True Grit

[Simaril]

Some movies just shouldn't be remade. They hit the perfect pitch, perfect director, perfect cast. Anything you do with them is just bound to fail.

Like "High Noon." Can't be topped.
Or "Psycho" - they tried, but even with the same script it was a pale image of the original.

And I'm afraid "True Grit" is pushing it. Not that John Wayne was a masterful actor - but he had some chops, and in the right role he rose to excellence. Wayne was in the zone for this one, and his interaction with Kim Darby (who pulled off the difficult job of being beyond spunky while being both believable and not annoying) will be tough to match.

Add in Robert Duvall and the always creepy Dennis Hopper - well, the Coens have a tough row to hoe.

As said above, though, even if it falls short it will still be better than most of what comes out of Hollywood.

[maddafinga]

Some movies just shouldn't be remade. They hit the perfect pitch, perfect director, perfect cast. Anything you do with them is just bound to fail.

Like "High Noon." Can't be topped.
Or "Psycho" - they tried, but even with the same script it was a pale image of the original.

And I'm afraid "True Grit" is pushing it. Not that John Wayne was a masterful actor - but he had some chops, and in the right role he rose to excellence. Wayne was in the zone for this one, and his interaction with Kim Darby (who pulled off the difficult job of being beyond spunky while being both believable and not annoying) will be tough to match.

Add in Robert Duvall and the always creepy Dennis Hopper - well, the Coens have a tough row to hoe.

As said above, though, even if it falls short it will still be better than most of what comes out of Hollywood.

I know where you're coming from here, but this is the Cohens we're talking about too, keep that in mind.  Have you seen the trailers?  Bridges looks fantastic as Cogburn, just perfect. 

[Rash]

Have a hunch a few Academy Awards will be handed out for this movie.

[rogwar]

I understand it's more like the original book.

Who has read the book?


It's worth a read.

[jimson]

Any new western that has a chance to be decent is something on my list to see.

As much as I hate Matt Damon, I'll hold my nose and watch it anyway.

[DREDIOCK]

Some movies just shouldn't be remade. They hit the perfect pitch, perfect director, perfect cast. Anything you do with them is just bound to fail.

Like "High Noon." Can't be topped.
Or "Psycho" - they tried, but even with the same script it was a pale image of the original.

And I'm afraid "True Grit" is pushing it. Not that John Wayne was a masterful actor - but he had some chops, and in the right role he rose to excellence. Wayne was in the zone for this one, and his interaction with Kim Darby (who pulled off the difficult job of being beyond spunky while being both believable and not annoying) will be tough to match.

Add in Robert Duvall and the always creepy Dennis Hopper - well, the Coens have a tough row to hoe.

As said above, though, even if it falls short it will still be better than most of what comes out of Hollywood.

As much as I hate to see a classic movie remade because they rarely ever live up to the originals. This one at least looks interesting BUT
I think a better justice to the movie would have been made if they used Duvall as Rooster. Duvall being the bad guy in the original.
Sam Elliot might not have been a bad choice either. But I still would have preferred Duvall

[shiv]

Just reread the book, so funny.   Charles Portis is great,  Dog of the South and Norwood both real fun too.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

As much as I hate to see a classic movie remade because they rarely ever live up to the originals. This one at least looks interesting BUT
I think a better justice to the movie would have been made if they used Duvall as Rooster. Duvall being the bad guy in the original.
Sam Elliot might not have been a bad choice either. But I still would have preferred Duvall

Sam Elliot might just be the only living actor that could pull that one off. Although an interesting thought just came to me. Clint Eastwood could probably do it if he wanted to, especially now that he really does look older and somewhat grizzled. Of course, that'd probably have John Wayne spinning in his grave. He actually wanted to work with Eastwood until Eastwood made "High Plains Drifter", which Wayne thought was an evil movie.


John Wayne was a far better actor than most give him credit for. The biggest problem with John Wayne is that the man himself became so much larger than life, no matter what he did, you could not help seeing the character as John Wayne. But if you look closely, he and the character often become one, he has a lot more range than he was given credit for. Of course, being John Wayne, he was type cast as the larger than life leading man, and as such, he was pretty much stuck with making the character into what the public wanted. The fact that he was still in the top five drawing actors for years after his death means that he actually reached the people who buy movie tickets, and that's what it is all about, not making a bunch of stuck up critics swoon. Critics don't pay the bills, ticket buying fans do.

