I saw the new True Grit movie tonight and it is aweful. The acting was appalling and the story didnt jive like the original. It didnt seem to have any cohesiveness. Some of it was just plain ridiculous. You just have to see it to understand but make it a rental. The original is still king.

__________________
Dyin ain't much of a livin

Good thing about movies, there's something for everybody. Saw it this afternoon, and loved it. John Wayne was in lots of good movies, but he was a poor actor. Not everything he did is golden. I've seen two remakes of JW movies, Red River and True Grit, and so far the remakes are batting 1000.

I own a copy of the original. I just saw the remake this afternoon.

I agree with bishop that the new one is a much better movie. The acting, particularly the parts of Matty Ross and the Texas Ranger, is far superior relative to the original. I thought Jeff Bridges portrayal of Rooster Cogburn was different and somewhat better than John Wayne's.

I don't agree that John Wayne was a poor actor; I thought he was quite good in many movies such as "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance", "The Searchers", "The Shootist", "The Quiet Man", and "The Cowboys".

I think that the new "True Grit" is probably the best movie I've seen in 2010 and would recommend it to others. This is just my opinion and I don't expect others to agree.

I think it is worth seeing on the big screen and I'll buy the DVD when it is released. I doubt that I'll ever bother watching the original version again.

Egads!! Were you drunk?? (I'm kidding of course). I thought the acting was appalling in the new one.. They made both men out as ridiculous fools.

__________________
Dyin ain't much of a livin

John Wayne did act good in the movies SamWood mentioned above. But the thing is he made a bunch of movies that were tailer made vehicles for him where he seemed to play the same guy. Chisum, War Wagon, The Camancheros (barf!), The Undefeated, The Train Robbers, and El Dorado. Three of those I still love to watch.
The old True Grit had a pretty sanitized look to it. It might be the way they made westerns in the 60's but Sam Pekinpah made The Wild Bunch the same time as True Grit. Now, that was the start of gritty westerns right there. Dirty, ruthless, bloody, and fatalistic.

I hadn't had too many drinks yet. The movie started at noon.

Haven't seen it yet, I'll probably wait for netfix to get it. The folks on this forum seem to love it or hate it. Thanks for your opinion.

The Coen brothers haven't made a bad movie yet. I have been a fan of Jeff Bridges since Rancho Deluxe ("Dog. Bob Dog."). They say this one is pretty true to the book, unlike the John Wayne version. What's not to like?

I'm looking forward to it.

Any guy who can play the president then turn around and play The Dude is alright in my book. Rancho Deluxe is one of my faves. I had to special order it a long time ago.

To compare the John Wayne version of True Grit to the new version is actually somewhat off base. The John Wayne version is a loose portrayal of the story from the original book by Charles Portis. Basically, they used the basic characters from the book and did there own thing with the storyline. The new version is more of an adaptation of the storyline in the book, and in the book they actually were kind of portrayed as ridiculous fools.

Specifically, one of the things the Cohen brothers wanted to do was utilize the 19th century dialog from the book in the new movie. I have my great, great, grandfather's journal from that era and they talked and wrote differently back then. Reports are that the new Mattie Ross pulled off the original dialog spectacularly.

So, in my opinion, the appropriate comparison should be how well did the new movie reflect the "feel" and storyline from the book, not compare it to the Duke's version. Of course, to do this you actually have to read the book and since most of you haven't done that all you can do is bemoan the fact that it's not like John Wayne's version which it wasn't supposed to be like anyway.

__________________
- Change it back -

Why another remake? I think remakes disrespect the original....
Imagine a new Dirty Harry!!!!!! Or man with no name!!!!
I think they need to come up with an original idea!!!! And quit screwing around with the classics so that these conversations weren't even necessary.
John Wayne acted like John Wayne...He was the best choice to star in a John Wayne movie be it a Western or War flick....Or even a romance. The quiet man was a great movie.

They are making a remake of Dirty Harry with Sean Penn. But he won't use a gun. He'll just talk politics to the bad guys and they shoot themselves rather than listen to him.

The movie is based on the book not the old movie. So to understand this you have to read the Book, heheheheheeee

I know what you're thinkin', punk.

Did I hug six trees or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, I kind of lost count myself....

But seein' as this is my serious immitation of Hugo Chavez and could make you bite your tongue clean off....


Actually, you know, I think I'll give that one a miss.

So, does Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet disrespect Sir Laurence Olivier more than Mel Gibson's does? What about the Ethan Hawke version? Was there ever a Laertes more tightly-wound than Liev Schreiber?

There aren't that many original plots. I think the Greek dramatists said it was something like six, or nine. Everybody is telling and re-telling the same stories. If nothing else, the original and the remake will make for a great double feature.

Is Chin Lee or the cat, General Sterling Price in the remake movie?

We saw the new one yesterday. We enjoyed it. Contrary to reports, the storyline is very similar to the original movie. Many of the shots are even set up the same way. The Coen brothers' movies are usually a little quirky in some way, but this one was played straight. It seemed like a homage sometimes. The main difference in the movie to the original is the way they handled the ending.

