MovieChat Forums > True Grit (1969) Discussion > New true grit vs. old true grit

New true grit vs. old true grit

posted 14 years ago by moogantrading
124 replies | jump to latest

The cohn bros have always done excellent work in my opinion, and I actually looked forward to their TRUE GRIT movie. I grew up enjoy the original TRUE GRIT, with John Wayne, and continue to watch it about once a month, still.

I was quite suprised in my disappointment with the new movie. Not sure what they we're going for. Different from the movie, similar to the book?

Jeff Bridges was very good, however I felt the other actors didn't play very good roles. Just not good scripes from the cohn bros.

Agree, disagree??

[–] kaiser858 14 years ago

I agree that the original was better . Still I think if you look at the Coen Bros version on it's own it is a good movie. I thought Barry Pepper was great... I thought Damon was great as Le Bouf but that his character was written poorly .Jeff Bridges is awesome and you can see he has a lot of the traits down as expressed by John Wayne but the character was too ragged and mumble mouthed

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Dubz1300 14 years ago

well i've never seen the original, but the cohens are one of my fav directors out there right now, and their true grit is just a great film, imo..and it looks like audience and critics (95% rottenttomatoe) agree..

but i'm not taking anything away from the original..in fact, i plan to see it now and decide for myself which is better..

[–] VJTheVigilante 14 years ago

I do like the original better it had more character. I liked the new movie but it was shorter and felt more cut up.

[–] mplo (2356) 6 years ago

I saw the original "True Grit" when it first came out, and I enjoyed it a great deal. When I read/heard about the re-make of "True Grit", I had the feeling that it wasn't going to be that great. Re-makes of older films almost never are.

[–] Jep_Gambardella 14 years ago

I have to disagree with you. I watched the new one in the theatre and then sat down to watch the old one on DVD and I have to say that I thought the original aged very badly.

Don't give me songs
Give me something to sing about

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] misspaddylee 14 years ago

I read the book when I was 13 when the first movie was released and then again this past summer and might be able to recall some of the particulars you ask about.

Mattie recounts what happened between her father and Chaney as she heard it. The scene in the 1969 movie is pretty much how it occurs in the book except that it took place outside of the boarding house.

The scenes with Chen Lee are in the book.

LeBoeuf is introduced to Mattie in the dining room. They are given private space in the parlour for a conference.

Rooster does steal the buggy, but leaves her at the doctor's and doesn't see her again.

LeBoeuf does not separate from the party.

The book is written as amputee Mattie's memoir of the hunt for Chaney and ends with her visiting the wild west show and taking Rooster's body to be buried at her home. The 1969 movie foreshadows the burial.

Rooster recounts most of his past history in that one conversation waiting for Ned Pepper's gang.

The "coffee" bit in the novel was during the visit to Rooster at Chen Lee's place.

"Madame meets many people, but she usually avoids the mad ones."

[–] Marclev 14 years ago

Book:

- Starts with an Mattie's "voice over"

- More time with Lee, Cat, etc.

- La Boef sticks with them. Introduced at dinner.

- Cogburn comandeers buggy

- Mattie looses arm. Cogburn leaves before she goes home.

- Cogburn talks about his past only once.

- She tells both of them that she doesn't drink coffee.

[–] baran_erik 10 years ago

Aged very badly? How so? That they didn't use contractions? Or the 60s movie making, in which Wayne slings a guy who was stuck in the gut with a knife over his shoulder and doesn't get a drop of blood on him? Or when Duvall has just been shot, has a little splotch of blood on his jacket and no bullet hole? Other than the olde tyme approach to violence, it's a period piece.

[–] Jep_Gambardella 10 years ago

Sorry, I don't remember the specifics of why I wrote what I wrote. Let me assure that I do watch and appreciate many older films, so it's not just that they are unfamiliar to me.

Don't give me songs
Give me something to sing about

[–] movieguy82 14 years ago

Is it blasphemous to say the new film version of "True Grit" is better than the old one? Don't get me wrong, John Wayne is great, but the Coen Brothers' version seems to have better supporting actors (more of an ensemble). Plus, it sticks to the (voice over) narration from the book. That's my two cents.

