True Grit, watched them both

[Dungannon Gunner]

First let me first say that I love the Duke and his old movies. However, I think the new True Grit is better than the old one.

WOW! What a great movie!

[Dusty Morningwood]

So far you are in the VAST majority.

[Barkeep Casey]

Loved it! I was looking forward to it, and it did not dissapoint!

[Spanish Bit Bobb]

Well Jeff Bridges did asked the Coen Bros.

why they would dare make a remake of Jon Wayne's True Grit movie.

They said they were not, they were

adapting the movie from the 1968 novel,

"True Grit", by Charles Portis (not the 1969 movie starring John Wayne).

"True Grit" is told through the eyes of 14 year old Mattie Ross,

who hires the tough marshall, Rooster Cogburn, (Jeff Bridges) to track down the man that killed her father.

[Poppy]

I saw the first showing at midnight the night before and really dig it.... RIP Mr. Wayne

[Clemsum]

Saw the new version yesterday. Liked it better than the other.

The John Wayne version was great but in the new version the locations, costumes and guns seemed a more accurate portrayal of the period than the earlier version.

Specially liked the new ending.

This is the first movie that I wanted to stay and see a second time, in a long time!

[Go West]

Watched the old one the night before last and saw the new one yesterday. Great movie. Lots of lines to use in this year's matches.

[1stSgt Fritz King, SASS #48070]

I enjoyed the movie, but my kids thought that I was disappointed. I wasn't.

 

I read the novel a few years ago, and really liked it. I knew that the Coen Brothers got it right when I saw the preview. You can see that the adult Mattie is missing her left arm as she walks away from the camera. I also like the fact that Jeff Bridges didn't try spin-cocking a large loop Winchester, which was a Duke trademark since Stagecoach. I liked the fact that Rooster still carried his "Navy Sixes" in pommel holsters, and he uses them to great effect in the fight with Ned Pepper's gang.

 

I guess it was a matter of, "did the movie have to be made?" So many people laughed at the lines in the theater that I wondered, "have you ever seen the original?"

[Marshal Max Henry]

This movie was amazing!!!! I loved Jeff Bridges.

[Good Hands SASS #8247]

I've read the book, have watched the 1969 version many times, and saw the new one last night. I enjoyed all three of them, and to pick a favorite would be difficult. I guess to answer the question about whether it needed to made or not, I'd have to say yes. It's a great, simple story that can be retold without losing or compromising the quality, and these guys did a good job. I was pleasantly surprised how the same dialogue and scenes could have such a different feel and impact. The only things I'd have changed in the new version would have been to have Roosters patch be on the left eye, it's hard to believe a guy shooting a rifle righthanded with a patch over his right eye, and LeBeofs hat. It's not that it might not have been period correct, I just don't like that style hat. And that's it, two nitpicks. Overall I thoroughly enjoyed it.

[Colonel Richard Dodge, SASS #1750]

I watched the old movie just before seeing the new one, so it was an interesting comparison. A bunch of The Cowboys are dressin' up cowboy and seeing it on Sunday. I've a mind to run a contest to see how many match DQs and gun goofs you can find. At least the guns are more correct. The eye patch on the right eye bothered me, too, but LeBeof's hat really was period correct, even to the double-buckle hat band. He did come across as a kind of dandy, didn't he? Great movie.

Col. Dodge

[Val Cano]

I missed the cat. It was sure funny when Rooster kicked those two kids off the porch. That wasn't in the original. Tom Chaney had a rope sling tied to his Henry rifle. The knot at the barrel end was tied below the magazine follower which would have prevented it from firing more than a couple of times. Little Deb commented that John Wayne always looked as though an 1892 Winchester was an extension of his body but Jeff Bridges was a bit clumsy with his 1873. But no one's perfect. They sure made Barry Pepper's (Ned Pepper's) teeth look awful and he constantly showered saliva while talking which was hilarious. The little shooting contest between Rooster and the Ranger was a real kick.

