OT- Just got back from seeing "True Grit".

vancelw · Post by **vancelw** » Fri Dec 31, 2010 1:15 am

Two days ago i took the wife to see the 2010 True Grit. (My second viewing)
Since then I have re-read the novel and watched the 1969 True Grit. (Yeah, I've been bored since the kids went home after Christmas)

IMHO, the 1969 stayed much closer to the book's flow of events.
The 2010 kept more actual dialog from the novel.
After watching the behind the scene info from the 1969 version, it seems they had a hard time getting Wayne away from the dialog he was used to in all his other westerns. They said that Darby used more vernacular from the novel and it threw Wayne off a bit-he was not used to hearing that form of speech.

The 1969 was actually a lot more PC than the new one.
Instead of Greaser Bob, JW's Rooster calls him Mexican Bob. There is no scene of JW's Rooster being excessively mean to the Indian boys at the store for tormenting the mule.

The 2010 version was much more realistic (except for the bear man WTH?) The Coen's took much more liberty with the story, but I felt they portrayed the atmosphere of the story much better. It was gritty; a young girl went into a man's world (no man's land at that) with vengeance in her heart and the determination to see it through.

I love both versions in their on right. Nothing beats a good novel, but I like it when filmmakers give it a good, honest try. I think I'll even recommend it to my dear old mother-after I warn her about the bloody scenes so she can make an informed decision. (She won't watch stuff like CSI)

Warhawk · Post by **Warhawk** » Fri Dec 31, 2010 2:10 am

Jeff Quinn wrote:Is it fit to take my six-year-old grandson?
We watch westerns together, and enjoy the shooting and such, but don't want him hearing mother $#%@^&! and such as that.

Jeff

Jeff, I'd wait. I have a grandson who just turned 7 and I thought about taking him to see True Grit, but I'm glad I didn't. The scene in the dugout where some fingers get chopped off would probably be a bit much, but the worst thing for a young kid, I think, would be the scene where they cut down the dead man. He's partially decomposed and looks pretty rough.

Outstanding movie for the grown ups though. Every bit the equal of the JW version.

stretch · Post by **stretch** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 7:39 pm

I saw True Grit last night with the wife.

In some circles I might be called a blasphemer, but all in
all I'd say it's superior to the John Wayne version - although not
by much, mind you! I saw the original just last week (or
the week before?) on TV, and I like the original very much.

John Wayne's version is a little bit more romantic, and a little
bit sanitized, as are many westerns of that era. The new one is
a little bit more realisitc, and the makeup is nothing short of
outstanding. I'm no expert on these matters, but they really did
a great job of depicting "snaggle-toothed white trash" with the
villians. Someof the dialog and humor was VERY entertaining.
I felt the girl's role was played better in the new one, too.

It's defienitely worth seeing.

-Stretch

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 7:44 pm

What amazed me is that "Mr Chicago" - (Ebert) gave such a glowing review of it...

I'm looking forward to when it makes it to my neck of the woods.

2ndovc · Post by **2ndovc** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 7:48 pm

We got a chance to see it last night too. Blondie's not much of a western fan but she enjoyed the movie.
I liked it a lot. Not as much as the original but still a darned good movie.

jb

TedH · Post by **TedH** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 8:02 pm

We saw it last night too. I really enjoyed it. They way they talked, everybody, kind of bugged me. I mean the total lack of using contractions in their speech? Did people really talk like that back then?

mouthpiece · Post by **mouthpiece** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 8:42 pm

TedH wrote: Did people really talk like that back then?

Given the apparent median age of the participants on this forum, someone will remember and be able to knowingly respond.

stretch · Post by **stretch** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 10:14 pm

TedH wrote:
Did people really talk like that back then?

Given the apparent median age of the participants on this forum, someone will remember and be able to knowingly respond.

That there's funny..........

iceman · Post by **iceman** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 10:20 pm

The wife and I just got back from watching it. I really enjoyed it and so did the wife. That little girl sure can act and stole the show in my opinion and I hope she is recognized for it when the awards are being handed out. All in all a good way to pass a couple of hours and enjoy yourself. I usually judge a movie by asking myself if I would watch it again and this one I would.

