-
The United States of El Norte
May 24, 2013 | 55 comments
-
Cubs Lose! Cubs Lose!
May 6, 2013 | 28 comments
-
The Perfect Country Singer
April 29, 2013 | 24 comments
-
Searching for the Duke
April 25, 2013 | 106 comments
-
Carlos’s Moment of Clarity
April 16, 2013 | 27 comments
Among the Intellectualoids
More Grit? — Geez, Yah.
Hold on to your Bridges — he’s no match for John Wayne in the Coen remake of True Grit.
Wednesday I performed a selfless sacrifice for TAS readers. I went to a theater and watched the Coen brother’s wildly superfluous True Grit, a much less entertaining business than the justly acclaimed John Wayne original. I saw it so red-blooded TAS readers don’t have to.
Yes, that’s Joel and Ethan Coen, the movie making burn-outs famous for what the entertainment press insists on referring to as “quirky dark comedies,” and which I’ve called a few other things. See Raising Arizona, The Big Lebowski, and Fargo,” certainly one of the most hideous abuses of celluloid in movie history.
Learning that the Coen brothers had decided to produce their version and vision of True Grit was no more disorienting to me than if I had learned that Oliver Stone had planned to remake Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
True Grit didn’t need to be re-made. The 1969 horse opera starring John Wayne as U.S. Marshall Rooster Cogburn is a jewel of a picture, at least a four on a five-point scale. It fetched the Duke’s only Academy Award of his long and successful career where he was loved by movie-goers world-wide, though largely sniffed at by reviewers who disdained his conservative politics. But assuming the world has room for yet another True Grit, the Coen boys would be about the last movie makers I would choose for the job.
The Coen Grit turns out less bad than survivors of Arizona or Fargo would have every right to expect. But it’s impossible to make the case the movie is worth two hours of anyone’s life, particularly in this blessed season.
The sneering contempt for everyone who isn’t a bi-coastal film major, which viewers were bludgeoned with in Fargo, is absent. But much of Fargo’s violence and blood splatter is present. The camera does not look away at the right moment, as it did in 1969, during the early hanging scene.
Those unfortunates who watched Fargo were treated to one of the characters being fed into a wood chipper. And in other scenes the camera lingered lovingly over some very grotesque wounds. The Minnesota-nice characters in Fargo are drawn as simpletons and moral ciphers who mostly just stand around in funny hats and say “Geez-Yah.” I guess that’s what film majors and Hollywood idlers call dark comedy.
The new Grit is literally darker than the 1969 version, with many scenes shot with very little light, and where there is light there’s often smoke or haze which gives the scenes an unearthly tone. I guess this is supposed to be arty. Mostly it just makes the actors hard to see.
The reason the Coen boys give for wanting to remake True Grit is they had read and liked Charles Portis’s 1968 novel by the same name. No puzzle here. Portis’s novel, told from the point of view of 14-year-old Mattie Ross who pays U.S. Marshall Rooster Cogburn to track down her father’s killer, is a charmer and well worth the reading time.
The Coens said they wished to tell the story from Mattie’s perspective and to stay closer to the book than director Henry Hathaway did in 1969 with the Duke. They sort of achieved this, but not by much. Aside from a sentimental, non-Portis ending to the 1969 version, Hathaway stayed pretty close to the book. The Coens went with the less old Hollywood ending.
But considering the characters in the book, the Coens mission was doomed to failure, or to at least only meager success. The Mattie in the book, an engagingly unreliable narrator, is a charming character, at once tongue in cheek and realistic. By turns insightful beyond her years and naïve as any 14 year-old. She’s stubborn, opinionated, bossy, sometimes downright irritating. She’s full of questionable folk wisdom and Bible quotes. In short, a lot of fun to read along with. And she’s the center of the book.
But it’s much harder to make a quirky 14 year-old the center of a movie. You can keep a character like Rooster Cogburn pretty much contained on the written page. But on the screen there is no way a prim 14-year-old girl is going to drag attention away from Rooster. And the new Mattie doesn’t, any more than the old Mattie did.
A word or two about the two Roosters. The Rooster Cogburn role was made for an aged and weathered John Wayne. The Duke was blustery and almost as big as the scenic outdoors his western movies were filmed in. He looked physically intimidating enough for the job of hauling bad guys back out of Indian territory, dead or alive. On the other hand, Jeff Bridges, a fine actor, doesn’t.
Where the Duke’s Rooster dominated every scene he was in with his sheer physicality and vigor, Bridges’ Rooster is hunched and ratty and looks like he should be sleeping under a bridge. He exudes a certain meanness and low grade grouchiness, but this is a world away from toughness. He uses a gravely voice that makes it often hard to understand what he’s saying. Duke’s rooster convinced. Bridges’ comes up short.
Perhaps not by accident, Turner Classic Movies featured the 1969 True Grit last night, the day the new Grit opened in theaters. Those who stayed home around the tube got the better of it. No need for anyone to abuse any holiday leisure with the Coen brothers’ latest.
About the Author
Larry Thornberry is a writer in Tampa.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (130) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Larry Thornberry
More Articles From Among the Intellectualoids
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/23/more-grit-geez-yah
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Ian| 12.23.10 @ 6:35AM
I saw the movie last night and loved it. It could be like Monty Python, some love it while others hate it. There may be no middle ground.
BTW, "U.S. Marshall" is misspelling the name of the job. "Marshall" is a last name. "Marshal" is a law enforcement officer.
Eric Cartman| 12.23.10 @ 11:55AM
I'm sick of Christmas, and I hate those religious Christmas carols.
All I like is "Jingle Bell Rock." Now that's a jumpty tune gets my fingers to snapping.
Ordered me a Hoveround and the commercial said Medicare would pay for it. Lyers!
Medicare is a crock of shit.
Occam's Tool| 12.23.10 @ 3:16PM
Somebody hijack Eric?
Dixie Pixie| 12.23.10 @ 5:02PM
Eric's meds are a tad off today.
Don't worry as he will be back to usual after the holidays.
It takes Eric a while to recover from all that "goodwill to all mankind" going around.
Eric Cartman| 12.23.10 @ 6:23PM
Right you are, Miss Dixid Pixie.
If I hear MerryXmas one more time! They can take that "goodwill to all mankind" and shove it up . . . . . . .
Elizabeth Y.| 12.23.10 @ 6:28PM
Lovely, Eric.
Just lovely. You're a real specimen (in the medical sense).
Dixie Pixie| 12.23.10 @ 8:08PM
Greetings Eric
Try adjusting your meds to 80 proof.
It will all be over in a matter of days.
