True Grit remake

MrMurphy · Post by **MrMurphy** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:28 pm

Finally got around to seeing it on Netflix.

I have seen the original many years ago. Not a huge Western movie fan, some good, some bad, some forgettable.

Unlike most of the older guys here, I was neither alive to remember the Old West in person or knew John Wayne as a drinking buddy, but for a remake, I think they did pretty good. Better than most of the remakes I've seen.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:40 pm

Dark and somber. I thought the dialogue coach had them talking in a stilted manner.....It was pretty good, and I'd watch both versions again any time.

(I noticed the same strange dialogue in Open Range, and recently in the Hatfield's and McCoy's....)

FatJackDurham · Post by **FatJackDurham** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:55 pm

absolutely couldnt understand the dialog when I saw it in the theater. However, on tv, it was easier.

I read that the remake was faithful to the book, including the rope sling on the rifle tom chaney had.

MrMurphy · Post by **MrMurphy** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:09 pm

Dialogue was indeed a bit stilted. I think they were going for Victorian and ended up speaking dictionary. Not everyone used all the big complicated words, and they did use contractions.....

C. Cash · Post by **C. Cash** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:25 pm

Having been raised by Grandparents who were born and raised in that same area at the turn of the century, I think Bridges did really well with the accent. Not exactly, but very similar.

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:30 pm

I like the newer a bit more that the older.

IMO the acting was better.

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:31 pm

FWiedner wrote:I like the newer a bit more that the older.
IMO the acting was better.

+1

Ji in Hawaii · Post by **Ji in Hawaii** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 2:13 pm

AS much as I like the Duke I was never a Glen Campbell or Kim Darby fan so I lean towards the newer version as well. I think the young gal did a commendable job.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 2:18 pm

I like both equally.

Now, there would be two things they could have done to make the remake perfect.

First, replace Jeff Bridges with John Wayne, and use Glenn Campbell's theme song. Otherwise leaving the rest of it the same.

Joe

North Country Gal · Post by **North Country Gal** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 2:23 pm

FWiedner wrote:I like the newer a bit more that the older.

IMO the acting was better.

+1, Bridges is, indeed, a great actor and one of my favorites, but no one can ever take the place of the Duke for an oldster like me.

gak · Post by **gak** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 4:15 pm

I enjoyed both for different reasons. The first for the Duke and scenery - my favorite neck of the woods, the San Juan range in Southern Colorado, and the souundtrack I thought the remake should have at least used an instrumental/orchestrated version to connect the two a little bit more...but if I was director/producer I can also see it the other way too--not wanting too much 1:1 comparison. Otherwise the acting was nonexistent--especially the aforementioned Mr. Campbell and Ms. Darby. Even Duvall, a later favorite of mine, hadn't quite matured as an actor yet and was a bit stilted.

I liked the second movie for Bridges too, though IMO he was a bit too "out of it" or "over the top" for much of it--marshmallows for brains and voice. I realize that was much of what he was about and central to the story, I thought they could have sharpened him up 15% and still kept the essence of the character. The outhouse scene was classic. +1 I think the girl stole the show. The scenery was not as much the highlight as he first, but the "gritty grain" of the show was better for the substance of the actual story. Speaking of Bridges and the girl, haven't seen much of either one since??

93marshooter · Post by **93marshooter** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:36 pm

Southern and western folks talk a lot slower. It was supposed to be Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.

KiwiKev · Post by **KiwiKev** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 11:47 pm

Apparently the new version is closer to the book.

I saw John Wayne's The Cowboys for the first time recently. Now that is a great film. How would you remake a film like that.

Anyway back to True Grit

The girl has a Colt walker I think which was the most powerful handgun until the .44 magnum. Now they are nice guns.

Also I think it showed young ladies in a very positive light. Wilful, intelligent and determined.

Some say the first film was more about John Wayne, the remake was more about the girl.

The gals of west usually had a lot of true grit!

vancelw · Post by **vancelw** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 11:53 pm

KiwiKev wrote:Apparently the new version is closer to the book.

The JW version was much closer to the book as far as chain of events and plot goes. The details in the filmaking were lacking.
The newer version portrays the character and feel of the book much better.
I own both versions and watch them everynow and then. Also own the book. All three are delightful to me in their own merit.

roughing it · Post by **roughing it** » Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:00 pm

Kiwikev says "the girl has a Colt Walker...." Actually in the book and both film versions its a Colt 2nd Model Dragoon .44 caliber which was a successor to the Walker.

vancelw · Post by **vancelw** » Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:11 pm

roughing it wrote:Kiwikev says "the girl has a Colt Walker...." Actually in the book and both film versions its a Colt 2nd Model Dragoon .44 caliber which was a successor to the Walker.