Gary7 · Post by **Gary7** » Sun Jan 02, 2011 9:15 am

stretch wrote:I saw True Grit last night with the wife.

In some circles I might be called a blasphemer, but all in
all I'd say it's superior to the John Wayne version - although not
by much, mind you! I saw the original just last week (or
the week before?) on TV, and I like the original very much.

John Wayne's version is a little bit more romantic, and a little
bit sanitized, as are many westerns of that era. The new one is
a little bit more realisitc, and the makeup is nothing short of
outstanding. I'm no expert on these matters, but they really did
a great job of depicting "snaggle-toothed white trash" with the
villians. Someof the dialog and humor was VERY entertaining.
I felt the girl's role was played better in the new one, too.

It's defienitely worth seeing.

-Stretch

John Wayne was not a character actor, but he came the closest to it of his career with the Rooster Cogburn role--and that's why he won the Oscar for it. It was the closest he ever came in a Western to not playing John Wayne.

IMO, the new True Grit defies comparison with the original and to do so doesn't do justice to either. Two different movies from two (vastly) different eras of movie making, but both entertaining.

OldWin · Post by **OldWin** » Sun Jan 02, 2011 9:31 am

My wife and I saw this movie yesterday and enjoyed it very much. I love JW and think that with anyone else the original wouldn't have been that great. As mentioned by others, There is no way Rooster would have rode by a standing horse with the ride he had with that kind of weight to carry. Maybe I missed something but what did the cartridges in Matt Damon's belt go to? Certainly no Spencer I am familiar with. 45-70 maybe?

Gary7 · Post by **Gary7** » Sun Jan 02, 2011 10:23 am

OldWin wrote:My wife and I saw this movie yesterday and enjoyed it very much. I love JW and think that with anyone else the original wouldn't have been that great. As mentioned by others, There is no way Rooster would have rode by a standing horse with the ride he had with that kind of weight to carry. Maybe I missed something but what did the cartridges in Matt Damon's belt go to? Certainly no Spencer I am familiar with. 45-70 maybe?

Damon's character was carrying a Sharps. It will be easier to tell once the movie comes out on Blu-Ray but I think those may have been 45-90s.

OldWin · Post by **OldWin** » Sun Jan 02, 2011 10:27 am

Gary7,

Maybe I was mistaken, I thought he had a Spencer carbine and mentioned it as such. Yeah, I was undecided between 45-70 or 90 on the shells.

Post by **Hobie** » Sun Jan 02, 2011 10:32 am

My wife and I finally saw it New Year's Day and even she liked it. I liked the better attention to detail with the firearms (including the reloading of same) and we both liked the Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) in this version better. If you haven't seen this movie, you should.

PS - I thought that while LaBoef's cartridges were wrong for the .50-70 issue Sharps carbine, he at least had a correct rifle.

MajorCordite · Post by **MajorCordite** » Sun Jan 02, 2011 1:47 pm

Gary7 wrote:
OldWin wrote:My wife and I saw this movie yesterday and enjoyed it very much. I love JW and think that with anyone else the original wouldn't have been that great. As mentioned by others, There is no way Rooster would have rode by a standing horse with the ride he had with that kind of weight to carry. Maybe I missed something but what did the cartridges in Matt Damon's belt go to? Certainly no Spencer I am familiar with. 45-70 maybe?
Damon's character was carrying a Sharps. It will be easier to tell once the movie comes out on Blu-Ray but I think those may have been 45-90s.

I believe he states in the movie that he is carrying a Sharps's Carbine model. The carbine version was very popular with the cavalry of both the Union and Confederate armies and was issued in much larger numbers than the full length rifle. Many of these carbines were converted to .50-70 Government and saw service for several more decades. However, in 1873 the Sharps were being manufactured in .45-70 Government. This was the U.S. Army's standard service rifle cartridge from 1873 until it was replaced by the .30-40 Krag in 1892. Also, the .45-70 was the most popular sporting/hunter cartridge with civilians during this time frame. I believe (although not 100% certain) that the .45-90G., .45-100G., were produced for the longer version Sharp's rifle and not the carbine that Damon's character was toting. So, in all probability he had the more accessible .45-70 Government cartridge which also worked in Marlins, Remingtons, Winchesters, and several other manufactures.