PS.... It is Mr Dixie Pixie
But it is good to know the Brute Squad of the Obama Internet Enforcers (aka...FCC) are looking for the wrong gender.
Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 3:47PM
Eric,
read this when the meds are right. It is a joy to read you. Happy Holidays. I, personally, wish you good will.
idalily| 12.24.10 @ 2:53PM
I'm seeing it tomorrow (my family always goes to the movies on Christmas Day), and I'm keeping an open mind. While I LOVE John Wayne and LOVED the original True Grit, I also see nothing wrong with remaking it. The original was not perfect (Glen Campbell--oh, please), and if Bridges can pull off his own take on Rooster Cogburn, why shouldn't he? John Wayne would be fine with that. I'll be sure to report back after I've see the new version.
Bill| 12.26.10 @ 4:34PM
I too saw the movie and I thought it was an excellent remake. I love the original movie and have seen it at least 50 times. The new Mattie Ross is refreshing and there is enough difference in the movies to allow them to stand on their own. Remakes are in the unenviable position of having to live up to the original, especially when you throw in a hefty dose of nostalgia. Perhaps if you watch the remake without trying to compare the two, you would allow yourself the opportunity to enjoy the new movie.
Kelly Staples| 12.23.10 @ 7:09AM
"True Grit didn't need to be re-made." Bingo.
Maddox| 12.23.10 @ 8:10AM
This is all that needs to be said. If you want to see "True Grit," get the original.
Margie| 12.23.10 @ 12:52PM
I agree, there will always be ONE TRUE GRIT to me and that one has the One and Only John Wayne.
Claire| 12.23.10 @ 7:20AM
a take on the new movie version
coal carrier| 12.23.10 @ 7:27AM
Just like the liberals in DC, the liberals in Hollywood can’t come up with anything new. It is either a remake of the old or the world is being destroyed by man.
Merry Christmas, Hollywood.
idalily| 12.24.10 @ 3:03PM
I agree with this wholeheartedly, but it's not only the ramming of a political agenda down our throats (Law & Order, anyone?). It's also a lack of plain old-fashioned storytelling ability. Either they're making a movie out of a book, making a remake of another movie, remaking comic books, making movies out of tv shows, giving us dismal portrayals of a dark, post-apocalyptic future world, or making god-awful romantic "comedies" that aren't funny at all. Where's the modern Hitchcock? Or the modern Tracy-Hepburn match-up? Or the modern John Wayne, for that matter? Most movies nowadays I find to be stupid, trite, boring, or just over the top (too much violence, too much sex, too many special effects, too many smashed cars).
IzeHavitt| 12.25.10 @ 12:47AM
Ida, Baby, You bring up a very good point. For that community who fancies itself "creative", I've got news for ya: You haven't come up with a new genre in decades. It's always the same old crap just recycled in one way or another. And more and more gruesomeness to boot. Oh, yeah, if you wanna be "creative", then please acknowledge that you'll have to have a relationship with The Creator. That's why Jesus said: "Ye must be born again." That's why Jeremiah wrote" For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken Me, The Fountain of Living Waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns that can hold no water." You're empty.
Claire| 12.23.10 @ 7:38AM
okay, that was dumb; didn't mean to send that first comment. Yes, the original movie with John Wayne, which I watched for the first time last night, was excellent. Can't see how someone thought they could make a better version of it.
blackwatch| 12.26.10 @ 1:34PM
I can think of ONE major improvement: eliminate Kim Darby from the original. That would be a 100% improvement. I keep rooting for the rattlesnakes every time I watch that movie.
And that's bold talk from a one eyed fat man!
PACoug| 12.23.10 @ 8:04AM
Grew up on the Duke, and True Grit is one of my favorite John Wayne movies.
I don't know that 'Jeff Bridges movies' will ever be a legitimate category to have favorites in.
I haven't seen the movie, so I can't honestly use the descriptor 'pathetic' yet.
So may I use it dishonestly?
A pathetic attempt by the Coens to measure up to past greatness.
Seek| 12.23.10 @ 11:04AM
Instead of deriding the Coens "pathetic" attempts at measuring up to supposed greatness, you might try seeing the movie first.
jeffk| 12.23.10 @ 8:14AM
There was no reason to remake True Grit which like Fargo was a great movie. That said the Coen Brothers make terrific movies and I can't wait to see the remake.
Jeff Wilcox| 12.23.10 @ 8:27AM
I throw my lot in with Ian. This was a fine film indeed. I must say that Mr. Thornberry's "review" is, to put it kindly, unfortunately bad. He reviews the film as if it were a remake of the original when in fact it is not. Now, he appears not to be a fan of the Coen brother's collective work and he has every right to be wrong on that point. However, at least do them the service of reviewing the film as their own interpretation of Portis's novel and not of the Wayne film adaptation. Each film ought to be allowed to stand on their own merits and, in my view, they do. As for the character of Mattie in the more recent TG the young actresses portrayal is quite good and is far more substantive to the plot of the film than Mr. Thornberry appears to allow.
PJ| 12.23.10 @ 8:34AM
I also saw the original last night once again. Yes John Wayne is a Rooster Cogburn. He deserved the Academy Award.
I also noticed in the setting & dialog that this version represented to me a side of the American psyche that is no longer shown in films: civility even towards one's enemies (ie, the conversation between Cogburn & Ned Pepper).
I will see the new version for comparison & it would be interesting to see the Coens brothers' interpretation of the book. I liked the book & I generally like the Coens brothers work.
I also find it interesting the new version has a PG rating not an R. For a Coens' film--------highly unusual! Are we as a society so numbed from extreme violence that hangings on film is viewed as a no big ado? Kind of reminds me of the Roman circuses with all its bloody entertainment.
Vjay| 2.21.11 @ 7:29PM
I saw the film and loved it. Mattie is incredible, the dialogue is fascinating. Ansel Adams insisted when he willed his collection of negatives to the University if Arizona, that students be allowed to makemtheir own interpretations of his work by printing from his negatives. Trained as a classical musician, he felt his negatives were like the composer's music, to be interpreted by the performer. As an interpretation, the Coens hit it out of the park and that girl is a national treasure...or did you prefer Lindsey Lohan in Prairie Home Companion, instead? Duh.
Hilary| 12.23.10 @ 8:37AM
Not seen this remake yet but my family and I watched the 1969 film last night and cheered and laughed and enjoyed it every-bit as much as when I saw it in the theater when I was 12. LOVE John Wayne.
RH Williams| 12.23.10 @ 8:43AM
Great, great, movie. No need for comparison.
Chris| 12.23.10 @ 8:46AM
Thanks Larry, I almost wasted $20 on this. I guess I just wanted to see if they could pull it off. I'll just go rent the original.
