I watched the Cohen Brothers movie before Christmas and it was ok-nothing to scream about but ok. I had never watched the original. Saw the original last night and it was ok-nothing to scream about but ok.
Which one was better? The Cohen Brothers version.
Although it WAS cool seeing a young Robert Duval as Ned Pepper.

__________________
Forum consigliere

Saw it last night, really liked most of it but it towards the end my excitement faded. It was different than most movies I have seen lately so that was a big plus, but the ending was kinda lame. I still enjoyed it more than all the action movies out now with all the computerized special effects.

The Cohen Brothers are really good at their characters they put in their movies. Some are some really strange dudes.

The New True Grit was pretty good movie, not great, but pretty good entertainment.

Rule 303

New was better, although no one can upstage the Duke!

__________________
Run Fast, Bite Hard!

John Wayne was a good character, but he sucked at acting.

Tip of the hat to the new version.

A big +1 to the new version. Saw the original last night, and wasn't impressed. Never been a big Wayne fan anyway (PLEASE be gentle, Duke fans!) and this one was no different. Hopefully, the book will be better than both movie versions.

__________________
MARK

I also saw the new version last night. I liked it and now I will revisit the Duke's version.

But much better than Glen Campbell! After several threads regarding the new one, been trying to see it, but have not done so. As usual, it will probably be on Netflix before I do!

I thought the shows about equal...the new one being quite predictable..as I've seen the old version about 100 times since 1969 or 70 when it came out.

The new movie was slightly different in some details..but not greatly so. I enjoyed it ok...didn't regard the new 'True Grit' as spectacular.

Maybe they will make a new version of 'Big Jake'..or some of the Clint Eastwood spagetti's....

I think the Coen brothers have made some of the better films the last several years--this being one of them. Certainly no one can replace the Duke, and they weren't trying to, but to tell the story slightly more in line with how it goes in the book. BTW, did anyone notice that Bridges wore his eyepatch on the opposite of where Wayne did? Any meaning there...?

Before True Grit, Glen Campbell had never acted in a movie...After True Grit his record was still unblimished.



yashua

I thought the new one was pretty good, the little girl in the new one was certainly better. The girl in the original irritates me to no end.

__________________
Dyin ain't much of a livin

I know I will be destroyed for saying this but...the new one is much, much better.

__________________
N.R.A. BENEFACTOR Member

+1

__________________
I drank what? - Socrates

I have both versions on dvd. I have to watch the second version again, but I think Rooster, who has his right eye patched in the second, still shoots his Winchester right handed. I'll check it out today for sure. Both are ok. Damen is definitely a better actor than Campbell.

I agree, I really like John Wayne, and all, but the Cohen brothers' version is a much better movie, IMO. Better acting, better cinematography, better story telling, and typical good Cohen brothers 'mood/style.'

In a lot of JW movies, he is a bit of a caricature of himself, overwhelming the movie itself. You gotta love the spirit of that whole thing, but to me, it often was just a distraction in many of his movies. There are some of his films that were not this way, and very well done movies (the John Ford directed movies come to mind...).

I liked JW a lot in "The Searchers," great movie. But, for True Grit, if they are both on at the same time, I'll tune the chanel to the new one 1st.

__________________
NRA Life Member

for my .02 the old was better But then I've never cared for remakes.

Saw the new one a couple of weeks ago, it was good till he shot the horse and didn't care for the ending.

Is there not enough new screen plays and creative producers that we do not have to watch remakes? When do we get to see Charlie's "Mississippi Law Enforcement" movie?

Isn't that the truth! It seems that there is not much originality around Hollywood. Though I watch them, it seems most of the movies coming out are either remakes or movie versions of comic books. Or maybe it is just that I'm not interested in the others...

__________________
Proud anachronism

Great fan-made video set to Johnny Cash's "God's gonna cut you down".

‪2010 True Grit Music Video-God's Gonna Cut You Down By Johnny Cash‬‏ - YouTube

This may be my favorite Coen brothers movie.