I like both versions.

The original True Grit is one of my favorite westerns of all time and the final shootout is an all time John Wayne classic. But I just don't see how the new version is any way disrespectful of the original or the Duke . . . he won an Academy Award for his role, it's not like they can take that away from him.

If there is any disrespect to the Duke to be considered, it was the follow movie Rooster Cogburn with Katherine Hepburn. He did a self inflicted shot in the foot with that one.

__________________
- Change it back -

Chin Lee makes a brief appearance. No cat, as I recall. And the great "You can't serve papers on a rat" scene is conspicuously missing. And the Original Greaser Bob is for unknown reasons transformed into some guy called Doc.

I'll go along with this assessment. The guy who played Lucky Ned Pepper could have almost passed for Robert Duvall.

I am a huge John Wayne fan, and do not go to movies. I went to this one because my daughter wanted me to go with her. The girl who played the Mattie Ross character should win the Best Actress Oscar. I didn't like Bridges' portrayal of Rooster as well as I did the Duke, but he did pretty good, and it really isn't fair to make that comparison. It was a good movie. I will probably go see it again.

__________________
Georgia On My Mind

Holy @%&*! I'm dyin' of laughter here!
There might of been a bunch of cats with all that meat hanging around Rooster's "bed". And I could have sworn he called a guy "Greaser Bob" as opposed to the original Mexican Bob in the first one.
Chin Lee smoked opium, too. And Jeff Bridges' Colt had a later model cylinder pin release instead of the screw! That's the stuff I notice that get's my wife's eyes rolling.

We saw it yesterday. I thought it was much better than the original and a great film. It actually was like the book instead of a rewrite for John Wayne.

The Dude? I'm pretty sure Sean Penn played Spicoli?

__________________
Thirty characters. Exactly...

I haven't read JW's biography in many years, but as I remember things, Duke was having money problems at the time and would do most anything to make a buck. He made mostly horrible movies as well as maybe a half dozen films that are true acting classics.

Odd as it sounds, my favorite JW movie is "In Harm's Way". It portrayed him as a man rather than a Superman.

John Wayne was a huge movie star, and he made some movies that we all love. But he wasn't that great an actor.

I saw True Grit two days ago, and considered going again today. It was an excellent movie.

The Coen Brothers' films are the only ones that I HAVE to go to at the theater, and this one certainly didn't disappoint, although it contained none of the offbeat weirdness that most of their films have.

As far as their films go, though, "O Brother.." is still my favorite, and "Raising Arizona" is still #2.

I highly recommend "True Grit" to anyone who likes a good western.

I'll be willing to bet that you went to see it expecting to dislike it.

Good one......Dude.

__________________
Dum vivo cano

When I'm on my buddy's old Criss Craft on the American River near the junction with the Sacramento river here we always pass the dilapitated and usually half sunk river boat used by John Wayne in Blood Alley. It's kind of sad really.
I'm never bored watching a Coen Brothers movie. Look at The Man Who Wasn't There. The main character is the last person you'd expect as the focal point of a movie. But it works. and it's a fresh idea. I like how in Raising Arizona Nicholas Cage is always taking off his shoe and examining it when he's talking to people. It's just a quirk that is never explained and doesn't have to be. I like stuff like that.

Across all the forums that I'm a member of, this was the first negative posting regarding the movie, and I really can't see that it was this terrible as it is made out to be here... I can see maybe some of the guys picking apart the details or a scene here or there, but to say the whole this was "aweful" could be appropriate if we examine the word...

Let's break it down..."awe", meaning an overwhelming feeling of reverence, admiration, fear, etc., produced by that which is grand, sublime, extremely powerful, or the like: in awe of god; in awe of great political figures.

And "ful", or "full", is a suffix meaning “full of,” “characterized by” (shameful; beautiful; careful; thoughtful ); “tending to,” “able to” ( wakeful; harmful ); “as much as will fill” ( spoonful ).

SO put them together, and to my analytical mind, this means that badguybuster is "full of an overwhelming feeling of reverence" or the like about this movie. Or his spellcheck is broken, I'm not really sure...

I don't think Sean actually "played" Spicoli, it seemed more like the character was more of a sort of biographical prequel of sorts...

I just watched the Coen bros. remake this evening, never having seen the original. I'm not much of a movie fan, in general, or Westerns, in particular, but predictably, the Coens did not disappoint --- this was a thoroughly entertaining flick, and the actress portraying Matty Ross surely ought to be an awards candidate.