Janis| 12.23.10 @ 8:58AM
Hollywood today does not have an original idea. Even when they remake a movie they do not add anything new to it.
Seek| 12.23.10 @ 11:05AM
Oh, yes. Movies like "Inception" were all the rage way back in the "Golden Age." Get thee to a multiplex and see how absurd you really are.
Ray| 12.23.10 @ 11:31AM
A "multiplex?" Man, are you behind the times! Ever hear of streaming?
chester arthur| 12.24.10 @ 9:54PM
Inception is all the rage among those without any knowledge of the world away from hollywood 'imagination'.After seeing the trailer for 'Grit lite',Damon's weird posturing made me miss Glen Campbell's acting.Jeff Bridges,an actor I usually like,just seems to be channeling an older version of his stiff acting in Wild Bill a few years ago.It just doesn't look promising,or worth going to a theatre to see.
Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 5:05PM
Dear Seek:
May I offer in refutation two film classics:
"Things to Come" Screenplay by HG Wells (1936) and "Metropolis" by Fritz Lang (1927).
These films could be compared to "Inception" in vision, easily.
Note, no ad hominem. Ball in your court.
NavyBrat | 12.23.10 @ 9:35AM
Haven't seen this yet, but I will when it comes out on pay-per-view. I HATE going to movie theaters. However, even though I haven't seen it yet, I'm thinking that NO ONE can beat The Duke as "Rooster." I think Bridges is a pretty decent actor, but he's no Duke. And I like ONE Cohen brothers movie. "No Country for Old Men."
I hate that Hollywood does these re-makes. There have been some pretty good original modern westerns in the past couple of years. "3:10 to Yuma" & "Appaloosa" come to mind. And of course there's the AWESOME "Unforgiven" by Eastwood.
I will know the world has ended when they re-make "The Magnificent Seven." There aren't seven dudes in Hollywood with brass ones big enough to EVER do a remake of that movie ANY justice.
L. Ross| 12.23.10 @ 11:05AM
For what it is worth, "The Magnificent Seven" is a remake of "Seven Samurai" by Akira Kurosawa. So, depending upon your perspective, you may wish to prepare for the impending apocalypse.
Ray| 12.23.10 @ 11:34AM
It's not a "remake." It was an American adaptation. I've seen both films and the only similarities between the two is that there were 7 hired killers defending a poor "rural" village and that the hired men showed the villagers how to defend themselves.
Stuart Koehl| 12.23.10 @ 2:48PM
For what it's worth, "Seven Samurai" was inspired by American Westerns. Imitation is the sincerest form of cinema.
Occam's Tool| 12.23.10 @ 3:10PM
Yes, Kurosawa is the most Western of Japanese directors. "Last Man Standing" is a remake of "Yojimbo."
chris | 12.24.10 @ 3:08AM
I believe "A Fistful of Dollars" is as well.
Occam's Tool| 12.23.10 @ 11:48AM
I think I'll go see this film. One, I don't have much else to do tonight---the wife and kids are visiting the in laws in 'Bama, and I'm here in Minnesota. Two, I thought Miller's Crossing was quite awesome, and liked Fargo. Three, the movie theatre where I live has great popcorn, free refills on large sizes, and unlimited butter. Three is probably the operative reason. I just like movie theatres, like I like old bookstores. And this is an excuse. Merry Christmas, everybody!
Bob Grant| 12.23.10 @ 1:57PM
Nah, you're better off watching a classic...any classic!
Occam's Tool| 12.23.10 @ 3:15PM
The popcorn is Damn Good.
Bob Grant| 12.23.10 @ 3:19PM
You might want to enjoy it before Michelle makes it illegal.
InLineFour| 12.23.10 @ 4:12PM
You're from MN and you took no offense to Fargo? You never say "geez - yah.."? I've been to Fargo, and the Twin Cities, and I heard locals talk like that, though not nearly to the Coen's ridiculous extreme.
Fargo was much better on network tv, with most of the expletives and cursing overdubbed, and the worst of the gratuitous gore missing. Made all that "geez - yah?" more enjoyable.
Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 3:50PM
Not a native. Watched Fargo once. Uff-ta. My Garsh. (My social worker talks like that. She is incredibly good at her job. My wife has a strong Bama accent. She's smarter than anyone blogging here.) I had been on 24 hr call 20 straight days. My bed was better than a movie theatre seat at first. Maybe today.
Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 3:50PM
Not a native. Watched Fargo once. Uff-ta. My Garsh. (My social worker talks like that. She is incredibly good at her job. My wife has a strong Bama accent. She's smarter than anyone blogging here.) I had been on 24 hr call 20 straight days. My bed was better than a movie theatre seat at first. Maybe today.
Forester| 12.23.10 @ 12:40PM
Actually, the recent "3:10 to Yuma" was a remake of a 1957 Glen Ford film:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050086/
Occam's Tool| 12.23.10 @ 3:15PM
From a screenplay by Elmore Leonard!
Cpm| 12.23.10 @ 11:43PM
I think there were about 4 sequels to the Mag Seven back in the sixties and they just flat out paled in comparison.
pete the mediocre| 12.24.10 @ 10:40AM
3:10 to Yuma was also a remake.
Beboper| 12.26.10 @ 3:17AM
The Crowe/Bale '3:10' was a remake of a Glenn Ford/Van Heflin classic which, in its day, broke new ground in the Western genre. This is another one that need not have been remade excet that it keeps the bucks rolling in for established faces.
I also loathe Hollywierd's attempts to cash in on remaking anything that ever created a past entertainment media memory. These modern, money hungry weasels are totally bereft of creativity and imagination of their own. It's amazing these geniuses can't do with hundreds of millions what past masters did with threadbare budgets.
Sadly, some of the most promising modern ideas are those that ridicule these HW lib production types.
jrp61356| 12.26.10 @ 8:12PM
FYI, "3:10 to Yuma" was a re-make. Originial was done in 1957, starring Glenn Ford and Van Heflin. Haven't seen either one so I won't make a judgment call about which one is better.
SierraBear| 12.27.10 @ 10:51AM
NavyBrat is arriving at the party a bit late as well as uninformed. The last time I checked, 3:10 to Yuma was an excellent black and white picture that starred Van Heflin and Glenn Ford. The contemporary release of this film I could not endure much more than five minutes. I agree with those who contend that originality is an element found absent in Hollywood filmmaking today. I’ll keep my money in my shoe on this one just the same.
mames| 12.23.10 @ 9:47AM
There are only so many themes in literature. The adventure is in the telling. The brothers Cohen are masters at stereotypical characters and story telling vacillating between comedy and dark drama. From their first, Blood Simple, to this new vehicle they have also proven their ability to do remakes as they did in Oh Brother Where Art Thou in the retelling of Homer. I liked Wayne too but lets be honest Wayne was always Wayne and never became a great actor. Bridges on the other hand is a great actor.