MajorCordite · Post by **MajorCordite** » Sun Jan 02, 2011 3:19 pm

I went and saw True Grit last night with my wife. What is interesting is that we saw True Grit in 1969 together and it was our very first date! Times have changed and so have the movies. I know we all want to compare the old with the new, as it is a natural thing to do, however I don't think you do either film any justice when you try to analyze them equally. One is a Winchester and the other is a Marlin. Take your pick or like them both the same.

To understand the latest version of True Grit you have to have an understanding of the film's director's Joel and Ethan Coen as well as the book's author, Charles Portis. The Coen brothers are known for their off-beat, odd, eccentric, weird, quirky, and very artful films, No Country for Old Men, Oh Brother Where Art Thou?, A serious Man, and Burn After Reading. The Coens are basically "absurdists filmmakers." With their Jewish heritage, they view the world through religious and philosophical undertones. Their films are meticulously crafted and rigorously formal in their shot selections and scene editing. Their cinematography is outstanding.

Charles Portis, 76 years old, is a "reclusive" author who lives in Little Rock Arkansas. His books have fan cult followings, and surprisingly he is not well known outside of academic circles. Portis was a former newspaperman who worked in New York and briefly in London. His books are known for their wry, low key humor, along with cast of schemers and other distinctive rubes. Joel Coen said in an interview that he "lifted" almost all of the film's comically ornate dialogue from the pages of Portis' True Grit. The Coens said out of respect to the original film they did not refer or "remake" the original. Their version is an interpretation of Portis' book and is wholly based on Portis' prose.

Matt Damon as well as Jeff Bridges were attracted to the film because they found Portis' odd combination of folksiness and formality in a style of antiquarian language fascinating. They referred to speaking the lines as not unlike that of a Shakespearean play. They found a musicality and a rhythm to the dialogue. The Coens are fond of deadpan humor, love an odd turn of phrase, and the use of "ornate rhetoric." Portis' own research led him to believe that a fair amount of people in the old west were uneducated or even slightly illiterate and were schooled on the King James Version of the Bible and this infused the way people spoke back then. A sort of formality and even floweriness was imparted to their speech. So the speech we hear is a bit "fussier" than we know from previous Western movies. It might sound dainty and coming from educated gentility, but just think of it as a bit of picaresque flourish from the Coen brothers.

To sum it all up, this latest version of True Grit opens with an epigram out of Proverbs 28:1 "The wicked flee when none pursueth..." What you don't see is the rest of that verse. "....but the righteous are as bold as a lion." Mattie Ross is that bold lioness and that is what drives this movie. Her gumption and her fortitude to carry on against all odds. Behind the antique eloquence of the language and the backdrop off grittiness, I think this version stands alone compared with the earlier dadgummed good True Grit.

mouthpiece · Post by **mouthpiece** » Sun Jan 02, 2011 6:24 pm

Sounds like mularkey to me.

I don't live in the Nineteenth Century & I ordinarily speak the way they do in TG II.

KnowaddaImean?

Post by **Hobie** » Sun Jan 02, 2011 7:47 pm

I know that there are some people who regret the patois we now speak because it is less descriptive than the way the language was used then. Read Theodore Roosevelt (because you'll likely be more interested in his topics) or other writers of the time to get a feel for it. My own paternal grandfather had no more than an eighth grade education and he spoke every bit as articulately as a recent college graduate, perhaps more so. There was no hemming and hawing or "filler" noise such as "you know", "like", etc.

olyinaz · Post by **olyinaz** » Sun Jan 02, 2011 8:59 pm

Old Ironsights wrote:What amazed me is that "Mr Chicago" - (Ebert) gave such a glowing review of it...

I'm looking forward to when it makes it to my neck of the woods.

He's actually one of the few I'll pay any attention to. As opposed to many artsy fartsy reviewers who seem to think that every movie needs to leave you weeping and struggling with your deepest convictions, Ebert seems to understand the fact that often times moviegoers are just looking for some entertainment in the midst of our lives. I've nothing against a good, deep, thought provoking movie, but I can tell you that my wife hates such fare and even I don't want to watch such things more than "every so often". We work too hard to get dragged down on an expensive date-night to boot! We're usually lookin' for some good, clean fun. This movie fits that bill pretty well if you don't mind a bit of Old West violence of the very convincing sort.

