True Grit - the Dude redo the Duke

I am going the 24th!

Let me tell you I think the film is FANTASTIC!!!
Much closer to the book than the 1969 film.

One thing that I thought was cool, at the end of the movie, the city of Jonesboro Arkansas is mentioned.
It so happened that Jonesboro was where I was viewing it!!!

The Coens did a great job!!

RBH said:

Let me tell you I think the film is FANTASTIC!!!
Much closer to the book than the 1969 film.

One thing that I thought was cool, at the end of the movie, the city of Jonesboro Arkansas is mentioned.
It so happened that Jonesboro was where I was viewing it!!!

The Coens did a great job!!

Click to expand...

Thanks for the review. I am looking forward to seeing this one.

It looks like I'll be taking my 14 year old niece on the 26th. She's not a big fan of westerns - "there's no plot, all they do is shoot each other"- I think she'll like this one though. I'm sure I will.

Completely blown away. I will own this movie.

Morgan

Just got back from seeing the movie. Absolutely blown away. No comparison to the first movie. It's just a much better movie.

I'm looking forward to seeing it eventually. I hold no particular reverence for John Wayne. It's always been my opinion that the man couldn't act. Jeff Bridges can only improve things. I liked both Tombstone and 3:10 to Yuma immensely, so I have faith in the modern western.

TERRIFIC Film

The Coens & quality films go hand in hand. WELL written, WELL filmed & SUPERB acting. Want to see it again on the big screen & DVD buy a MUST!

Solid Citizen

Out of everything that I loved in the film, the thing that captured me the most was the visuals. The cinematography is top notch and just the iconic "western" shots... great flick all around. That young lady should receive a nomination for this film.

I'm not at all surprised to hear it: I believe Roger Deakins is probably the best cinematographer working today. (He's certainly my favorite!)

Besides having shot every Coen Brothers film since Barton Fink, some of his films with other directors include: Ninteen Eighty-Four, The Shawshank Redemption, A Beautiful Mind, Revolutionary Road, The Village, Doubt, The Reader, and - speaking of gorgeously shot westerns - The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford.

I've been a Coen brothers fan since Blood Simple but wondered what were they thinking re-making a classic Wayne film. I loved the book as a teen and thought they captured the feel perfectly. My wife hates westerns and she even liked it.

Just got back from the theater; saw it with my son who's home for the winter break from college. Some random thoughts:

I saw the original on the big screen in 1969 (I was 11) and have seen it many times since. It's a good film, better than most of Wayne's later work with the exception of The Cowboys and The Shootist.

I read the novel 35 years ago, and recognized that the original lifted much of the dialogue right off the page - I didn't realize how much until I caught myself quoting lines in my head before Bridges & Co. could finish them.

This ending is better, and more true to the novel, but I understand why the original ended with a vigorous Wayne - he'd just finished his first bout with cancer...and John Wayne can't die offscreen.

Speaking of cancer, Bridges makes Cogburn sound like he's battling throat cancer. His look for the film sort of reminds me of that hideous attempt that Warren Oates made at Rooster for TV.

I reacted to Bridges' portrayal of Cogburn the way I reacted to James Garner's interpretation of Woodrow Call - not better, not inferior - just different.

The Coens make a big deal out of not being influenced by the original, but the final shootout is practically an homage, and several other scenes are set up and shot similarly to the original.

If the Coens weren't influenced, Barry Pepper and the rest of the supporting cast all but channel Robert Duval/Dennis Hopper/Strother Martin.

Josh Brolin does NOT channel Jeff Corey - I like his take on the character, but Corey's Chaney did seem wiley enough to elude LeBoeuf for all those months, and Brolin plays him like a simpleton.

Poor Glen Campbell was awful in the original, yet the friction between LeBoeuf and Cogburn is portrayed much better in the 1969 version.

I can't remember if the scene with the hanged man in the forest and the guy in the bearskin is in the novel, but I can see why it was left out of the first film. It does nothing to advance the plot.

I kind of missed the "rat writ, writ for a rat" scene from the original. I guess that was not in the novel.

I think the scene in the original where Mattie and LeBoeuf discuss their religous upbringing:

LaBoeuf: "I was raised in the Episcopal Church myself."
Mattie: "I figured you for some kind of kneeler."

is in the novel - I'm surprised the Coen's didn't use it.