Stuart Koehl| 12.23.10 @ 2:51PM
"Blood Simple" (known as Blood Stupid in my family) was a terrible hash of a film. On the other hand, "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" is a classic in its own right. The Coens tend to be wildly uneven directors.
somnolence| 12.23.10 @ 9:56AM
The whole point is that Hollywood today is lacking , very lacking, in originality and imagination. I'm looking forward to watching old Johnny Carson clips from the 1950's this Christmas weekend in glorious black and white that I purchased at the local supermarket for $5.00. The last "new" movie I watched was "Descent" about four years ago. Sorry, I'm not bowled over by most writing of scripts or direction these days. They just increase the audio decibels and special effects for kids and the ADD crowd. And we haven't even touched on profanity and sexual connotations in nearly any production today you can name. The movies should be a means of escape, at least to me, and not a mirror reflection of the fecund shallowness all of us see every day anyway.
jrp61356| 12.26.10 @ 8:20PM
Absolutely correct! I have been of this same opiinon for a long time. Hollywood (both film and television) ran out of original ideas long ago. All that is left are pathetic remakes or stale, rehashed plots.
Dixie Pixie| 12.23.10 @ 10:18AM
Pray tell what is next.
A Michael Moore remake of "Spartacus"
A Jim Carrey stars in the "The Robe" complete with a Hip-Hop sidekick.
The Wachowski Brothers updates the "The Ten Commandments" with robots and laser cannons.
Or consider the final insult by the Hollywood Elite to be:
Ben Stiller as Captain Nathan Brittles in the remake of "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon".
Forester| 12.23.10 @ 12:43PM
==The Wachowski Brothers updates the "The Ten Commandments" with robots and laser cannons.==
Sad thing is I would actually pay to see that...
Stuart Koehl| 12.23.10 @ 2:52PM
A Michael Moore remake of Spartacus actually makes sense, given the crypto-Marxist theme of the movie. In fact, Bolshies of all stripes have loved Spartacus (the character and the story) going all the way back to the Jacobins of the French Revolution.
Dixie Pixie| 12.23.10 @ 9:10PM
Greetings Forester and Stuart
It is truly confusing when what one was thinking as satire turns out to be a documentary.
I think it is time to recheck the eggnog.
I think the Western genre reached perfection with "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon".
"True Grit" came close except for the miscasting of Glen Campbell.
Think of how much better the movie would be with Clint Eastwood, Jack Palance or even James Coburn in that role.
Hollywood should not mess with a cultural icon except as a comedic rework.
"Young Frankenstein" is the classic example.
Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 5:07PM
Dear Dixie:
"The Searchers" was better than "Yellow Ribbon." Keep in mind the latter had JOHN AGAR.
Phil| 12.27.10 @ 11:56AM
Dixie Pixie,
Re Campbell v. Eastwood, Palance, or Coburn, a small thought for your consideration: I believe one theme of the story is based on the contrast of a younger, somewhat more "idealistic "lawman (emphasis on the somewhat) v the "outlaw, for sale at the right price" lawman. I believe Campbell and Damon respectively were cast as younger & "cleaner" to play off against the Wayne/Bridges archetype. Eastwood, Palance, and Coburn were all too old, menacing and grizzled to fill that need.
Remakes are unobjectionable to me, especially when done for a reason. I think Ebert's review of this True Grit is dead on point, emphasizing as he does the new version hewing closer to the book, with Maddie as the focus, and played with more of an edge. And, as with many remakes, the improved production value can add something, as with the morerealistic costuming in the new TG.
Regards.
Phil
RustyG| 12.23.10 @ 10:33AM
Tough crowd today.
Like many posters above, I also grew up on the Duke and saw True Grit when I was 8 or 9. It made a lasting impression on me and I love the movie still today. I watched a little of it on cable a few months ago and was surprised to see that it was a young Dennis Hopper that got his fingers chopped off.
With that said..... I'll watch the new Grit when it comes out on DVD. Of course only after I say a few words for John Wayne and beg his forgiveness
Grampa Guy| 12.23.10 @ 10:42AM
Can Janeane Garafolo as Scarlet O'Hara be far behind? Will someone finally paint that moustache on Mona Lisa? Eminem sings Cole Porter? Why would a fine actor like Bridges sign up for a cruise on the Titanic? I know it is an archaic charge, but this is blasphemy.
L. Ross| 12.23.10 @ 10:53AM
I have had a soft spot in my heart for the Coen brothers ever since they made the funniest movie of all time, "Raising Arizona". They do a lot of hit or miss work, but "Fargo" is a damn good movie. "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou" is also a good time. I will Netflix their version of "True Grit".
Seek| 12.23.10 @ 11:08AM
A fellow Coenhead! I thought "A Serious Man," from last fall, also was a great film, deeply mature and insightful.
Ray| 12.23.10 @ 11:43AM
I loved "Raising Arizona" and "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou" but I wasn't too impressed with Fargo. I'm from Minnesota and we don't all talk like that, ya know.
I liked both "Grumpy Old Men" movies much more as they typify a rural Minnesotan.
Occam's Tool| 12.23.10 @ 11:50AM
Ray,
my wife, who's from 'Bama, hated "O Brother" for the VERY same reason---Southern sterotypes, as opposed to MN stereotypes. People keep on NOT mentioning Miller's Crossing, which was a faithful and awesome adaptation of "The Glass Key."
Ray| 12.23.10 @ 11:52AM
I haven't seen Miler's Crossing yet, but I'll add it to my DVD collection. Thank's for the suggestion
Stuart Koehl| 12.23.10 @ 2:54PM
My wife, grew up in Texas and whose family hails from the Carolinas and Tennesee, loved O Brother, Where Art Thou. She's a linguist, and knows how people talk.
As for the rest of the family, I keep telling them that I'm the paterfamilias, dammit, and my kids keep telling me that I ain't their daddy, their daddy got hit by a train.