Sorry for the thread drift, but that's my take on Ebert and movie going!

Cheers,
Oly

dkmlever · Post by **dkmlever** » Sun Jan 02, 2011 9:19 pm

Saw it the other day with the wife, we both enjoyed it. I am just glad to see holloywood making ANY westerns!

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Mon Jan 03, 2011 8:49 pm

Darn flu bug! Can't believe my Mom got out to see the new "True Grit" before I did, and she doesn't really even like westerns that much!

Longfin · Post by **Longfin** » Mon Jan 03, 2011 9:53 pm

Just returned from seeing True Grit. I liked it very much and liked some of the acting/characters better than in the JW version. I recommend it. Liked the realistic guns used in the movie, but would think the Henry rifle would not have been so new and shiny looking out on the trail.

shooter · Post by **shooter** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:31 am

I'm a huge John Wayne fan and enjoy most of his movies including True Grit. I saw the new one on Christmas Day, and I have to say it is just as good, if not better, than the original. I didn't think I'd like Matt Damon but he did pretty well IMO, and it's not that hard to improve on Glen Campbell anyway. The new Mattie Ross was definitely 100 times better than the original. Jeff Bridges did an excellent job as Rooster too. Great movie and I'd recommend it to anyone.

33wcfshooter · Post by **33wcfshooter** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:08 am

Saw it the other night and really liked it. I'm still a John Wayne fan but I think this version of True grit is far better then the 1969 one. This one just seems more real (someone did there homework on guns and gear from the 1870's) and I like that. Just a side thing did anyone notice Lucky Neds 1875 Rem. with the grip inlay it looked like a ivory 4 leaf clover and the 3 or 4 loop crossdraw holster he had it in. For anyone who hasen't seen it yet it's worth seeing.

RIHMFIRE · Post by **RIHMFIRE** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 1:09 pm

Ysabel Kid wrote:Darn flu bug! Can't believe my Mom got out to see the new "True Grit" before I did, and she doesn't really even like westerns that much!

I think you need to have a little white lightning...to kill that flu bug you have...

rock-steady · Post by **rock-steady** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 1:14 pm

I think you need to have a little white lightning...to kill that flu bug you have...

Better yet, try a pint of double-rectified Genuine BustHead and two corn dodgers and call Chin-Lee in the morning!

C. Cash · Post by **C. Cash** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 4:56 pm

MajorCordite wrote:I went and saw True Grit last night with my wife. What is interesting is that we saw True Grit in 1969 together and it was our very first date! Times have changed and so have the movies. I know we all want to compare the old with the new, as it is a natural thing to do, however I don't think you do either film any justice when you try to analyze them equally. One is a Winchester and the other is a Marlin. Take your pick or like them both the same.

To understand the latest version of True Grit you have to have an understanding of the film's director's Joel and Ethan Coen as well as the book's author, Charles Portis. The Coen brothers are known for their off-beat, odd, eccentric, weird, quirky, and very artful films, No Country for Old Men, Oh Brother Where Art Thou?, A serious Man, and Burn After Reading. The Coens are basically "absurdists filmmakers." With their Jewish heritage, they view the world through religious and philosophical undertones. Their films are meticulously crafted and rigorously formal in their shot selections and scene editing. Their cinematography is outstanding.

Charles Portis, 76 years old, is a "reclusive" author who lives in Little Rock Arkansas. His books have fan cult followings, and surprisingly he is not well known outside of academic circles. Portis was a former newspaperman who worked in New York and briefly in London. His books are known for their wry, low key humor, along with cast of schemers and other distinctive rubes. Joel Coen said in an interview that he "lifted" almost all of the film's comically ornate dialogue from the pages of Portis' True Grit. The Coens said out of respect to the original film they did not refer or "remake" the original. Their version is an interpretation of Portis' book and is wholly based on Portis' prose.