I bought the book at a garage sale when I was still in elementary school and read, and re-read it several times. At the time I really didnt know who John Wayne was until during the school's summer movie program I saw Big Jake (my favorite) and became a JW fan big time. I saw True Grit sometime later and can remember that is was one of my favorite JW movies, but having read the book I was somewhat disappointed it did not closely follow the book. It was close enough I still enjoyed the movie anyway. I guess that was the 1st in a long line of the movie doesnt do the book justice. If the movie is good enough I can live with that. I guess the thing that disappoints me the most in most cases is there is a part of the book I find really interesting that apparently is not so to producers. I have found the movie usually has something interesting the book doesnt have that evens things out. The shoot out scene with Robert Duvall is one that will me in the top of my favorites of all time.
John Wayne always was and always will be one of my most idolized heroes, I bawled the day I heard on the news he had died, but I idolized for what he stood for and his love of America more than I did for his acting. John Wayne did not act, he played his self in every movie he ever starred in. No actor before or since (IMHO) has ever done that and pulled it off.
I havent seen the remake yet, but plan to. I know I will enjoy it, but will not only look at from the perspective of the original, but the book as well...kind of a double edge sword.

I read the book in High School, IIRC., long before I saw the movie.

My recollection is that the original movie wasn't at ALL like the book.

The movie was written specifically for John Wayne, like so many of his movies were.

I tend to like his movies, but I don't think he's really much of an actor...compared to many others in the business.

That doesn't mean he didn't make some good movies: he made a LOT of good movies....but his character was pretty similar in a LOT of them.

I'm looking forward to seeing the re-make, because I like the Coen brother's work, for the most part.

My boy (13 yrs old) and I saw the new True Grit yesterday afternoon. We both liked it, if for no other reason than it was a good western. In that it's a Coen brothers effort it doesn't deliver the goods the same way mainstream movies do, but what the heck; guns, horseflesh and open country..what's not to like.

If you compare this film to another, or to a book your missing the point. Just sit down and enjoy your meal. If you want to watch a John Wayne movie go watch one, if you want to read a book, read one.
I ain't saying this to start an arguement but rather bring up the point that if you go to the movie with certain expectations you're probably gonna be disappointed. Me, I read the book years ago, and saw the old movie too, this ain't neither and ain't suppose to be. My boy hadn't read or seen either.
Merry Christmas to all.

__________________
R Gitz

The old trap is to compare it to the original movie and not the book. I haven't seen the remake but since it is a Coen bros. movie and follows the book closely I'm sure I'll like it a lot. People don't read enough and try to glean every bit of knowledge from TV, The History Channel or the movies.

"No Country for Old Men" was as close an adaption to the book of any movie I've seen and it was a Coen Bros. Another comes to mind not a Coen bros. was "Shelter Island". Very close to the book.

Well, there was that bearskin-wearing, tooth-collecting doctor who came out of nowhere, and who wasn't in the book or the first movie. He was a Coen original and pretty offbeat and weird.

Sorry, loved the movie, Jeff Bridges nailed the role, Hailee Steinfeld was much better than the original, and Matt Damon is definitely a better actor than Glen Campbell. Slightly different than the original, but John Wayne movies were never noted for following books or history very well!

Even The Duke had his lesser moments ...

That's right, it was kind of strange, and weirdly funny, too!

That movie was such a huge joke it would have destroyed a lesser popular actor's career.

well for all us die hard john wayne fans the duke would want us to remember him as he was not what some one else was in a movie

__________________
DEDUKE

I would think that John Wayne would want to be remembered for who he was, not a character he played in a movie... just my .02 worth.

He's been dead over 30 years, who cares what he'd want.

__________________
- Change it back -

Wait a minute! The guy with the bear head WASN'T in the book? That was the only part I really disliked in the movie. That part was pointless to me. I thought they put it in there because of the book.
The make-up person should get an oscar for this film. Those guys faces, especially Ned Pepper's, were weather beaten, cracked, and looked like a Rand McNally map. And that actor is really a smooth faced young fella. Remember the sniper in Private Ryan shooting the scoped Springfield left-handed? That's him. He also played an excellent Roger Maris.

I loved it and my wife even loved it and wants sto see it again.

The previews were bad enough to convince me there was no way I would ever pay to see the remake. Bridges looks to be as much a misfit for the lead role as Campbell did for the sidekick in the original. We'll know what the rest of the population thinks when we see how long it lasts in the theater and how quickly it appears on DVD and TV. I predict it will suffer a quick death.

Don't worry...the Coen brothers are planning a huge follow up with a remake of Dirty Harry with Alec Baldwin as the iconic Inspector Callahan...

__________________
Thirty characters. Exactly...

pretty hard words for a great american

__________________
DEDUKE

I read the book twice first 35 and then 30 years ago. I had forgot some of the details such as " shooting cornbread in a meadow " and the scene where Rooster corrects the two boys for being cruel to a tied up mule. Only thing missing was General Stering Price. " Who has not looked into the face of the devil and not seen their sly face? "

__________________
Ruby Ridge

I saw it the other day, and thought it was very good. Much more substance, and better acting, compared to the first one. I like John Wayne a lot, but many of his movies, including his version of True Grit, were very weak... Different strokes for different folks, but to me, there is no comparison, this was a good movie.

__________________
NRA Life Member