Andrey Bolkonsky| 12.23.10 @ 8:54PM
I agree about the "awesome" part but I'm not sure how faithful the adaptation was. I haven't read Hammett's "The Glass Key" in ages but, if memory serves,(as the kids say, SPOILER ALERT, stop reading if you dont want MC completely spoiled) the main character (Tom Regan in MC, Paul Madvig in TGK) gets the girl in the end of the novel; more generally, everything's a bit darker but more fleshed out in MC than it is in TGK. Also, Hammett provides a solution to the murder which gets TGK going, whereas MC takes the focus completely off the initial murder and, in the end, leaves it up to the viewer to guess who killed Rug Daniels -- that is, if the viewer even remembers that the identity of Rug's murderer is still an issue. I think it had to have been Bernie who killed Rug, and that by film's end Tom knows this, but we're never explicitly told this is the case and it's easy to watch the film and totally forget about Rug.
But one reason MK is so "awesome" is that it's a *deeply* anti-intellectual film. Casper, with all his talk of "ethical questions" and "mental states" sounds like a University Professor. He's believes that in order to act one must have the answer to all kinds of abstract and (though he doesn't see it) ultimately meaningless questions. In reality though, because such questions are so abstract as to never touch the solid ground of action, Casper is just an out of control lunatic, a complete slave to his emotional states and "stomach churnings."
Tom, though he recognizes Casper's abstract thought for the nonsense that it is, still believes that in order to act one must always think first; as is said repeatedly in the film, Tom is "a thinker", However, rather than thinking about completely abstract matters, Tom believes that one must identify what one does and doesn't want to happen, and act on a theory that promotes the first and retards the second. (Think of the opening scene where he insists to Leo that everything must be done for a "reason") Among other things, by the film's end Tom has learned that it's in fact very hard to know what one wants; for example, he himself is never clear whether he's trying to break Leo and Verna up because of his loyalty to the former or his love for the latter. (Think of his reply to Verna when she pulls the gun on him; "What did I want?" He also learns (in the scene at Miller's Crossing) that sometimes one simply is incapable of doing what one's theory tells one to do; he ought to, by his own practical reasoning, kill Bernie, but he physically can't do it because at that point, as Bernie says, Tom's "not a killer". I would say he also learns that love and honor have no place in the mental life of a true utilitarian practical reasoner, but alot needs to be said to make that case.
Finally, of the three main characters in the film, Leo is clearly the most stable and content, and the most prone to act in a way that promotes his own well-being. And he, of course, isn't a thinker at all. (He even explicitly says this to Tom.) Leo acts calmly and coolly at almost all times. Contrast his successful window escape when Casper's men attack him at home with Tom's unsuccessful attempt to stop Bernie when he also jumps out a window. Leo acts with a sort of skillful intuition honed by experience, and I think the film is clearly making the point that intellectualism (the idea that everything needs to be thought out in words) is a pretty ridiculous doctrine and one not liable to lead to success action.
I dislike overly violent films and (for other reasons) completely stopped going to movies a few years ago, so I haven't seen anywhere near all of the Coens' films. However, they are in general deeply anti-intellectual (think John Goodman in "Barton Fink" and the crucial line he makes to John Torturo's pompous intellectual; "I'll show you the life of the mind.") So whatever the demerits of the Coen's they do at least have that one -- at least to my mind -- very important plus.
David| 12.23.10 @ 10:58AM
Having also just watched the Original for the first time a few days ago, I must say there were two things, that I found most interesting and striking, that I doubt survived into the remake, though I may see it to satisfy my curiosity.
The first was the smart writing and dialogue. The scene where little sister, has to sell and buy back her fathers ponies, or where she and Rooster talk about his family, or even where she meets with Duvalls character. They all had such smart and sharp dialogue that made the movie very entertaining. I doubt they would have survived this remake.
The second was all the Christianity heavily in play during the movie. It wasn’t just the bible quotes, but the fact that I remembered that yes back in the 19th century the bible was much in everyones minds, and that we were a very Christian people. That played out in word and deed, and when I watched the movie I felt like I had been swept back to that time, when 90 percent of people only had read the bible and there newspapers. That those thoughts and words and deeds were in them. I very much doubt this remake has that little scene where everyone starts talking about the type of churches they belonged too.
Cpm| 12.23.10 @ 11:37PM
Read the book. That's where the sharp dialogue came from.
Phil| 12.27.10 @ 12:00PM
David,
You will find both dimensions you value not just preserved, but enhanced, in the remake.
Phil
J.C.Eaton| 12.23.10 @ 11:17AM
Although I go to about 10 movies a month, I didn"t evidence this compulsive behavior early enough in life to include the original "True Grit." I have seen enough Coen Brothers" stuff to conclude that it is hit or miss. Like Peck's Bad Boy. Having said all that, I saw the current version last night....and was charmed. The young lady is masterful; the script was excellent; the sets were very good indeed. The whole two hours was well-invested. I agree that Hollywood is living off reprise these days, but as things go, this was a very good movie.
Harry Mac| 12.26.10 @ 7:15PM
Agree completely. It's an excellent movie, well worth the time and money. It's excellence takes nothing away from the original. Larry Thornberry is a whining wet blanket who apparently thinks everything old is by definition better and thus can't take pleasure in good new things that are right in front of him. He needs to call a tree surgeon to extract his head from his nether regions.
It is a grittier True Grit than the original. The Mattie here is better than Kim Darby. LeBoef is better here. Tom Chaney is better here. Jeff Bridges is outstanding, even if his eye patch is on the other eye. These are frontier lawmen on the trail for days to weeks at a time. In the original, they remain clean and clean shaven the entire time. In this one, they look like they've been on the trail for two weeks. Damon is far superior as LeBoef to Glen Campbell, and is very amusing as well. Josh Brolin plays Tom Shane to perfection. The the archaic forms of speech are very funny. When the Ned Pepper gang leaves Chaney with Mattie he says "I must consider how I can improve my position." It sounds stupid written here, but promise you, it's hilarious on screen.
Mr. Thornberry should cheer up. Who else in Hollywood is making movies as amusing and thoughtful and morally serious as the Coen Brothers?
Ray| 12.23.10 @ 11:39AM
I haven't seen the "new" movie yet, so I can't make any judgments about how good, or bad, it really is.
Like so many others, I'll wait until it comes out on DVD before I watch it. I didn't spend hundreds of dollars on a 42 inch wide screen TV just so I can watch Wheel of Fortune in High Def, you know.
Havoc| 12.23.10 @ 11:42AM
I am a Coen Brothers, John Wayne, and "True Grit" fan. Include Jeff Bridges/Lebowski in that ... saw the new "True Grit" last night and thought it an improvement on the original. The original cast Glen Campbell as "Texas Ranger LaBoeuf" (sp?) ... whose acting was marginal. I find the new "Mattie" more endearing than the old ...
Go see it. You will like it.
Bob Grant| 12.23.10 @ 12:18PM
I agree with him about Grit. Absolutely no need for a remake.
