John Wayne's "True Grit" or Jeff Bridges' Version, Which Do You Like Better?

[Faulkner]

I think the Coen's version was better, but I couldn't pick between the two Cogburns. However, neither was, IMO, what the book made him out to be. First and foremost, both were 20 years older than the character in the book.

I also thought that Damon and the girl both nailed their parts in the Coen version, while the other version was off with Cambell and that other girl. And while the narrative of the Wayne version was more closely tied to the book, the cop out ending blew it. The changes to the narrative in the Coen movie had me scratching my head, as I didn't think the changes helped at all, so why make them?

Obviously, I am prejudice because I read the book.

I doubt many have read the book "True Grit" by Charles Portis. As a native Arkansan it's just about required reading for those interested in local lore. I agree that if you've read the book it gives you a different perspective on the movies.

If you are a John Wayne fan, and very few red blooded Americans aren't, then obviously the John Wayne version of True Grit is going to hit home with you. But that's what it is, the John Wayne-ized version of the story so as to give him top billing. In the original story, Rooster Cogburn is NOT the main character, Mattie Ross is. That doesn't discredit the movie in any way, but it did change the script so that the story line is different than the original. It's still just about my favorite John Wayne movie!

I thought the new version was awesome because Mattie Ross, being the main character in the story line, Hailee Steinfield did ten times better in the role than Kim Darby. Also, their is no denying the beauty of the Rocky Mountain landscape in the original movie, but fact is the new version was more true to the actual terrain of west Arkansas and the eastern "Indian Territory" that's now Oklahoma. Jeff Bridges was also more true to the role of Rooster than the Duke, but as mentioned above, both were actually too old for the role.

Spoiler alert . . . if the John Wayne version is you favorite then don't read the book, it'll ruin it for you. Think about it, have you ever read a book then they make a movie from it? They almost never get the movie right. That's because it's too hard to get the nuances of a written story into a 2 hour movie. Same here, I think the book True Grit is better than either of the movies.

 

[sigp220.45]

I read the book at least once a year - it is a true masterpiece.

In the book, Rooster is a short fat guy with a milky eye - no iconic eyepatch.

 

[the ringo kid]

Your loss, it's pretty good.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ill gladly accept that loss. NOBODY can do a role that Duke perfected.

 

[CajunBass]

I liked the remake better.

 

[emdfan]

I liked the remake better. I like the darker edge Jeff Bridges brings.

 

[shouldazagged]

I and the people I was with walked out of the Wayne version because Glen Campbell was so laughably awful, but I've seen snippets. I've seen bits of the Bridges version but not the whole flick.

That said, Bridges is a far better and more versatile actor than Wayne ever was and the bits of his "True Grit" I've seen looked quite good.

I didn't dislike Wayne, but he was an absolute master of playing John Wayne, and not much else. It worked wonderfully in some movies and not in others. It's like Sean Connery, whom I like--no matter what part he's playing, including a Lithuanian-born Russian navy submarine captain, he has the Scots accent and makes no effort to conceal it.

Wayne was always Duke.

Bridges is better.

Now I'll put on my Nomex gear and await the flaming.

 

[Smoke]

You're asking us to pick between two different movies that share a few similar plot points and characters.

Obviously, I am prejudice because I read the book.

Of the two I think the remake more closely followed the novel.

 

[Gulfecho]

You're asking us to pick between two different movies that share a few similar plot points and characters.



Of the two I think the remake more closely followed the novel.

The two Roosters had similar lines. Jeff Bridges delivered them in a more stoic fashion. John Wayne (which is a terrible name for a cowboy) " Shangri High Noon", was much more animated.
Charles Portis' novel favors the Cohen version. As I see it, many of the plot points had similarities the difference was the time period of the two films and the dark and the light each character brought to the screen, each compelling in their own right.

 

[meaneyedcatz]

Did you know there was a real Rooster Cogburn, Ned Pepper & others. They were from Yell county Arkansas and into the OK terr if I remember correctly.
It's worth a read.

 

[Gulfecho]

Did you know there was a real Rooster Cogburn, Ned Pepper & others. They were from Yell county Arkansas and into the OK terr if I remember correctly.
It's worth a read.