[–] kkm_22 14 years ago

Just saw the original today and I liked it in spite of the fact that I don't usually watch westerns. Sure some of performances weren't top notch, but I liked John Wayne and the chemistry between the trio of characters. Plus, there was a lot of that wry humor sprinkled throughout.

I am a fan of the Coen's bros, but I wasn't sure if I wanted to watch the remake. Now that I know they based it on the book (didn't know it was a book), I'm eager to see their version.

[–] Thirdover4 14 years ago

I've always been a fan of John Wayne but, at the risk of getting tarred and feathered, I really wasn't fond of his performance in True Grit. Part of the problem is that it is one of his films I did not see when I was younger, but heard so much about. To me, it felt a little over the top. I thought he was trying to work a outside of his comfort zone with a more brazen, more comedic role, but it seems to get a little clownish at times. I haven't seen the new version but the performance by Bridges (in the trailers) looks to me a lot more polished. Part of that is the acting and directing styles of the period. Now, John Wayne in "The Shootist" is subtle and convincing in my opinion.

Another actor who seems oddly off to me in True Grit is Dennis Hopper. He seems young and inexperienced compared to his performance in Easy Rider that was released the same year. Interesting that that film is often credited with helping launch the transition from old Hollywood style movies like True Grit, into the more contemporary style films with the crop of young directors that would follow.

[–] robbl12 14 years ago

Very difficult to compare in many ways. I think the modern version is the superior film, but it's easy to forget how the original was such a great film for the time that it was made. Modern filmmaking and resources, when utilized to their full potential, should produce better films, and the Cohens managed to do that brilliantly.

I've recently rewatched the original, and the good news is that one version does not detract from the other. The original holds up very well. I now will have to read the book.

[–] rcocean3 14 years ago

The New Grit is a fine movie and LOOKS better than the Old Grit - but it doesn't have Wayne, Robert Duvall or Strother Martin. It also doesn't have the humor and drama of the '69 version.

Advantage Old Grit.

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 14 years ago

The new one doesn't have Glenn Campbell or Kim Darby. Advantage New Grit.

"You are, in your own idiom, a punk - and a second-rate punk at that!"

[–] bond_98 11 years ago

Actually Kim Darby was better than the New Girl. I Haven't seen bad acting like that since Fred Savage in the Wizard.

[–] TheDisturbedMan 10 years ago

Wow. I haven't seen an opinion this bad since Chamberlain came back from Munich with "some terribly good news about an agreement with Germany's fine, statesmanlike leader.".

[–] geraldstewart 14 years ago

I was particularly disappointed in the ending. I dont think that Rooster would have left Mattie before she regained consciouness.I also do not picture Mattie growing up to be a bitter woman.

[–] cavnative 14 years ago

Old Grit. Because classics rock!

[–] acb132 14 years ago

the old version is nothing at all like the book's ending

[–] Chaco1942 14 years ago

A recent Hollywood Reporter story made something out of the fact that Jeff Bridges actually rode the horse in the big shootout at the end, while in the earlier version John Wayne was filmed in closeup while riding on a vehicle.

Well, pilgrims, the Duke was 67 years old, had one lung, and was filming at elevations of 9000-10000 feet up in the San Juan mountains of Colorado....while Jeff, at age 60, had both lungs and considerably more eneregy to contribute.

Like I've said before, both versions are quite enjoyable on their own merits.

[–] csimpkins53 14 years ago

I agree with the points you are making, however I have one correction. The Duke was not 67 when he made True Grit. John Wayne was born on May 26, 1907, therefore he was about 61 when the movie was filmed and about 62 when it was released. Jeff Bridges was born Dec. 4, 1949, therefore he was about 60 when the new True Grit was filmed and about 61 when it was released. John Wayne and Jeff Bridges were very close to the same age when they portrayed Cogburn in their respective "Grit" movies. Your point though concerning The Duke's poor health is certainly correct.