What's next, a remake of Patton?...never mind, there isn't a current male actor with sufficient alpha-genes to pull it off. That probably wouldn't prevent a movie maker, however, from re-creating Patton as more of a beta-type character so the vast, vast majority of males could relate.
I disagree strongly about Fargo. That was a great movie. Believe it or not, it had a message. The last scene where Marge is in bed with her hubby counting their blessings for what they have is one of the most tender moments you'll ever see on film.
BackToBasics| 12.23.10 @ 6:15PM
I agree with your first two comments about "True Grit" and "Patton". I cannot really disagree with you on your third comment about "Fargo" since you were the one touched in that way. When I was watching it, I was still feeling revulsion from prior scenes at what's already been called gratuitous gore or violence so I did not get that sense. Maybe the contrast from earlier scenes provoked the tender feelings for you and some others but I was not over the revulsion at that point so I could not enjoy it that way.
One of the characteristics I see in "True Grit" and many older movies until about 1972 - 1974 is the ability to tell a story, even a sad or heavy one, without having to expose EVERY NEGATIVE aspect of the realistic-point being made. Some movies have everyone in the theater driving away at 2/3 of the speed limit for 2 or 3 miles before they snap out of it. I actually saw that happen when leaving the theater after watching "Das Boot" in about 1981 and "Fargo in about 1998." I thought "Das Boot" was much better. It showed the reality of the horrors of war for sure but without the total drill-downs into the lowest forms of human psychosis and bloody gore. Subtlety doesn't seem to have much of a place in many of these "realistic" portrayals in Hollywood. The older films had much more subtlety and this gave them a lighter touch.
On top of that conservatives and Christians are almost always portrayed as buffoons, selfish, angry, greedy, stupid, etc. So, I don't see many movies these days at the theaters; actually I haven;t seen oine in a theater in 9 years.
One of my most favorite tender scenes in a movie is in "Witness' when the 2 chracters played by Ford and MC Gillis kiss for the first time near the end of the movie.
Bob Grant| 12.23.10 @ 8:29PM
I normally would agree, however, with respect to Fargo I felt the contrasts of personalities and associated morals against the backdrop of the dreariness of the snow was effective.
I felt the criminals and the plotting husband were the stupid ones.
The police officers and other locals were wooden to the extreme, but definitely not stupid. As a matter of fact, these salt-of-the-earth types were as decent and moral as could be; Even more impressive considering the harsh environment in which they lived.
BackToBasics| 12.24.10 @ 12:06AM
I see your points but I still like the lighter approach. And yes the snow..... I used to live near the Great Lakes and have seem much of it myself but the vast open expanses of it in the ND prairie was another site altogether . For me it was dreary scenery upon dreary characters. The cops were the only lighter touch but for me it was not enough though they perfromed admirably under the circumstances as you said.
One thing for me that distinguishes such a film from a realistic war movie is that in war, the people are working together for a cause, though often horrific, even though the external circumstances of the war force it on them. They are most often forced into such circumstances.
It is different than watching the actions in a movie of a few sick people with no greater purpose than to get a few measley thousands or ten thousands in their pocket.
The comments about portrayals of Christians and conservatives by Hollywood was an aside and not related to "Fargo" itself. I just mentioned it in passing and for me it makes watching many films less enjoyable although I can turn a blind eye somewhat to the extraneous "put-downs" and enjoy the rest of the movie if it is good enough. But the best movies don't fall for such cliches.
Tom in Michigan| 12.23.10 @ 12:32PM
I' m generally a Coen brothers fan but, did not care for "No Country for Old Men" one bit so, I'm prepared take on this new version of one of my all-time favorite movies (despite Glen Campell's almost unbearable "acting." My brother and I were just discussing the lamentable Hollywood habit of the time of including second-rate singers, has-been football players and the like in unlikely roles epitomized by people like Campbell, Jim Brown, etc.) and, will take for what it's worth. I like the Coen brothers' "ensemble" of acters including Jeff Bridges as well.
As for "Fargo" and as a northerner myself, I laughed at the characters in the same way I laugh at our state's "Yooper" comics. I didn't feel like they were being mocked (though, any state that elected Al Franken as a "Senator" probably deserves some mocking) as much as satirized. I mean, we pick on ourselves here for some of the same accents. Besides, Francis McDormand and William H. Macy were brilliant in their roles.
Duke would have probably been OK with the remake as well (unlike most leftists, a solid conservative like him could laugh at himself), I reckon (there's that accent on full display) so, I'll see it.
Amor de Cosmos| 12.23.10 @ 1:42PM
Agree on "Fargo". Margie Gunderson is not a dolt, she is a Midwesterner. She has good values, character, and industry. Like most in the Midwest, she operates on the axiom that folks are presumed good until proven otherwise. Her musing at the end of the film about the craziness of everything that has happened all "for a little bit of money" is an indichtment of the loss of values and perspective of the malefactors in the film.
Phil| 12.27.10 @ 12:17PM
Tom,
I am guessing you will like, if not prefer, this remake. The best aspects of the original are preserved, and the lesser are improved. I love John Wayne, but in the original (especially given the timing), we were watching John Wayne on the screen, and secondarily seeing the character of Rooster Cogburn. Bridges allows the Cogburn of the book to be on the screen, and brings more of the essence of the book to the party.
BTW, on a completely tangential point, Jim Brown was no "has-been football player" when he began appearing in films, merely a retired one. He led the NFL in rushing in his last year, leaving on top at the age of 30 when Art Modell would not permit him to report late to training camp to allow for wrapping final shooting of The Dirty Dozen. He was cast in that movie while still active, having led the league in rushing for the prior 3 years (and 8 of the last 9). Doesn't mitigate your basic point, but couldn't let your slur on my favorite football player go unaddressed. And, yes, he was a lousy actor and should have never been on screen (except for the Dirty Dozen, a completely undemanding role).
Regards,
Phil
Margie| 12.23.10 @ 12:48PM
Eric Cartman: Mr. Scrooge, why don't you just move to another country where you think you would be happier? The USA was based on Christianity, regardless of what the president says. It is because he doesn't know the history of our country. But, anyway, I hope you have a MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Sid Vicious| 12.23.10 @ 1:48PM
I'm not about to subsidize the lifestyles of smirking, narcissistic, pugilistic punks by paying to watch their moves. Here's looking at YOU, Josh Brolin.
Anita in Idaho| 12.23.10 @ 2:45PM
I don't think Mattie's character was meant to be endearing. If I remember right, she was kind of annoying in the book, too; I'll know for sure after I read True Grit again over the weekend. I know two things the remake won't have: Strother Martin and a score by Elmer Bernstein.
