Posted on 10/03/2011 9:53:58 PM PDT by mirkwood
I just watched the remake of True Grit and I was disapointed to say the least. The kid did well, but the whole movie seemed to be a lukewarmed version of the original. This movie had all the stuff, just like a c on a term paper. Blah. When you watch the original you get involved in the movie. This is a sad satire of a classic.
I pretty much agree with your opinions of the movie, I also saw the original at a movie house...the new one is much much closer to the actual book (which is a small volume and a pretty quick read)...and that video at the link is truly hilarious!!!
You don’t have to be sorry. Everyone to their own tastes.
That is a wonderful story, and for that I thank you. But....................................................................................When you remake a classic you should at least give a damn and not change the actual story line. I am pretty sure you need to be reported to attackwatch. It is for my own good.
Huh? Sorry... I don’t get the question.
I rarely watch any movie made in the last 20 years, but was pleasantly surprised. However, I watched it for what is was, not constantly comparing it to another movie from another age.
Sorry. The Dude ain't the Duke. It seemed like Bridges&Company were going through their paces. It was reported that no primary player watched the original version. I find that hard to believe. Besides, Wayne was more charming and likable as Rooster. Gritty realism doesn't make for a more entertaining movie either. And entertainment is what movies are all about. The Coen’s like to make dark, off beat, artsy fartsy films. They succeeded with TG 2010.
I hear the book was better than either movie. A masterpiece. Has anyone read it?
The day after my family saw the new True Grit...they were playing the old John Wayne one on cable. My brother was watching it....I walked in and watched it for awhile and my brother said.....”Boy, they are saying the exact same lines....and the scenes are just the same.” I noticed the same similarities (albeit-limited time) and was “shocked” because I read how “different” it was going to be.
Oh well there you have it.
The “remake” as you call it was based on the novel which is different that John Wayne’s version. I own both moves on DVD.
She was the lone star of the movie. Bridges sucked and I effing hate Matt Damon. And I don’t believe what the Coen Bros. actually said they “have never seen the original movie” ...
I fell asleep several times through the movie. There was too much superficial dialog. Jeff Bridges’ salt of the earth accent was too heavy and hard to follow. The original with John Wayne was far more entertaining.
Other way around. To my amazement, the new movie completely eclipsed the old. Horses for courses.
IMHO, the latest version was far better than the version with John Wayne. It is much, much closer to the book.
Kim Darby’s performance was nowhere near the one delivered by Hailee Steinfeld.
They may have stated that but they didn't follow the book, up to a point they did but when the Ranger split from them was NOT from the book, neither were many other things in the movie. The original was more true to the book than this frickin' phony a**ed remake. The biggest deviation in the original was where the Ranger died and at the end where Rooster showed up and talked to the girl.
It was more realistic. They used period garb and talked like they actually talked at that time.
Do not, instead of Dont, Can not, instead of cant. etc.
But, nobody can beat the Duke.
The kid was a total robot.
If you watch the two films - one after another - you will notice that almost half of the kid’s dialogue is removed. Why? Because she could not handle it. Kim Darby - whatever her failings - was a young adult and was able to shoulder tons of exposition and dialogue. She was a trained actress (although I am still not overly fond of her performance, she’s Duse compared to the other one) and the kid was just used as stunt casting. (Hey! I’ve got an idea! Let’s use a 14 year old to play a 14 year old.)
Her one accomplishment is that she appeared to be a very good horsewoman.
When Pepper gave Rooster the 5 minutes to go over the top of that hill. And when Rooster shoots in the air, you see the shot and then the report later. In the old movies you would see the shot and the report at the same time.
Way more realistic than the old one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.