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

I liked the newer version better for authenticity. The actors were always dirty and unshaven, just like in the real world. However there were somethings that got my goat. First off every guns was brand new and shiny, not like the guns that were actually used in the west. The knives were the same, all shiney and new and poorly researched as these were not produced till after the 1920's. According to a horse person the saddles were wrong for the time frame. I have no idea where Maddie got that bucket. It sure wasnt on the horses when the rode into camp. And why didnt Rooster stop and get an extra horse for Maddie after she was snake bit, they rode within feet of Ned Peppers horse, they sure could have gone much further on 2 horses.

I saw it for the second time this weekend on DVD and wondered the same thing about nabbing Ned Pepper's horse. Of course, it is just a movie.

__________________
- Change it back -

May John Wayne's ghost forgive many of you...

That's the way it is in Charles Portis' book and both movies played it that way - Little Blackie takes one for the team.

Maybe Rooster doubted Mattie's ability to hold on for a hard ride once the snake venom got into her system. The scene served the purpose of showing the high regard Rooster had for Mattie at that point.

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

I like the fact that John Wayne played John Wayne in the original, because I'm a great fan of ol' Duke and it was enjoyable seeing him basically play himself.

I do think the re-make was very well done. An irony I noticed is that Barry Pepper played Ned Pepper...

I think the gal that played Mattie in the second version did an outstanding job - particularly her first big scene where she did some shrewd bargaining and expert rationalization. She was totally convincing, unusual in someone of her age.

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

COMMIE!!! ; )

Talking smack about Big John is akin to smacking your granny. The original True Grit was filmed close to my home and many people got to meet the actors. A resteraunt that Wayne frequented while shooting has two photo's of Wayne. The first is him in full Rooster Cogburn guise. The ajoining photo is him exiting the resteraunt in Burmuda shorts, plaid Hawaiian shirt, straw cabanna hat, cowboy boots, sunglasses, sipping a softdrink from a straw. Just aint right.

I have read the book, saw the Hathaway version and then the Cohen version. In that order. If you ask me, both movies got it wrong. The true saddle blazing person with any kind of grit would be Mattie all the way. The novel portrays this, however neither movie does. Both movies were too busy kicking that dead horse of any other Hollywood western. I would enjoy another version of the movie that didn't down play Mattie and portray her as the main character of the movie.



Keep it, it's only 2 cents.

__________________
Cheers -Jeff

I am a fan of the Cohen brothers and would not have seen the remake if it had not been made by them. I like the original, but like the new one a bit better for all of the reasons that have been stated by others here that like it too. I do like the "new" Mattie much more.

"John Wayne was a good character, but he sucked at acting."



Next you'll say Trigger couldn't really do all those tricks!

Watched both and have to agree, the newer version is better written and has much better supporting actors. Campbell and Darby were awful in the original, and Bridges just didn't cut the muster in the remake. He does a lousy job coming across as a rough tough marshal and his forced deep gravelly voice sounded like something from a high school play. If there was any way to dub Wayne into to the remake instead of Bridges, it would really be a western movie worth watching.

I liked Wayne better in the old version but really liked the story and characters better in the newer.
Wayne was Wayne and he was not an actor, he was simply hisownself.
Blessings

__________________
TEXAS, by GOD

I like the new version better...

__________________
"Shall not be infringed"

I liked the new version better after the second viewing. I tried not to compare too much and just enjoy each one. Just like the three versions of Stagecoach and the two versions of Red River.

__________________
Richard Gillespie
FBINA 102

A movie is not a book. If it is based on a book, fine. But it stands on its own. Between the two, I prefer the first movie. Shiny knives... buckets, etc. don't bother me. When it comes to the characters, I simply can't take the new actors seriously.

__________________
<><

The really difficult thing for me was to imagine "The Dude" ( Bridges' character in The Big Lebowski) as "The Duke".

The book is better than either versions of the movie, which is usually the case.

I agree with several of you in one respect,John Wayne is an AMERICAN ICON,No one can say "Fill your hands you son of a bitch"like he did.Several of my friends asked me to go with them to see the new version but I refused.You cannot improve on John Wayne's performance in any movie!!Bridges playing John Wayne is like saying Tiny Tim was a better singer than Elvis. Just my 2 cents.