Posted on 02/11/2012 7:35:30 PM PST by WilliamIII
The two versions of "True Grit" are like Athens, Greece, and Athens, Georgia: They've got the same name, but they're in totally different worlds. Yet for all their differences, both Westerns found plenty of fans and got plenty of Oscar attention. John Wayne was named Best Actor for the 1969 original, and the 2010 remake, directed by the Coen brothers, competes for 10 Oscars on Feb. 27, including Best Picture and Best Director. So which movie is better? Take a look at these comparisons and decide which version you think is the truest … and the grittiest.
(Excerpt) Read more at today.msnbc.msn.com ...
However, the "Grit" in the novel - which is still required reading in many middle or high school classes - is 90% the grit of a fourteen-year-old Mattie Ross. One of the quirky things about the novel is the formal manner in which Ross speaks (for example, never using a contraction).
The 1969 version of True Grit was the best John Wayne movie. It failed (miserably) as an adaptation of the novel True Grit (Kim Darby as a fourteen year-old girl? And don't get me started on Glen Campbell's acting; even Campbell jokes about how bad he was).
The Coen Brothers version was a much better version of the novel True Grit.
So how to you want to compare them? As John Wayne movies, the 1969 version is clearly the best. As movies overall, the 1969 version still has the hearts of those who saw it as adolescents or young adults. As movies overall, without the nostalgia? Coen Brothers.
If you didn't know who John Wayne was and you were a fan of the novel? The Coen Brothers film wins. If you didn't know who John Wayne was and you simply wanted the better movie? The Coen Brothers film wins, in my opinion.
1969 True Grit has John Wayne and nostalgia going for it. And it borrowed the name of a novel, the general plot, and the names of some characters. And the Academy, which had overlooked Wayne throughout his career, saw a chance to give him a lifetime achievement award by giving him an Oscar for his performance in the film.
What?...... no pepper?
At this m0ment I am yelling into the kitchen....... we need grits this morning!
Yoda? You, it is?
yes, you’re right of course. If I’d been thinking, I would have remembered seeing it too long ago to be in this year’s picks. Thanks for being kind in your correction unlike so many.
“Name isn’t Jimmy James, is it?”
At the least, maybe one of the Blue Flames?
I give the edge to the Coen Bros. version. Both are good films, and The Duke is always The Duke. IMHO, though, the acting of the supporting cast in the original was very hit-and-miss.
“I can’t think of a film in which I prefer the remake to the original.”
The remake of “Dawn of the Dead” was far superior to the original, but otherwise I agree with you; I’m hard pressed to think of another remake that outshone the original.
Saved the yoots lives, didn’t it!
Judging from some of the Hollywood movies I've seen, Perry Miller would be far beyond the intellectual capability of most screenwriters.
A few years ago, I saw a film entitled "Swing Kids," which was about teenagers growing up in Nazi Germany. It might have been a great film had the screenwriters been more competent. For one thing, they had the Polish crisis if 1939 come before the Munich crisis--which is like having the Battle of Fort Sumter come before Dred Scott vs. Sandford.
The first one is one of my least favorite John Wayne movies, he’s great but pretty much everybody else stinks. The second one is a great movie all the way around.
God Bless You, Duke Wayne. He is/was 100% right, BTW.
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.