Matt Damon as well as Jeff Bridges were attracted to the film because they found Portis' odd combination of folksiness and formality in a style of antiquarian language fascinating. They referred to speaking the lines as not unlike that of a Shakespearean play. They found a musicality and a rhythm to the dialogue. The Coens are fond of deadpan humor, love an odd turn of phrase, and the use of "ornate rhetoric." Portis' own research led him to believe that a fair amount of people in the old west were uneducated or even slightly illiterate and were schooled on the King James Version of the Bible and this infused the way people spoke back then. A sort of formality and even floweriness was imparted to their speech. So the speech we hear is a bit "fussier" than we know from previous Western movies. It might sound dainty and coming from educated gentility, but just think of it as a bit of picaresque flourish from the Coen brothers.

To sum it all up, this latest version of True Grit opens with an epigram out of Proverbs 28:1 "The wicked flee when none pursueth..." What you don't see is the rest of that verse. "....but the righteous are as bold as a lion." Mattie Ross is that bold lioness and that is what drives this movie. Her gumption and her fortitude to carry on against all odds. Behind the antique eloquence of the language and the backdrop off grittiness, I think this version stands alone compared with the earlier dadgummed good True Grit.

Interesting take MajorCordite, thanks and welcome!

Ray Newman · Post by **Ray Newman** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 9:10 pm

I did not see the original True Grit as I am not a John Wayne fan, so I can not compare this new release or version to the original.

Wife and I saw the movie yesterday. Both of us were bored. It was not the language or script that that we found especially tiresome, but how it was spoken. The characters sounded like they were reading the script from cue cards and without any emotion or feeling. Same with the acting.

gunner69 · Post by **gunner69** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 1:22 am

I guess I am too much the John Wayne affectano..... saw the new movie, and although I liked it, don't believe it was better. I too liked the "new" Mattie. Good movie..... but not great.

Marc · Post by **Marc** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 1:00 pm

Wife and I saw it. I liked it better than the Wayne vehicle, which was to hokie for my taste. And c'mon, Glen Campbell? Anyway the new one left me with a satisfied feeling. A good tale, well told. The wife said we have to see it again.

Buck Elliott · Post by **Buck Elliott** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 5:01 pm

I've only seen it four times, so far, so maybe I'm still making up my mind...???

Actually, I liked it as a movie, better than the original.. Bridges' Rooster is a sort of clumsy, shuffling oaf, compared to Duke's physical grace -- even at his (Wayne's) age and condition... Overall, I loved the Coens' take on it, and their cinematic presentation of it.. The long ride in the dark, to save Mattie, HAS TO BE SEEN on the big screen to be fully appreciated, and is perfectly underscored by the lone piano, playing old Christian hymns -- which form the basis for virtually ALL the background themes... I don't care about whether he left a fresh mount on the killing field... he was focused on the task at hand, and Mattie would have been eventually helpless on a mount by herself.

Frank Ross's revolver, which Mattie carries, is a 2nd Model Colt's Dragoon ("holster pistol..." ) eveidenced by the square-back trigger guard and the square cut bolt notches in the cylinder. The Ranger's carbine is a Sharp's, ostensibly .50-70 caliber, but actually undefined in the film as to cartridge.

Cimarron · Post by **Cimarron** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 6:09 pm

David Carrico the outfitter that did some of the leather goods for the film, including Matt Damon's cartridge belt, has posted on the "cascity" forum that it was .45-70. The film is set in the winter of 1878 and while the .45-70 govt. was available, so too was the .50-70 govt.. At the time ammunition for the .50 and the .45 was probably equally available in Texas and the Indian Nations. It would have been nice if it had been a .50 Sharps carbine. Just my 2 cents worth.

C. Cash · Post by **C. Cash** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 6:15 pm

Good to see your post Buck. Welcome back!

Topside · Post by **Topside** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 6:47 pm

I too, glad to see you back Buck. As for this movie, I've stayed away from movie houses for 18 years. Guess I better break the drought for this one.