 

The movie was superbly acted and beautifully filmed. The casting was perfect. We thoroughly enjoyed it and had no reservations about calling it a masterpiece. The little gal that played Mattie should get some votes for best actress. This is right near the top of the best Western films ever made. I sure wish the Coen brothers would film "Brules" which IMHO is the finest Western novel yet written.

[Horsekiller Al]

This movie held more true to the book. I love the language. The period verbiage and the thick accents sometimes made it difficult to catch all that was being said. I think I'll see it again. I'm pretty sure there's a lot that I missed.

 

It was interesting to see the Mattie Ross grown into an old maid. The woman that played the 40 year old Mattie was pretty homely. However, the young lady that played the 14 year old Mattie was very attractive. I just couldn't see that 14 year old growing into homely old maid.

 

The lines, for the most part, were almost word for word. There was one exchange that they left out that I wish they hadn't.

 

John Wayne was describing Ned Pepper to (I think) Glenn Campbell. He says that he shot Ned in his lower lip. The Texas Ranger says "What were you shooting at?". John Wayne barks "His upper lip!".

 

It really is a great movie. As a Christmas break I took all of our engineering staff to the opening matinee Wednesday. 21 people raging from early 20's to early 50's; men women, black, white, Asian. Everyone said they thought it was a great movie. Now it could be that half a day off and a free movie and junk food would make anyone say it was a great movie but I think they all meant it and were happy to have seen it.

[Possum Skinner, SASS#60697]

Wow! Sounds great! When's it coming out on Blu-Ray?

 

Possum

[Henry McKenna #700L]

Nitpick? OK, I'll play too. GREAT observations about the rifle shooting with the patch and the rope tied to the Henry!

The SAAs in the movie were sporting the half moon ejector head that came along much later than the approximately 1880 time setting.

I did not like the way Jeff Bridges handled his firearms. His draw from the holster displayed significant unessessary movement. He is not as believeable playing a hardened warrior as John Wayne.

 

On the positive side of TRUE GRIT nitpicking, it is unrealistic for a 14 year old to be thrown back by the recoil of a Colt Dragoon (thus falling into a snake pit). Both the 1969 movie and the book expected us to believe just that, despite the fact that she had not been thrown back when she shot Cheney from the creek with the same pistol. The new movie presents us with Mattie firing a weapon of significantly more recoil at the end and, thus, it is at least MORE believable that she would lose her footing. I also liked the casting of Cheney in this new movie. The avuncular old man in the first movie just didnt cut it.

[Guest Sugah]

VERY good movie! Mattie Ross was amazing.....and she truly just turned 14 this month!

[Cowtown Scout, SASS #53540 L]

I went this evening and enjoyed this old west movie. Don't consider it a remake of the John Wayne movie, consider it a new version of the book. It was GREAT and a must see for all who love westerns. Also wore my range duds to the theater including my chaps, spurs, vest, badge, pocket watch, wild rag, and hat. This is a must see on the big screen, don't wait for the DVD.

[Captain Lee Bishop]

I agree with most of the above posts, I saw it today and loved it. I was able to remove John Wayne from the thought process in regards to comparisons very early on, as this film is much different from the original in almost every way.

[Josey Kidd]

saw it the other day with my kids, and as a person that thinks the Duke can never be replaced,..........the Dude delivered ! although I must admit, I missed Strother Martin as Stonehill.

[Big Jake1001]

I saw it and loved it too. In the 1969 movie, it seemed to me that Mr. Ross took his pistol off the wall, it was a Colt Walker.

Rooster looks at it and says "By God girl, that's a Colts Dragoon". In this picture they use a Colt Dragoon, not a Walker.

Both are large guns for sure, but this one has a loading lever latch under the barrel, whereas the Walker doesn't. Small details make a difference.

 

I loved the fact that they used Black Powder in all the guns and you can really tell how much better they sound when shooting.