Steve A| 12.23.10 @ 3:09PM
Bob Grant, I think Obama could pull off the remake of Goerge C. in Patton; I can see the opening scene in my mind. Obama, looking like Dukakis in the steel helmet; in place of the American Flag as the backdrop you have the gay pride banner. Obama; "Ah, men, ah, we are going to run through those opposing forces (Hun Bastards) like stimulus $$ flows through Congress (crap through a goose). We are going to grease the wheels of our tanks like I had to grease palms to get the health care law passed." Now, you know how I feel. Pleas join me in the gay / lesbnian function center for tea & cookies after the meeting.
Occam's Tool| 12.23.10 @ 3:13PM
Jon Voight could do Patton.
Bob Grant| 12.23.10 @ 3:38PM
I love the smell of KY in the morning...
Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 3:54PM
Didn't Voight already do Patton in "An American Carol?"
Jon Voight is quite Conservative.
DANSHANTEAL| 12.23.10 @ 4:16PM
WE WATCHED HALF LAST NITE AND THE OTHER TONITE. GREAT FILM. WHY GIVE IT TO TWO BOZOS.
gene hauber| 12.23.10 @ 4:29PM
TO ALL RESPONDERS HERE"WHEN PURPLEGUY ENTERS THE DISCUSSION.........SHUN HIM, DO NOT RESPOND.
LET HIM GO TO HUFFPOST.
THANX.
Bob Grant| 12.23.10 @ 8:19PM
I agree! He got way too much response on the Barbour piece from otherwise intelligent posters.
Aged Cheddar| 12.23.10 @ 6:01PM
Saw the Coen brothers' remake of True Grit the day it opened and the 1969, John Wayne televised version the same evening. Loved both.
Wayne's role in the original movie won him his only Academy Award, and rightfully so. His portrayal of Rooster Cogburn is classic Wayne and classic western. The Jeff Bridges character certainly takes nothing away from Wayne.
I'll wager there is an Oscar waiting for Hailee Steinfeld for her work in the Coen brothers' version; the first time out for Ms. Steinfeld. It seems she was born to do this part. She was a joy to watch.
What sets the 2010 remake apart is both the "true grittiness" of Bridges' Cogburn - I could almost smell the bad breath and body odor - and the absence of the overpowering Glen Campbell sophomoric musical score that assaults your ears from the start. The Coens also have a talent for truly engaging their audience, as we saw especially in Fargo and No Country for Old Men. The audience reaction in the theater I was in was obvious, in both laughter and groans (the outhouse scene).
Seldom do modern films measure up to their admission price, but the Coen brothers' True Grit is a bargain. You may want to see this one twice.
PJ| 12.23.10 @ 9:47PM
Thanks for the review! I guess one has to be a Coen Brothers fan to want to see the new version & I am.
robert curry| 12.24.10 @ 12:00PM
See the movie. See it for yourself, don't let Grouchy cause you to miss out.
(I like the Coen brothers' work exceedingly, love the Western above all other film genres, and I am very grateful to the Coen brothers--again.)
mark| 12.26.10 @ 12:43PM
Disappointed, to put it mildly. Wayne had mastered the art of the "subtle reaction." Bridges just looked dull, as though he wasn't really taking it in. The young lady's character is too quiet, and too wordsy; one can't hardly understand her. Highlights? The cabin scene, and the one man stabbing the other; excellent, and gritty. The scene where Rooster shoots the outlaws at the cabin is good, also.
I can't say this is an improvement, overall. It lacked the beautiful western feel of the original. The scene where Cogburn (played by Bridges) runs Mattie back to the doc is awful. It just doesn't work.
Gunbarreldiplomat| 12.23.10 @ 6:34PM
The remake is a great movie. I am a die-hard Wayne fan, and have long considered the original TG one of my favorite Westerns. The remake tops it, IMO. Bridges' interpretation of Cogburn is his own, and stands on its own. The remake's acting, script (the dialogue was very true-to-period), cinematography, costumes (much truer to period than those in the original), makeup, etc. were all some of the best I've ever seen in a Western (though the '92 Unforgiven comes close). The Coens strayed from the original is a few significant ways, especially with their more detailed development of the individual character personalities and interpersonal relationships among Cogburn, LaBoeuf and Ross--this slowed the pace of the remake down, and is one aspect of the movie that could be off-putting for those viewers who might seek the faster-moving action of the original--though the action packed into the last 20 minutes more than make up for it. Even with the Oscar for the original TG, Wayne was never a great actor, but he could always carry every scene he acted in. Bridges' Cogburn doesn't use his Winchester long gun in the epic "Fill your hands..." scene, which was a small disappointment, as were a few other nitpicky details in the remake; but I predict this movie will stand as one of the best movies of the year, and will earn Bridges (and maybe even Steinfeld) an Oscar nomination, which doesn't mean as much today as it use to. See this movie!
Cpm| 12.23.10 @ 11:29PM
Remember, this isn't a remake of the first movie, it is a new look at the original novel. Even in the Wayne film he braggs about a charge into a standoff using two Colt Navy revolvers.
Gunbarreldiplomat@gmail.com| 12.24.10 @ 12:58AM
Cpm: Actually, it's both a remake and a new look at the novel. I remember the bragg about the two Colt Navys, but, interestingly, neither Wayne in the original, nor Bridges in the remake used two Colt Navy revolvers in the "Fill your hands..." scenes. I'll have to look more closely at my next viewing, but I'm pretty sure at least one of Bridges' revolvers was a Colt Army model.
Cpm| 12.24.10 @ 4:36PM
The Navy was .36 caliber and the Army was .44 caliber, principly, in the cap and ball percussion revolvers like Mattie's dad's Colt Dragoon, not to be confused with the later Single Action Army model used in countless westerns. Thanks.
Oklahoma| 12.23.10 @ 8:16PM
True Grit took place in an area I've lived in most of my life and when the first film was released in the late 1960's I looked forward to seeing it. I was immediately disappointed and I'm a big John Wayne and Henry Hathaway fan. The terrain in Colorado, California or Mexico isn't anything like Arkansas or Oklahoma and the structures and clothing wasn't authentic. It didn't matter how good the acting or script was because the location ruined it for me.
As a general rule any movie true to a book is better than the "Hollywood" version. The Wayne-Hathaway film was a typical Hollywood western that left a lot to be desired.
bunkerbill| 12.23.10 @ 8:40PM
You're as bad as any liberal movie reviewer, judging a movie by the politics of those involved rather than by what's on the screen. Shame on you.