I could tell that most of the audience had not seen the original, or if they had it had been long ago. They laughed at all the jokes, most of which are in the 1969 version.

I was disappointed by Carter Burwell's score. I expected more use of period music - what I got was an endless re-hash of "Leaning on the Everlasting Arms".

This will not go down as a "great" Coen Bros film. Good, not Great.

Hailee Steinfield is superb, and should have a great career ahead of her.

Salty O'Rourke said:

This will not go down as a "great" Coen Bros film. Good, not Great

Click to expand...

A run of the mill 'good' Coen Bros film is fine by me.

And BTW Salty, that was an excellent review.

Warning! Possible Spoilers!

For grins I dragged out my old copy of the Portis novel this afternoon and re-read it - it's a quick read. I really don't understand all this business about the Coen's version being more true to the novel. The ending is accurate in their version, whereas the 1969 film's is not, and the locations are more suitable, but otherwise the new film plays more fast and loose with the book than the Wayne film does. The bit about Mattie spending the night in the funeral parlor is not from the novel. The scenes with the hanged man/bearskin-clad "dentist" are not in the book. The supper at Chen Lee's and the "rat writ, writ for a rat" sequence is in the book and the Wayne film, but not in the new one. The ambush at the dugout is all wrong in the new film but dead on in the old one. Cogburn and LaBoeuf's falling out and separation is not in the novel - I'm suprised the script took this turn because it makes the ranger's reappearance at the camp/snakepit all the more implausible. The Coen's leave out the sequences at McAlester's store. Rooster's commandeering of the wagon from the hunting party is left out.

I'm not one of those who complain when novels are not translated scene-for-scene to the screen, but the hype about this movie being more "faithful" to the novel is malarky. It's possible that the Coen's based their film on the version that was serialized in the Saturday Evening Post, but it's for sure not so true to the 1968 novel. The 1969 version, other than the opening and closing "bookends", is lifted almost verbatim from the book.

I just returned from seeing it. At first when it was announced that they were making a new version, I was very apprehensive about seeing it. But the trailers had grabbed my attention so I've been looking forward to it. Needless to say, I loved it. I am a big fan of the original film (except for the Maddie character in the original film, I have never been able to stand her and always find myself forwarding thru most of her scenes) but I find myself liking this newer version a bit more.

The Coens and the cast did a great job. The girl that played Maddie was a great find and being that she had to carry most of the beginning by herself, she did a superb job.

Movie-making always baffles me... caution, a bit of a spoiler ahead...

Near the end of the movie, there's a scene where a little boy hands an older Mattie a hand-bill for a wild west show in which Rooster Cogburn appears. The scene is shot in front of an old building here in Austin which now houses a private club. I happened to have a meeting in that building early in the morning on the day the scene was shot. I entered the building at 7:30 a.m., and left around 9:00 a.m. Between that time, the street had been shut down and about 10 inches of dirt were laid down in the street and several horse-drawn wagons were set up to be in the shot. None of that was there when I first went in the building. The crew was there for the rest of the day shooting the scene.

The actual time of that scene is probably less than 15 seconds. No wonder movies cost millions to produce.

Much as I wanted to love this movie, and as huge a Coen Bros fan as I am, I'm more in agreement with Salty's take on this film. I saw the John Wayne version last week, and read the book years ago. I also take issue with the fact that this is being touted as more faithful to the book. I love Jeff Bridges in just about everything, but he sounded like he had a mouthful of corn dodgers through the whole movie. It was worth seeing, but did not live up to the hype for me. Most of the high points were just re-shootings of exact scenes from the John Wayne version. I did like the Open Road style hat they put on Cole Younger at the end. Maybe this version will grow on me, but I usually like Coen Bros films the first time around. Frank

I liked it, and agree that the Maddie actress did a fine job. One thing that hampered the John Wayne version was the 'clean cut' look of both Wayne and Campbell, not a problem in this version. Its hard to accept a wilderness scene when the actors look ready for a white-collar job interview.

I am also a fan of the original film and book but if you're planning on seeing this one it's best to just leave the comparisons at the ticket counter. Otherwise you may miss out on a great movie.

I loved every minute of it.