Why did they hang that guy so high in the trees????

 

Big Jake

[Arcadia Outlaw, SASS 71385]

I saw the movie yesterday,I thought it was good ,I never read book ,I also thought it was pretty close to original movie,just some differences nuthin major though.

 

I thought scenery in first movie was great,this movie scenery very dreary.

 

 

I also liked ending of original better,this one was sad ,way girl ended up,old movie you just used your imagination.

 

 

Definetly a good movie I'd watched again & buy dvd.

 

 

 

 

Regards AO

[Guest Hoss Carpenter, SASS Life 7843]

I saw it on the 24th in GA with my Son in Law. I too loved it and will see it again. I loved the period correct weapons and the BP! Someone said the scenery was bleak. It was much closer to the Mts west of Fort Smith. In the first movie, the scenery was stunning, but nothing like that exists in Arkansas! it looks like the San Juans in SW CO.

 

Hoss Carpenter

[Henry McKenna #700L]

The original was filmed around Gunnison, Colorado. The new one was filmed in New Mexico and Texas.

[Packrat Ron]

Just saw the new movie, and thought it was great! As is the '69 version. I think its best not to compare them as they are both great movies. Now I need to get the book, and read it.

[Buck Rio, SASS #60154]

I just came back from the theater. It was very well done and I didn't have the sense of comparing it to the earlier version as I watched it.

 

The best thing was the girl who played Mattie Ross. In the earlier version I jusk couldn't make myself like her but this girl was very likeable while showing just as much grit. As a result, I cared more about what happened to her. She deserves an award (which is unlikely because the movie is a western).

 

Buck

[TXRanger]

Yep, the new one is better than the original. Tremendously entertaining dialog. I want to see it again and I hope that the Coen brothers "remake" more westerns!

[Jefro, SASS#69420]

Well I watched the original a couple of nights ago, really enjoyed it. I have said before that I never saw a remake of an original that I thought was worth a hill O' beans. I just got back from seeing the new True Grit.........and it was a good enough movie, at least it was a western. I knew what to expect from Jeff Bridges, his marbled mouth mumbling was easy to understand all the words. While I think it was a good enough movie, I would have much prefered something new, there's plenty of good material out there. Just finished reading Louis L'Amour's The Man Called Noon, now that would be a good western. All in all it was a good movie, worth the $6 bucks to see it?? sure

 

Jefro Relax-Enjoy

[Ken K]

Nitpick? OK, I'll play too. GREAT observations about the rifle shooting with the patch and the rope tied to the Henry!

The SAAs in the movie were sporting the half moon ejector head that came along much later than the approximately 1880 time setting.

I did not like the way Jeff Bridges handled his firearms. His draw from the holster displayed significant unessessary movement. He is not as believeable playing a hardened warrior as John Wayne.

 

On the positive side of TRUE GRIT nitpicking, it is unrealistic for a 14 year old to be thrown back by the recoil of a Colt Dragoon (thus falling into a snake pit). Both the 1969 movie and the book expected us to believe just that, despite the fact that she had not been thrown back when she shot Cheney from the creek with the same pistol. The new movie presents us with Mattie firing a weapon of significantly more recoil at the end and, thus, it is at least MORE believable that she would lose her footing. I also liked the casting of Cheney in this new movie. The avuncular old man in the first movie just didnt cut it.

 

 

Ok I have to see the movie again. I thought she shot Cheney with the Sharps rifle and fell into the pit???

I will buy the new one when it comes out on DVD and keep both.

KK

[Bad Hand]

She did shoot Chaney with the Sharps, then he fell over the cliff.

[Henry McKenna #700L]

...and the recoil from the Sharps caused her to lose her footing and fall into the pitt behind her. Again, more plausible than with a Dragoon. That's a mighty heavy pistol throwing about a 180 grain ball in real life. This new movie, again, give us something a little more plausible than the original or the book in this particular instance as a Sharps carbine would kick a 14 yr old pretty stout.

