TRUE GRIT.....New one is aweful.

[badguybuster]

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.

 

[bishopm14]

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.

 

[samwood]

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.

 

[badguybuster]

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.

 

[Wyatt Burp]

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.

 

[samwood]

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

 

[seagill]

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.

 

[Marshwheeling]

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.

 

[Wyatt Burp]

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.

 

[Faulkner]

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.

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.

 

[laney566]

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.

 

[Wyatt Burp]

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.

 

[doakster]

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

 

[calmex]

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.

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.

 

[Marshwheeling]

Why another remake? I think remakes disrespect the original....

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.

 

[JamesArthur60]

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

 

[aphelion]

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.

 

[Faulkner]

Why another remake? I think remakes disrespect the original....

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.

 

[mjr]

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

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.

 

[redlevel]

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.

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.