Like most extremely popular actors, especially the legends, it's more acceptable and expected among the elites to be extremely critical of them than it is to give them due credit. It did not help that John Wayne took an extremely conservative and pro America stance when that was very unpopular. He was also unfairly branded as a chicken hawk for not serving in World War II, while few know that the studio threatened to take everything he owned if he risked serving, and even fewer know that he wrote several letters to his friend John Ford begging Ford to help him get into the armed forces, the Navy in particular, as Ford had serious pull with the Navy. Ford refused him, and Wayne never understood that.

[maddafinga]

Sam Elliot might just be the only living actor that could pull that one off. Although an interesting thought just came to me. Clint Eastwood could probably do it if he wanted to, especially now that he really does look older and somewhat grizzled. Of course, that'd probably have John Wayne spinning in his grave. He actually wanted to work with Eastwood until Eastwood made "High Plains Drifter", which Wayne thought was an evil movie.


John Wayne was a far better actor than most give him credit for. The biggest problem with John Wayne is that the man himself became so much larger than life, no matter what he did, you could not help seeing the character as John Wayne. But if you look closely, he and the character often become one, he has a lot more range than he was given credit for. Of course, being John Wayne, he was type cast as the larger than life leading man, and as such, he was pretty much stuck with making the character into what the public wanted. The fact that he was still in the top five drawing actors for years after his death means that he actually reached the people who buy movie tickets, and that's what it is all about, not making a bunch of stuck up critics swoon. Critics don't pay the bills, ticket buying fans do.

Like most extremely popular actors, especially the legends, it's more acceptable and expected among the elites to be extremely critical of them than it is to give them due credit. It did not help that John Wayne took an extremely conservative and pro America stance when that was very unpopular. He was also unfairly branded as a chicken hawk for not serving in World War II, while few know that the studio threatened to take everything he owned if he risked serving, and even fewer know that he wrote several letters to his friend John Ford begging Ford to help him get into the armed forces, the Navy in particular, as Ford had serious pull with the Navy. Ford refused him, and Wayne never understood that.

I've always loved him and thought he was a fine actor.  The Shootist is one of my all time favs and he was just perfect in it in every way.

Watch the extended trailers with Bridges in this though Virgil, he looks great.  Nobody is saying he'll be better, just different and excellent in a slightly different way.

[DREDIOCK]

Actually. as good as I thought true grit was. I think he did an even better overall job in its sequal "Rooster Cogburn" I think he and Hepburn played off each other brilliantly.

[Rash]

John had little feet for his stature.

[rogwar]

Great movie. We just got back. Does not even qualify to be classed as a remake in my opinion.

Much more like the novel by Charles Portis.

That novel would be a great gift for a young person. It's a good read for anybody.

[redman555]

I saw it last night, was actually fairly good.  Was kinda a western action/comedy.

-BigBOBCH

[Simaril]

Just saw it.

Find myself surprised how the same story can be told with two very different feels, different outcomes almost. Not surprisingly, the Coens' version is less direct and more shaded, with ambiguities that just weren't there in the almost escapist original.

The balance was clearly tilted towards the pursuers from the moment the casting was done - while John Wayne was counterbalanced (and at times overshadowed) by Dennis Hopper and Robert Duvall, the new version's bad guys had nowhere near the presence of Jeff Bridges.

And the entire theme of the story felt different: While True Grit 1969 played out like a traditional heroic quest, True Grit 2010 seemed to reflect the opening statement - that "everything has its price, except the grace of God."

Not often I see a movie that I just know I'll be thinking about for days....but this is one.

[maddafinga]

Just saw it.

Find myself surprised how the same story can be told with two very different feels, different outcomes almost. Not surprisingly, the Coens' version is less direct and more shaded, with ambiguities that just weren't there in the almost escapist original.

The balance was clearly tilted towards the pursuers from the moment the casting was done - while John Wayne was counterbalanced (and at times overshadowed) by Dennis Hopper and Robert Duvall, the new version's bad guys had nowhere near the presence of Jeff Bridges.

And the entire theme of the story felt different: While True Grit 1969 played out like a traditional heroic quest, True Grit 2010 seemed to reflect the opening statement - that "everything has its price, except the grace of God."

Not often I see a movie that I just know I'll be thinking about for days....but this is one.

I watched it Christmas eve and loved it, unsurprisingly.  Bridges was so good that you sort of just forget how good he is through it.  I really really loved Barry Pepper in it too, his bad guy was fantastic, almost wish there had been more of him in it.  I plan to see it again tomorrow with my brother.  It's one that bears analyzing I think for sure.  I didn't expect too awful much similarity to the original, but it was really only vaguely similar.  One of the best westerns I've seen, and an excellent movie.  There's a reason why the Cohens are my favorites, they're just too good at writing and directing.