BTW, I did not want to mention the Sharps before as to not spoil anything for those who have yet to see it.

[Silverado Cid #51750]

Saw the New one tonight with Rye Creek Roberts, Tombstone Tilly and Dazzlin Deb, Wow, great lines. Two thumbs up from us !

[DocDisaster # 45431]

Saw it tonight with my wife, son and his GF, I am on the fence I enjoyed the movie and feel it was very good and could pick it apart, but all in all I have to say I liked the Original better.

 

Doc

[Marshal TKD, Sass # 36984L]

Me and Tullamore saw the movie and liked it. We both thought Jeff Bridges did a excellent job making Rooster Cogburn's character come to life as he was written. I always thought that Kim Darby was annoying it the 1969 version. All in all a good movie.

[Guest Cinch, SASS#29433]

Okay...

 

I don't consider Bridges talking thru his nose "grit"

 

He appears "stove up"... I could chest pump this Rooster everyday and twice on Sunday... "grit indeed"

 

I am hoping a bunch of CAS shooters start to wear a patch over their right eye and forget to lay their head over their rifle stock far enuff to aim with their left eye... maybe a new "patch shooter" category

 

He does it with his handguns too forgetting his eye is patched... and his recoil arms flying in the air on horseback drives me nuts!!

 

The snake pit was too deep and no one coulda survived the fall into it...

 

The girl is a cutey but...

 

The hair splittling with the book and the original version is dumb! John Wayne was an American, patriot, and a real life hero. They made real films with real people in real locations without digitizing, colorizing, or any of the new fangled film tech stuff. The new movie is a movie that could have been its own movie had they wanted to go that direction, instead the Coens thought they would take a shot at an icon...

 

Maybe a slick @ss version of The Cowboys is next...

 

Make new movies hollyweird!!

[Gus Blazer, SASS #74376]

Well I think the original True Grit post was here.

 

http://sassnet.com/forums/index.php?showto...p;#entry2061830

 

Now there must be 100 of them, but I'm posting in this one since it seems to be the original since the movie came out.

 

Now, I know a lot of people here are saying it is not a remake and that includes the media. I've chawed on that a day or two and come to this conclusion.

 

You might say El Dorado and Rio Lobo were not remakes of Rio Bravo.

3:10 to Yuma (Crowe) might not be a remake of 3:10 to Yuma (Glenn).

300 may not have been a remake of 300 Spartans

The 50 Tarzan movies showing his orgin may not have been remakes of the original, especially since almost every one of the 50 is closer to the book (Tarzan of the Apes).

I could go on all day but if you say none of these are remakes, I agree that Bridges did not remake Duke's.

 

Despite our individual opinions, as remakes go (obviously by the reviews in these forums and the ticket sales) it is the first successful remake of a John Wayne movie ever, with the possible exception of the most recent Alamo.

 

On the movie, hard to compare in lots of ways despite times the dialouge was virtually line-by-line the same. The movie felt different from the mood, to the locale, to the costumes to the weapons.

 

Jeff Bridges refused to try to play John Wayne and came up successful as Rooster, I can see another possible Academy Award nomination. Who knows maybe we'll see two actors get Oscars for the same role, played over 40 years apart.

Matt Damon much better LeBeouf than Glen Campbell, but then again Damon is a professional and much more experienced and better actor.

Hailee Steinfeld, I could tell from the previews she was a better fit for Mattie than Kim Darby, as previously stated Ms. Darby was often irritating. I felt Ms. Steinfeld's makeup often made her look older than the 14 she was portaying (or the 13 she was while filming) and her acting often showed her inexperience. I would be surprised by an Academy award or even a nomination, although she was the center of, and often stole the film.

 

It was a Western, one made with lots of love and care, and obviously by it's box office draw thus far a successful one and we can all celebrate that.