Seek| 12.24.10 @ 11:54AM
And culture war conservatives don't do exactly the same thing?
bunkerbill| 12.24.10 @ 2:18PM
"And culture war conservatives don't do exactly the same thing?"
I think that's what I said.
Seek| 12.24.10 @ 2:52PM
Perhaps you have a problem reading between the lines. Clearly, culture war conservatives do have a problem similar to that of the Left-- viewing culture almost solely through a political lens. In the end, it's a trait as self-limiting as it is irritating.
Margie| 12.23.10 @ 8:54PM
FYI: I did not post any of the posts, except this one, in this thread today.
Not that anyone cares.
Just sayin' though.
And I happen to like Eric's posts anyhow.
Good evening.
Cpm| 12.23.10 @ 11:20PM
Talk about "sneering contempt". What a stupid review. There have been very few Coen brothers movies that haven't been very good, even if they weren't your little tiny cup of tea. Even if I didn't like some of the actors like Tim Robbins or George Clooney, or in this, Maatt Daamon and Josh Brolin, I knew that the Coens would take me somewhere interesting and memorable and usually very funny. I just watched the John Wayne version last night, and I'm eager to see what the Coens do with the novel. I read it in my youth before the first movie came out and never envisioned Wayne in the role, so I'm ready for anything. Don't try to pass yourself off as a movie critic and then trash the Coen brothers, there is zero credibility in that.
DLS| 12.24.10 @ 12:02AM
Only four words: YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!
MarkJ| 12.24.10 @ 10:41AM
I'm already waiting for a YouTube mashup of this movie. How about "True Lebowski" for starters? "Darkness washed over The Dude...because he was wearing his patch on the wrong eye."
Norman Conquest| 12.24.10 @ 11:31AM
You know Larry Thornberry, being a conservative doesn't mean that you have to hate everything in popular culture. The Coen Brothers have made some of the most original and interesting films of the last 20-odd years. Someone with your obvious lack of taste and perspicacity really shouldn't review movies.
da monk| 12.24.10 @ 12:10PM
Did all you John Wayne hero worshipers ever consider the fact that John Wayne was a draft dodger and never served in the service during WW II, though he was of draft age. The only battle he fought was in the movies. So why the adulation?
Cpm| 12.24.10 @ 4:41PM
Wayne tried to get John Ford to use his connections with the military to get him in the service but Ford purposely never acted on it. He probably would not have passed the physical in any case.
da monk| 12.24.10 @ 5:29PM
Please supply facts about Wayne's asking John Ford to get him into the service.
chester arthur| 12.24.10 @ 10:15PM
I read that story about Wayne asking Ford for help enlisting,too.Wayne was a college football player who blew out a knee pretty badly.That was one reason he walked so strangely in his movies.It also was why he started working as a propman on movie lots,which led to the rest.The Army wasn't much interested in people without the ability to run and jump into the next foxhole,especially over the age of 30 during the war years.The effort to use Ford to get him in is in the biography of Ford I read a couple of months ago.Sorry,but I can't recall who wrote it.
John| 12.24.10 @ 7:06PM
Well, I take no backseat to any J0hn Wayne fan; the original True Grit was not his best; "The Quiet Man" better by far. The new True Grit is a great movie. The balance between the characters is much better portrayed; and the fact that it is Mattie who really displays "True Grit" comes through loud and clear. Watch this Hallie Stienfield; she's a comer.
pohknee| 12.25.10 @ 5:55AM
I like both actors, Wayne and Bridges. I also think I will enjoy both movies, the original and the remake. Incidentally, I usually go to libraries that have more than several copies of just one book. Maybe I am looking at the question wrong?
Long Ben| 12.25.10 @ 11:59AM
Watched the new Grit Dec 24. Liked it ok . Really liked the sound track , most of which was single piano ( in an empty hall , or so it seemed ) playing a lovely old hymn Leaning on the Everlasting Arms . It was hauntingly beautiful . The Duke worked on movies at a time when happy endings were more or less a requirement . Although I suspect the new Grit adheres more closely with the book , having read a snippet of the book in a book reading list in AMSPEC last year , the opening narration sounded like that very snippet . Personally I prefered the Dukes " well come see a fat old man " ending , to the thought that such a pretty child ended up a haggard and one armed spinster . Also the locations in Texas and New Mexico looked more like Indian Territory in the new Grit , than did the Wyoming or Montana of the Old Grit , no such vistas or elevations in Oklahoma . Mr Bridges Cogburn did rather sound like he had a mouth full of mush , or tobacco , but I never saw him spit much .
michigander_sandusky| 12.25.10 @ 7:25PM
The young "Mexican Bob" wasn't "a patch to the original Mexican Bob." The same is true with the new Rooster vs. the original.
Ginger| 12.26.10 @ 2:32PM
I don't think I've ever seen a remake of a movie that could compare with the original. Wish someone would tell that to Hollyweird.
I might watch the new True Grit if it ever shows up on tv. That's if my husband would even turn it on. We're both John Wayne fans & my husband even sounds a lot like him. (Something people are always telling him.) Saw some previews & was not very impressed, especially with Mattie.
Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 5:10PM
The book is available on Amazon.
albert constantine jr.| 12.26.10 @ 8:38PM
For what it's worth, my teenage son saw True Grit on 122310. Also at the theater was the VPOTUS and his entourage. Among the many fine things that I can say about the Duke's version, it now occurs to me that yet another fine feature of that film was that when it was made in 1969, Biden was still too young to run for the Senate, much less be VP.
Mark| 12.27.10 @ 12:29AM
This review couldn't be more wrong.
The casting was perfect and the updated personalities of the characters was believable and integrated well. Scenary was spectacular, special effects perfect.
Hailie Steinfield and Jeff Bridges will get Oscars if the voting is fair. A big if.
HALOMan| 12.27.10 @ 9:03AM
Jeff Bridges will always be "The Dude, or Duderino, or His Dudeness, if you're not into the whole brevity thing". But, he will NEVER be the Duke, or the Rooster.
Natural Born Texican| 12.27.10 @ 4:13PM
Saw the movie on Christmas day. Was quite skeptical about a remake because I love the original. However, I found it pretty good, basically because they didn't try to follow the original movie too closely. Jeff Bridges? Wasn't overly fond or his portrayal. The ranger? Not too bad. Matty was excellant. That young actress portrayed as much spunk and fearlessness as the original, but in her own original way.
The best elements of the movie were the aspects of the story that were NOT highlited in the original, such as Mattie loosing her arm due to the snake bite. It was an intriguing movie but I probably won't be compelled to watch it over and over again like I have done with the original.
After all, there is only one "Duke" and they broke the mold when they made him!!!!!!!!!!!