T.

jd45 · Post by **jd45** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 10:11 pm

Buck, wasn't her pistol in the original a Colt Walker? The first thing I noticed was that the cylinder was much shorter in this version. Or is my memory playing tricks on me, (again)? jd45

jd45 · Post by **jd45** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 10:17 pm

P.S......Buck, I was thinkin he coulda grabbed the reins of that standing horse & pulled it along with them to use when li'l blackie gave out, don't ya think? Just curious, jd45

C. Cash · Post by **C. Cash** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 10:37 pm

jd45 wrote:Buck, wasn't her pistol in the original a Colt Walker? The first thing I noticed was that the cylinder was much shorter in this version. Or is my memory playing tricks on me, (again)? jd45

Yes, Kim Darby in the original had a Walker. I believe it was like Gus's in the movie version of Lonesome Dove....converted to fire cartridges.

jd45 · Post by **jd45** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 10:48 pm

No kidding, C. Cash..........I wasn't aware that Gus's or Kim's had been fixed to fire carts!!! Thanx for the info, BTW....do you know who was responsible for the upgrade in tech? Just curious, dontcha know, Thanx for any info, jd45

C. Cash · Post by **C. Cash** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 10:50 pm

Your welcome jd45! No knowledge of who did it but there are some here who probably do. It would be neat to know what happened to them as well.

vancelw · Post by **vancelw** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 8:18 am

According to the book, Mattie has a Dragoon. A black powder, cap and ball revolver and not a conversion. Mattie accuses Rooster of causing the revolver to misfire at the river claiming that when Rooster fired it off twice in a drunken state, he then reloaded those two cylinders with faulty caps. Later, it fires a 4th time when she shoots Chaney in the head and falls into the pit.

the Coen brothers had the more correct props in the movie than the 1969 version.

For instance, Chaney is using a cotton rope for a sling on his Henry rifle. Mattie describes this with extreme disgust and uses it as evidence for the type of lowbrow trash that Tom Chaney is and must be. It looks odd to see him sling the rifle that way, but it's correct according to the story.

On the other note, why would you take a horse that you are unfamiliar with (don't know it's habits or demeanor) that may have been wounded in the gunfight that had just occurred? Besides, it wasn't an option in Portis' story. It was simply a mistake on the film maker's part. Mattie mentions riding through the meadow and seeing the dead horses and bandits, not live and healthy horses.

It's raining and may sleet/snow here today. I may slip off to the matinee to see it again.

jd45 · Post by **jd45** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:02 am

vancelw, that hadn't occurred to me, I mean about the horse possibly being wounded, or un-cooperative, to pull it along as a re-mount. Thanx for bringin that up, jd45

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:50 am

The HSUS has put some sort of hex on movie makers. For decades they've gone out of their way to avoid the appearance of dead, dying or injured horses rather than risk the ire of the HS. They've even gone to the point of putting disclaimers in the credits.
Where shooting the bad guy-Indian-enemy soldier- off horse out from under him would have been the first thing, to do they don't portray this.
The only JW movie that I can think of that depicted dead horses after a shoot out is "The Train Robbers". After the shoot out at the derelict train they show a couple dead horses in amongst the dead bad guys.
It may be correct, but it's just not that common.

Joe

Tycer · Post by **Tycer** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 8:28 pm

Nancy and I liked it.

RIHMFIRE · Post by **RIHMFIRE** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:11 pm

J Miller wrote:The HSUS has put some sort of hex on movie makers. For decades they've gone out of their way to avoid the appearance of dead, dying or injured horses rather than risk the ire of the HS. They've even gone to the point of putting disclaimers in the credits.
Where shooting the bad guy-Indian-enemy soldier- off horse out from under him would have been the first thing, to do they don't portray this.
The only JW movie that I can think of that depicted dead horses after a shoot out is "The Train Robbers". After the shoot out at the derelict train they show a couple dead horses in amongst the dead bad guys.
It may be correct, but it's just not that common.

Joe

in original true grit, they showed Ned Peppers dead horse in the river,
Bo dieing after the shoot out in the field
and little blackie...that rooster ran to death....
I seem to remember a lot of movies that show wounded or dead horse....or horses being killed
Broken trail....open range....braveheart...just to name a few

JB · Post by JB » Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:53 pm

RIHMFIRE wrote:
J Miller wrote:The HSUS has put some sort of hex on movie makers. For decades they've gone out of their way to avoid the appearance of dead, dying or injured horses rather than risk the ire of the HS. They've even gone to the point of putting disclaimers in the credits.
Where shooting the bad guy-Indian-enemy soldier- off horse out from under him would have been the first thing, to do they don't portray this.
The only JW movie that I can think of that depicted dead horses after a shoot out is "The Train Robbers". After the shoot out at the derelict train they show a couple dead horses in amongst the dead bad guys.
It may be correct, but it's just not that common.