If I remember correctly, In the JW movie JW calls it a Dragoon, but it's really a Walker. But you are correct in saying that it should be a Dragoon in all versions.

gcburt · Post by **gcburt** » Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:08 pm

MrMurphy wrote: **snipped text** Not a huge Western movie fan, some good, some bad, some forgettable. **snipped text**

I've enjoyed them both a number of times, but then I pretty much like all westerns. The TV channel I watch mostly is "Encore's Western Channel."

92&94 · Post by **92&94** » Thu Apr 18, 2013 7:54 pm

I will hazard a theory here, that each movie is more representative of the time in which it was made than of the time which both claim to represent

I like the older one simply for the scenes with the girl getting the better of the horse trader

I can't say as I require historical accuracy in entertainment any more than I require honesty in politicians. The expectation of either is a fools errand.

66GTO · Post by **66GTO** » Thu Apr 18, 2013 9:18 pm

92&94 wrote:I will hazard a theory here, that each movie is more representative of the time in which it was made than of the time which both claim to represent

I like the older one simply for the scenes with the girl getting the better of the horse trader I can't say as I require historical accuracy in entertainment any more than I require honesty in politicians. The expectation of either is a fools errand.

Well I like the new version of Mattie schooling the horse trader! That scene was classic.

KiwiKev · Post by **KiwiKev** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 1:51 am

Just an obvious comment. If Mattie had her dad's Colt Dragoon from the civil war why does a Winchester 1892 and 1894 appear in the film? Am I missing something?

roughing it · Post by **roughing it** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:26 am

KiwiKev wrote:Just an obvious comment. If Mattie had her dad's Colt Dragoon from the civil war why does a Winchester 1892 and 1894 appear in the film? Am I missing something?

John Wayne carried a Winchester 1892 in many of his westerns even though they were set in time prior to that year.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:39 am

KiwiKev wrote:Just an obvious comment. If Mattie had her dad's Colt Dragoon from the civil war why does a Winchester 1892 and 1894 appear in the film? Am I missing something?

If I remember correctly the story took place in 1880 or thereabouts. So the 1873 Winchester Jeff Bridges carried was correct as was his Colt SAA. John Wayne's 1892 Winchester was not correct but his Colt SAA was.
To my knowledge there were no Winchester 1894s used in either movie.

John Wayne and that large loop lever 92 Winchester are almost synonymous. I cannot picture him ever using an 1873. It just would not be a JW movie if he did.

Joe

grouse · Post by **grouse** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:29 pm

Loved the Coen brothers version as well as the orginal both movies were great because of the strength of the Charles Portis novel.
My wife & I went to the theater 3 times to see the newest version. We liked it that much!
Nothing quite like a great western on the big screen.

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:35 pm

I can't believe you guys, I'm ashamed of you, this thread is pure blasphemy.

Original movie, John Wayne jumps his horse over a fence and rides off into the sunset.

New movie, one armed spinster walks off into a grey sky, reminiscent of the Wizard of Oz.

Original, John Wayne charges while twirling a Winchester.

New, Jeff Bridges doesn't.

Original, set in picturesque Colorado and uses typical theatrics for western movie.

New, doesn't.

I'm sure the new one is very close to the book, and if that's the case, John Wayne did that book a favor by making the story interesting.

Lets face it, if the original with John Wayne hadn't been made, the new one would have been a complete flop. The new one rode John Waynes legend right into the theater. Shameful.

spaceman spiff · Post by **spaceman spiff** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:02 pm

Imagine John Wayne doing The Big Lebowski before Jeff Bridges

spaceman

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:32 am

For those of you that have not done this, try reading the book all the way through, then watch the JW version, then the Cohen version.

It's like getting a super detailed 3D version of the story instead of a one sided one.

Kind of like reading the Harry Potter books, then watching the movies.

As for the movies, both can stand alone without shame, and neither is the better. They are just a different telling of the same story.

Joe

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:13 am

The new True Grit does not stand on its own. It's a remake. It stands on John Wayne's shoulders.

Harry Potter series was probably the best selling series of books in history long before being made into movies. In comparison the book True Grit was unknown before the remake and everyone started talking about it. If the book is anything like the remake, I'll never read it.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 11:23 am

sore shoulder,
Take some Advil and think about this for a moment.

The book CAME FIRST.

Read it. If you've never read it, you have only second hand information and hearsay to comment on.

The book is not like the second movie any more than it's like JWs movie.
The movies are like the book ... to a point. Neither follow the book exactly. JWs version deviates from the book more than the Cohen's movie.

They can both stand on their own. If you haven't read the book, and seen the movies, you're only basing your comments on prejudice.

Joe

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 11:51 am

Joe, convince me that the new movie would have been half as popular if not for the JW original.

Convince me that half the people who saw the original True Grit even knew there was a book.

Convince me that anyone would even care about the new True Grit, or the book, if not for the John Wayne original.

