

roundup · Post by **roundup** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 6:10 am

I preferred the musical score in the newer version. In the original film the score overwhelmed the movie at times. The simple old hymns seemed more appropriate to me.

Rube Burrows · Post by **Rube Burrows** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 7:52 am

J Miller wrote:I watched the new movie for the second time yesterday with my wife.

The acting is better all the way through. Jeff Bridges played Rooster Cogburn where as John Wayne played John Wayne in an eye patch.
The other characters were much better as well.
They seemed, well more like watching real people rather than actors.

For those who have a very clear screen the shooting parts were pretty good. When Cogburn shot Quincy in the face it was about as realistic a GSW as I've seen without being overdone. And at the end when LeBeouf shot Lucky Ned Pepper you can actually see the bullet impact on the ground on the far side of Pepper. Attention to detail like that is not often seen.

There are two parts to the movie that have me confused though.
First: the weird guy in the bear skin and the trading of the dead body. That was macabre to say the least.
Second: the abuse of the Indian boys at Bagbys. I know they were tormenting the mule, but Cogburns physically throwing and kicking them off the porch was something unexpected. You just don't see that in modern movies. I'm surprised some do-gooder group didn't protest.

I think I'll watch it again today.

Joe

The part with the trader was prob just a filler part to have something going on while looking for the bad guys.

I thought the treatment of the Indian boy and girl was funny. It was unexpected but funny.

COSteve · Post by **COSteve** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:25 am

I too finally saw it last night and like most, I liked it better than the Duke version. Glen Campbell was not believable to me, even as that stiff character while Matt was more so. Like many, I thought Hailee Steinfeld did a great job.

Aussie Chris · Post by **Aussie Chris** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 5:38 am

I just finished watching it and was really impressed. It was a great movie, i have not seen the original even though it is embossed on the side of my John Wayne comemmorative rifle!

Jeff Bridges did a great job and I just love the '73 action!

As Joe said, the special features were great especially how they remade the town. And I thought the same thing as Joe about the kids being mistreated, it was hilarious though and realistic just like some kids these days need a hiding!

Chris

1894cfan · Post by **1894cfan** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 5:40 pm

I started to watch it on PPV, I was not impressed!!!!

papabear · Post by **papabear** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 6:17 pm

Ok I was dead set against watching it but after looking at your reviews I will go out and get the DVD tomorrow and give you my opinion on the move
papabear

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 6:28 pm

1894cfan wrote:I started to watch it on PPV, I was not impressed!!!!

If you did not watch the entire movie you have nothing to report on.

papabear wrote:Ok I was dead set against watching it but after looking at your reviews I will go out and get the DVD tomorrow and give you my opinion on the move
papabear

papabear,
Forget that John Wayne made a version of this movie. Forget the weird stuff the Coen brothers have made in the past.
This movie can stand on it's own. It is a very good western. The actors do very good jobs and are believable.

Joe

jcw · Post by **jcw** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 4:23 pm

Just watched both in the last two weeks. For the most part I liked the new version just a little bit better. The big issue I have with the J.W. version is Glenn Campbell. The guy just grates on me. The only thing I didn't like about the remake was the very end. It just seemed to me that it was a hurry up and finish the movie. There were a lot of other ways they could have gone but they went cheap and dirty on the end.

mack · Post by **mack** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:56 pm

Just got it on Blue ray. What a picture compared to a plain ol' DVD!
I've watched it twice, got to try and put the Duke's version out of my mind and judge it on its own merits. I think I like it...... Ok, it's really good and I like it. I just can't quite get the original out of mind.
I have to agree with JCW, The ending lacked something. I can't believe a girl with Mattie's spunk would have ended up as such a dried up prune. Hailee Steinfeld did a suppurb job. I never cared much for Bridges, but this was his best role IMHO.

Don McDowell · Post by **Don McDowell** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:58 pm

rjohns94 wrote:watched it tonight. i think I liked it better than the first one. Love the Duke but this was very well done.

Yup

mklwhite · Post by **mklwhite** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 6:49 am

J Miller wrote:My wife brought home the Coen Brothers version of True Grit today. I never made it to the theater to watch it so I've been really looking forward to it.

To be simple and to the point, I was not disappointed. The movie is enough different from the John Wayne version that it can stand alone. The characters are more human and realistic. Hailee Steinfield was a better Matte Ross than Kim Darbie. I believe that's because Darbie was too old for the part, not due to acting ability.
Matt Damon was much better as LeBeaf ( can't spell French names.) But that wasn't hard at all. Jeff Bridges did a pretty good Rooster Cogburn. Very believable and just crude enough to keep you from really liking him.