Joe

in original true grit, they showed Ned Peppers dead horse in the river,
Bo dieing after the shoot out in the field
and little blackie...that rooster ran to death....
I seem to remember a lot of movies that show wounded or dead horse....or horses being killed
Broken trail....open range....braveheart...just to name a few

Correct. The JW version of True Grit was on TV today.

Post by **Hobie** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:54 pm

Buck, it is so good to see you here.

As to the killing of horses, Don Johnson did one that is all about the killing of horses and they kill horses that get injured as they try to save them by driving them to Canada. In Pursuit of Honor. But of course, Rooster shoots little Blackie, stabs him, runs him into the ground...

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 11:55 pm

RIHMFIRE wrote:
J Miller wrote:The HSUS has put some sort of hex on movie makers. For decades they've gone out of their way to avoid the appearance of dead, dying or injured horses rather than risk the ire of the HS. They've even gone to the point of putting disclaimers in the credits.
Where shooting the bad guy-Indian-enemy soldier- off horse out from under him would have been the first thing, to do they don't portray this.
The only JW movie that I can think of that depicted dead horses after a shoot out is "The Train Robbers". After the shoot out at the derelict train they show a couple dead horses in amongst the dead bad guys.
It may be correct, but it's just not that common.

Joe

in original true grit, they showed Ned Peppers dead horse in the river,
Bo dieing after the shoot out in the field
and little blackie...that rooster ran to death....
I seem to remember a lot of movies that show wounded or dead horse....or horses being killed
Broken trail....open range....braveheart...just to name a few

Yeah, you're right. A lapse of memory on my part. My mind has been otherwise occupied.

Please forgive.

Joe

handirifle · Post by **handirifle** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 12:31 am

I have to chime in here. I saw it the night it was released. Outstanding movie IMHO. I watched the original 2 days later, to remember it. Frankly I liked the new one better. My brother in law voiced it best, when he said, the new one more than likely depicted people as they most likely were then. In my watching the JW version, I was disappointed in the "cleaness" of him and everything else in the movie.

My vote goes to the Jeff Bridges version.

MajorCordite · Post by **MajorCordite** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:18 pm

We have 4" of snow on the ground and everything is closed, so I downloaded the original 1969 True Grit and watched it today. I have been following most of the reviews and comments across the internet since True Grit was released shortly before Christmas. About 80% of the reviews by the professional critics (newspapers, magazines, and such) like this current version. There are a lot of comments (you really can't call them reviews) that follow True Grit trailers or articles that give the movie a thumbs down. Most of the negative comments seem to come from John Wayne fans who feel it is almost sacrilegious to "replay" a former role by The Duke. You have to look at the current movie as a totally different movie that is being made about the same book.

Mutiny on the Bounty was made in 1939, 1954, and 1984. I don't see where anybody trashed Marlon Brando for "copying" Clark Gable as Fletcher Christian. A lot of posters are trying to compare the acting between John Wayne and Jeff Bridges. You can't. If you read the book you can plainly see that Jeff Bridges actually portrays the character in the book more accurately. I read where the directors tried to get John Wayne to use the author's stilted dialogue more, but he couldn't pull it off. However, there are a few scenes where he does "speak" with the formal prose, but only briefly.

The original True Grit was filmed in that sweeping panoramic western style genre that so many of us grew up with. The musical score is orchestral with oboes, kettle drums, and cymbals clanging to highlight the action. Personally I find it a bit hokey--almost like I'm looking at an episode of Bonanza. Don't get me wrong I like the older version, but it really is a "period" piece for the time. The newer version captures the actual book setting more realistically with the simple musical score and the grittier cinematography.

If you like old time westerns with ironed shirts and never get dirty neckerchiefs then you will always love those classic Westerns with a sky that reaches on forever. However, if you like a Western that shows a time when life was hard, dirty, and not always pretty you will like the newer, grittier version. I liked them both, but not in the same way. IMHO. I think I'll hang both movie posters in my man cave next to my Winchester 1892. Kapow!

gak · Post by **gak** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:38 pm

MajorCordite, good assessment. Both enjoyable for different reasons.