Because in my opinion, Cohen Bros wouldn't even have been able to get Bridges to star in the movie and it would have gone straight to DVD had it not been for the JW original. Cohen Bros, and the current knowledge of the books existence all owe their popularity and success to John Wayne. Without the JW original, no one would even care about the book or the movie remake.

92&94 · Post by **92&94** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:40 pm

I rarely like a movie that is based on a book I have read. Reading the book later is usually a sure way to make me lose any taste for the movie.

The vast majority of people who have seen either movie have never read the book, kind of an odd requirement if you ask me. If the question is which is more true to the book, fine, I keep hearing the newer one is just like the book. Sure doesn't make it "better" by any standard than imitation.

I would say that the question is which movie is more popular on its own merits. A lot of us like the older one, on its own merits. I agree that the new movie would not be as immediately popular without the old one. It probably would have been made, but not by the Coens and not in the way in which it was made. Were not for the producer's and directors' desire to contrast it with the original movie, the newer one would be much like the older one, and more like other recently made westerns. Grittier than 1960's, sure, but not downright gloomy with a non sequitur of an ending.

JimT · Post by **JimT** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 4:19 am

Ya'll are hilarious.

Proof that opinions are like armpits. Most everybody has one and it's best to take care of one's own and not sniff too much in the other guys.

RIHMFIRE · Post by **RIHMFIRE** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 6:32 am

i cant get passed the three liberal idiots in the movie....
especially the one who played La Boeuf....what a ........

KiwiKev · Post by **KiwiKev** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 4:00 pm

Sore shoulder you are absolutely right. I think the second film would have been a flop without the first. My local video store rented out the first film a lot before the second was released on DVD. The second was not as popular.

MacEntyre · Post by **MacEntyre** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 5:00 pm

+1 for reading the book. I read the book, saw the remake, then watched the original John Wayne version again (after many years!)

The ending in the book is improved in the 2010 movie, IMHO.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 5:03 pm

sore shoulder,

I cannot convince you of those things. Only you can do that, and you already have your mind made up.

I know what I know cos I was there in 69. Bought the book from the book club in high school, went to the theater and watched the JW movie.
Watched the JW movie many many times in years since. Read the book over again several times.
Watched the Cohen Bros version on DVD many times as well.
I have my beliefs as do you.

Joe

Buck Elliott · Post by **Buck Elliott** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:42 pm

I first read TRUE GRIT as it emerged, serialized in the 'Saturday Evening Post.' Rumor was, that it was to be made into a movie, probably starring John Wayne.. Indeed, many of the small illustrations that accompanied the text bore a more than 'offhand' but somewhat amorphous resemblence to the Duke..

When the film opened in town, I was one of the first to see it.. It turned out to be a wonderful star turn for Wayne, but I had misgivings about Howard Hawks frequent deviations from the original story line.. Even then, I knew that the tale revolved around Mattie, while it necessarily included the others, particularly the Marshal and the Ranger.. The Wayne film also ended on a much 'kinder, gentler' note than did the original story..

Hawks took great liberties and license with both the story and its location, and while I love the Colorado high country as much as anyone, it always grated on me that the location bore NO resemblence to the 'proper' setting of the play.. The application of Oklahoma place names to the Colorado rockies was blatantly out of order..

I would be interested to know just how many otherwise-fine actors were passed over, in order to bestow the role of the Texas Ranger on the hapless Glen Campbell.. I remember that Hawks had a penchant for featuring up-and-coming (slow starting..) teen singing idols in many of his movies.. Campbell is noteworthy because of his failure in the role.. Many of the others in the cast were old friends and associates of Wayne's, and they worked mightily to plug the talent gaps..

I bought, and subsequently read and reread Portis's novel.. I think the Coens - or someone in their circle - must have done the same, and eventually determined that there were wrongs there to be righted..

The Coen "remake" is - production wise, and as a theatrical movie - much better than the original version. I found myself "suspending my disbelief" at having someone else portray Rooster Cogburn, but Bridges carried it off admirably, if in a much different vein than Wayne's portrayal..

In the Coen version, the location, equipments, and ambience feel much closer to the original precepts of the story.. I rather enjoyed the language, which was in use by older folks when I was a youngster.. My maternal grandmother had worked as a telephone operator in her younger years, and contractions were seldom encountered in either her speech or writing.. They were not used by 'proper' people, and were thought of as vulgar and lazy speech.

Major kudos go to Haillie Steinfeld, as Mattie, in the Coen film.. At age 13, she performed expertly in a rather daunting role, even doing many of her own stunts.. 22 year old Kim Darby was deathly afraid of horses, and used a riding double for all but the close-up shots.. darby was also an emotional train-wreck while they were filming showing up many times unprepared.. She was in the throes of an ugly divorce, with a small child to tend to..

Dialog for both films was culled directly from the book, for the most part, but I believe that the Coens scored highest again, in script editing and overall directing..