I did not know that. With brief research, here is what I came up with:

Arkansas newspaperman Charles Portis scattered in his True Grit novel bits and pieces of real Indian Territory lawmen and outlaws—John Franklin Cogburn, Deputy Reuben M. Fry, one-eyed Deputy Marshal Cal Whitson, Joseph Peppers (Lucky Ned), Joseph Spurling (Mattie’s grandfather) and Henry Starr’s bank robbing accomplice Frank Cheney (scar-faced Tom Chaney). Portis has asserted his iconic deputy marshal is a collage of different men, but a Rooster Cogburn really existed.

 

[the ringo kid]

Last night=AMC was showing the remake-I didnt know what it was at first as I caught the very tail end--Open Range was on next. I did not care for what I saw though I tried to with an open mind. Duke still and will always rule.

Besides--Bridges had the eye-patch on the wrong eye!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Didnt watch Open Range as it was getting late-and watched about 15 minutes of the hate news-before I switched on and watched another episode of: Daniel Boone.

 

[Big Cholla]

Ditto!

I and the people I was with walked out of the Wayne version because Glen Campbell was so laughably awful, but I've seen snippets. I've seen bits of the Bridges version but not the whole flick.

That said, Bridges is a far better and more versatile actor than Wayne ever was and the bits of his "True Grit" I've seen looked quite good.

I didn't dislike Wayne, but he was an absolute master of playing John Wayne, and not much else. It worked wonderfully in some movies and not in others. It's like Sean Connery, whom I like--no matter what part he's playing, including a Lithuanian-born Russian navy submarine captain, he has the Scots accent and makes no effort to conceal it.

Wayne was always Duke.

Bridges is better.

Now I'll put on my Nomex gear and await the flaming.

Shoulda: You won't get flamed from me. I was going to wait awhile and see what other had to say before stating my opinion. I'm glad I read all the posters before I opened my contribution, because you had already nailed exactly my position. Not to be too redundant, but IMHO JW was an expert in playing John Wayne. While Jeff Bridges is versatile ACTOR. The whole JB version was tighter cast, better directed and more realistic to me than the JW version. I don't care in the least that he wore the eye patch on the other eye. I do care that he was as was the entire cast believable in their roles. Jeff Bridges version is the best show and the best entertainment. ...............

 

[folkie johnson]

The original was the best despite Glen Campbell, I cannot stomach Damon for obvious reasons

I can't figure why they make a remakeof such classics.can you imagine if they made a re make of the shootist and the cowboys

 

[the ringo kid]

I can't figure why they make a remakeof such classics.can you imagine if they made a re make of the shootist and the cowboys

Some remakes are better than the originals like: The Maltese Falcon, Ben Hur, The Count of Monte Cristo, The Four Feathers, (A) remake of The Last of the Mohicans-not the one with what's his name in it that came out around 20 years ago-which I did like BTW, The Buccaneer, Three Godfathers etc. But most new attempts IMO-stink worse than skunk spray.

I AINT-going to watch the sick imitation ""remake""of The Magnificent Seven

 

[Cardboard_killer]

Besides--Bridges had the eye-patch on the wrong eye!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm pretty sure that Cogburn was blind in his right eye in the book, not the left, causing him to shoot his rifle as he does in the movie. But it's been a long time since I read the book, so might be wrong. Long since gave my copy away.

 

[sigp220.45]

I AINT-going to watch the sick imitation ""remake""of The Magnificent Seven

The "original" 1960 Magnificent Seven was a remake.

The first one was Seven Samurai, also a very good movie.

 

[HOUSTON RICK]

There is absolutely no comparison. I generally dislike remakes. John Wayne version is the ONLY True Grit movie. If you cannot make a new movie, stay home and write a script. Now they are making a politically correct revisionist Magnificent 7. No chance of me seeing that either. Yes the original magnificent 7 is very technically a remake of the seven samurai, but is not a remake in my book, and in this post I decide. Hollywood, no more of what I call remakes!

 

[A10]

Tried watching the Coen brothers version last night. Too wordy, not much action. Jeff Bridges was OK, but he's not the Duke.

 

[the ringo kid]

I'm pretty sure that Cogburn was blind in his right eye in the book, not the left, causing him to shoot his rifle as he does in the movie. But it's been a long time since I read the book, so might be wrong. Long since gave my copy away.

I dont know but, the new version w/ Bridges had crud for continuity. Switching eye-patch.

 

[the ringo kid]

I'm pretty sure that Cogburn was blind in his right eye in the book, not the left, causing him to shoot his rifle as he does in the movie. But it's been a long time since I read the book, so might be wrong. Long since gave my copy away.

The director musta been blind too, to allow eye-patch to switch to and fro.