The movie was made from enough of a different perspective to almost be a totally different movie. But I did miss the cat and some of the other parts seen in the Wayne version, but only because I've seen it so many times.

All in all if you haven't seen the movie yet, spend the money and buy it.

Joe

I just saw it last night (with trepidation) and there is not a part of your review I can argue with.
I missed the cat, and you don't get the same feel for the connection to the horses which made the loss of them have a bit more impact.
But it was good. My wife liked it. And Hailee was better than Kim as Mattie. Though in retrospect I do think a little of that had to do with acting ability. Hailee seemed no-nonsense and straight to the point. Kim seemed more "stiff" though that could also do with (apparent) age as Hailee did seem like she was a child who felt like she had to behave as an adult and Kim just seemed emotionless and use to people doing things here way even if it involved here having to threaten them.
You can tell that they (the Coen brothers) were going after much of the same feel and acting styles as the originals. This is most apparent with the "lesser" characters.

rock-steady · Post by **rock-steady** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:20 am

We watched True Grit 2010 over the weekend. I must admit I was somewhat disappointed in the new version. If I had never seen the original True Grit with "The Duke", then the new version might seem to be OK movie. The original had many humorous moments that were missing in the 2010 remake. Scenes like Chin Lee screaming "Outside is place for shooting!" when Rooster blasted the cornmeal stealing rat, and Mattie accusing LeBeouf of"cultivating his hair, like lettuce.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 12:19 pm

rock-steady wrote:We watched True Grit 2010 over the weekend. I must admit I was somewhat disappointed in the new version. If I had never seen the original True Grit with "The Duke", then the new version might seem to be OK movie. The original had many humorous moments that were missing in the 2010 remake. Scenes like Chin Lee screaming "Outside is place for shooting!" when Rooster blasted the cornmeal stealing rat, and Mattie accusing LeBeouf of"cultivating his hair, like lettuce.

I agree. I think that shows how two different director/producers can make the same movie or tell the same story from different perspectives.
The original JW version was made with a humorous quality to it, whereas the new version was made to be serious.

Joe

bdhold · Post by **bdhold** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:36 am

OK, finally watched it. My take:
Didn't like the sepiatone - it was unnecessary and makes a film look much less than realistic.
Matty was excellent, as was Damon.
As much as I like Jeff Bridges (back to Rancho Deluxe), he was not Cogburn, and was much less than lucid.
In fact, he was half-a-notch above idiot. Dialogue lines that were essential to defining the character were lost in a mouthful of marbles.
Compared to the original, this movie was pointless.

And as a way-OT to this OT, I watched Super8 last night on IMAX.
Best movie of the year so far.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 10:54 am

bulldog,

Did you buy the 2 disc set, or just rent or PPV it? The reason I ask is that they didn't actually film it in sepia but they used more natural colors in the sets, and especially in the clothing. People in that time did not wear the gaudy stuff we wear now.
The two disc set I have gives a tremendous amount of info on all that.

As for Jeff Bridges being Cogburn he did at least as good a job as Wayne.
I think he did a really good job playing a drunk with an alcohol addelpated brain.

That's just my take on him.

Joe

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 12:01 pm

Just something else I noticed when I watched it again yesterday.

Both Cogburns and LeBoeufs's Colt SAAs ( Ubertis really ) are smokeless frame guns with crescent ejector rods. Not period correct.

It seams that with all the trouble the Coen Brothers went to to make this movie correct, the shouldn't have missed that.

My wife got a snicker out of it when I paused the movie and backed it up to show her.

Joe

Molasses · Post by **Molasses** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 2:29 pm

Rented the new one out of a redbox last night, largely on the basis of favorable comments on here. I wasn't pleased back when I first heard about this movie simply because I couldn't imagine a remake being anything but a pale shadow of the original.

Well, not bad, not bad. I had trouble understanding what I heard of the dialogue, but since me'n Sweet Tooth turn on the subtitles as a matter of routine these days (NOBODY speaks clearly in movies anymore!

{it sure can't be that our hearing isn't what it used to be!?!

}), it wasn't the end of the world. I agree with those that thought this was a more serious take of the material and likewise missed some of the humorous touches, but it did hold together well in this one. I think that once it makes it into the $5 bin at WallyMart, I might have to have my own copy to shelve alongside the original.

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 9:28 am

The dialogue was historically correct. I thought it was much better than the original.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:11 am

Swampman wrote:The dialogue was historically correct. I thought it was much better than the original.

I found the dialog, and use of big words such as ineffectually in grammatically correct sentences to be very enjoyable. I was utterly horrid in English and grammar classes in school, but as I have gotten older I have been able to learn more.

But please don't ask me to diagram a sentence. I would fail miserably.

Joe