Sore Shoulder is certainly entitled to his opinion, but should feel obligated to study the story more closely, before spouting his prejudicial, one-sided diatribe, and howling down his dissenters..

I still watch and enjoy both versions of True Grit, but for different reasons for each.. Even the sound track of the Coen film seemed more in keeping with the time, place and mores of the story..

I saw the new rendition Seven times, while it was playing at the local theater, and it wasn't because I was trying to decide whether I liked it...

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 9:36 pm

Buck,

Well said. I wish I was able to be that eloquent.

"I rather enjoyed the language, which was in use by older folks when I was a youngster.. My maternal grandmother had worked as a telephone operator in her younger years, and contractions were seldom encountered in either her speech or writing.. They were not used by 'proper' people, and were thought of as vulgar and lazy speech.

Vulgar and lazy speech is the phrase I was trying to think of. I've heard it before many years ago. Although in my family and in Arizona as I grew up, contractions were the norm.

Joe

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:46 pm

I'm not sure why a person would need to read the book in order to be qualified to make the obvious conclusion that the Cohen bros version rode the legend that is John Wayne, and would have been a straight to DVD movie at best otherwise.

C. Cash · Post by **C. Cash** » Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:25 am

Well said Buck. Nothing I could add.

bdhold · Post by **bdhold** » Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:38 am

Mattie and LeBeouf are improved in the new movie. Jeff Bridges really didn't have a chance - it was a good effort to push the Rooster character to the extreme, but most of the movie, he sounds like he's reciting John Wayne with marbles in his mouth.

gak · Post by **gak** » Mon Apr 22, 2013 10:09 am

bulldog1935 wrote:Mattie and LeBeouf are improved in the new movie. Jeff Bridges really didn't have a chance - it was a good effort to push the Rooster character to the extreme, but most of the movie, he sounds like he's reciting John Wayne with marbles in his mouth.

Good observations. I really like Jeff Bridges, and enjoyed him here--as good as any and perhaps better than any other choice for the Rooster role. However, I wished for a crisper portrayal of the character. It was apparent to me that he was doing two difficult things at the same time - 1) trying not to be John Wayne but putting his own stamp/interpretation on the boozing, larger-than-life character but, aware of the scrutiny this would have with comparisons to the iconic and beloved Wayne 2) still trying to be to not be the overly recognizable "hey look, that's Jeff Bridges playing the Wayne role" on screen personality. In the mix of all that and trying not to be "Jeff Bridges on the screen," some of his portrayal was a bit over (or under?) the top. +1 Mattie was brilliant.
Damon's politics side, I've enjoyed him over the years as well--and he is light years ahead of Campbell's performance here--but was still too reconizably "Matt Damon." He's about to prove my next statement wrong with his performance in the upcoming Libarace movie, but it seems Damon always pretty much plays Damon, not unlike Redford. They're definitely not character actors!

bdhold · Post by **bdhold** » Mon Apr 22, 2013 10:13 am

ever see Rancho Deluxe? That's a Jeff Bridges western.

also saw Django this weekend - enjoyable movie, and I think both Oscars, especially Christoph Waltz, were deserved, but they really screwed up the firearms with 1874 Sharps, 1860 Spencer, and 1860 Henry supposedly in 1858 - and you could also argue that even the many 1858 models they showed would not be widely distributed in 1858.
However, it is Tarantino, and while Hitler was obviously never assassinated in a Paris theater, Shoshana's Revenge in Inglorious B's is one of the greatest movie climaxes ever filmed.
But until they finally got to Django's solo firefights, you had to wonder if this even was a Tarantino film - it was much too literary and civilized up to that point. Sergio Leone was a production consultant, and it has a great spaghetti-western soundtrack.

C. Cash · Post by **C. Cash** » Tue Apr 23, 2013 7:51 am

Since it came out, I've always thought the movie was a severe danger to a certain political movement. Strong young girl refuses to be victim and arms herself with her fathers pistol to seek justice. So,I wonder if it will ever be played to TV audiences with frequncy like Open Range and Unforgiven? Will they let the masses of young women view such a thing? It will be interesting to see if it is kept under wraps, lest young American women get any ideas that they should do anything but quiver behind a door while they wait for the police.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:00 am

The JW version has played on TV many many times. I've long ago quit watching western movies on TV because I have or can get 99% of them on DVD and watch them without editing or commercials.

Joe

C. Cash · Post by **C. Cash** » Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:13 am

J Miller wrote:The JW version has played on TV many many times. I've long ago quit watching western movies on TV because I have or can get 99% of them on DVD and watch them without editing or commercials.

Joe

. Yeah....was thinking the new one only, as modern folks do not look much JW. The performance by both bidges and the young actress is powerful enough in the new one to make it a modern cult classic. It will be interesting to see if it dies away, except for DVD.