New true grit vs. old true grit

I agree. I don't like the ending in the 2010 version at all. The 1969 ending was light years better! (Cogburn's discussion with Mattie at her family plot, and Rooster's great jumping of the fence with his new horse)! That's the way to end "True Grit!" I also like the beginning of the 1969 movie much better. The 1969 version has the story of the ponies, the establishing scene of Mattie as bookkeeper, the gold pieces, the father's gun, the theft of said gold pieces and the murder of Mr. Ross acted out by the actors. In the 2010 version all of this is reduced to a very brief and ineffective narration. This is an extremely weak way to begin the movie compared to the 1969 version. However, most everything in-between the beginning and the ending is just fine. My main complaint concerning the "meat" of the movie is that it is sometimes difficult to understand Jeff Bridges' mumbling. Several times during the movie I noticed people all around the theater looking to their seat mate and asking "What did he say?!" My seat mate and I did this as well. More often than not our response to each other was: "I don't know." When the DVD and/or Bluray come out perhaps we will finally understand him by turning on the subtitles! Also, I miss the scene when Cogburn shoots the rat! Another important scene that is missing from the 2010 version is the revealing of J. Noble Daggett! In both versions Mattie goes on and on about what a great lawyer she has in J. Noble Daggett and everyone is suitably intimidated. In the 1969 version Daggett shows up towards the end of the movie and he turns out to be a dorky, wimpy little guy with a high pitched squeaky voice who could not intimidate anyone. Great laugh, What a hoot! The scene with Daggett is sorely missed in the 2010 version.

IMO, the origanal is better, as the new one fails to do anything significantly better...and, Jeff Bridges mumbles so much, he's very hard to understand in some scenes...

I just saw the new True Grit a couple of days ago. The only reason I saw it was a friend of mine said it was better than the original, so my expectations were pretty high. I wouldn't say it was terrible, but it was close. I thought Jeff Bridges was very mediocre, the story was choppy, and Matt Damon was terrible. As a comparison, I had recorded the original True Grit the previous week and watched it as soon as I got home. There's no comparison. John Wayne nails it. And the ending scene is terrific. For those on this board who like the new version, do yourself a favor, check out the original and then post your thoughts.

LOL Robert Downey Jr. was basically an incomprehensible mumbler in Sherlock Holmes.

Maybe mumbling is a new trend for Hollywood.





ROTA Top Foreign Language Films: http://www.imdb.com/list/qQvbXmXhhCU/

I saw the new True Grit first, and watched the original recently. I liked the original a lot, but I prefer the new version. I can understand why the dour ending of the 2010 version might not appeal to classic western fans, but I perferred it. I have never seen a John Wayne movie, so I cannont compare this role to any of his previous ones. But I love Jeff Bridges, and his rooster had an edge Wayne's did not.

Both are great movies though.

All glory to the Hypnotoad

Just because something is newer doesn't make it good. And just because something is old doesn't make it bad.

There was a whole set of parameters that came WITH John Wayne, or what you might call 'devices' (example of a device: Lois Lane can't tell Superman from Clarke Kent, even though the voice is the same; Jason Bourne can always pick a lock and enter a building unseen). John Wayne's law enforcement characters could NOT be killed, even when badly out-numbered by outlaws. Early in his movies, he typically went out and arrested a gang of thugs - and emerged unscathed. (In True Grit, such an arrest is referred to via court testimony, but not re-enacted). In 1 previous Western, during an early arrest, he was wounded by a bullet but was unharmed since the bullet lodged on top of a previous bullet (fired by the same criminal in an earlier arrest attempt) that the doctor had been unable to remove. Great stuff. So, we know that his one-on-four battle at the end will end favorably.

Jeff Bridges has no such 'culture' behind his character.

Having said that, I like both films but rate old & new 1 and 2 (respectively).

:-) canuckteach (--:

Ok so I recently watched The Coens version, just finished the book, and at this moment I am watching the Duke version. The original is undone by the horrid soundtrack, the awful LeBoeuf, and the terrible terrible Kim Darby with her late sixties haircut. John Wayne is great but that goes without saying. The 69 version is closer to the book but plods along.
The Coen's version benefited from a close attention to the language. They made the dialogue they wrote fit seemlessly with lines taken out of the book. In the 69 version the dialogue mostly sounds like the 60s so when lines from the book are added in they at times sound strange or silly.
Just watched the scene where Mattie confronts Chaney. Kim Darby makes this movie unwatchable to me. She was just so bad and so of the 60s. What is that stupid hairdo? She was 21 or 22 when this was filmed and playing 14???? Except for the soundtrack and LeBoeuf the rest of the movie is pretty good if not a little slow. It is a lesson in how a bad performance can drag the rest of a movie down.

When you're slapped you'll take it and like it.

I consider the Coen brothers' version to be far superior to the original. It focuses closely on Mattie's point-of-view, as in the novel and is more faithful to its Oklahoma setting (the original is set in Colorado). I didn't like the fact that the original had some kind of romance going between Mattie and LaBoeuf, and that the latter was killed in the end. I read the book a few years before the remake came out so it was a huge excitement and relief having watched the original about a decade ago.

In the end, we all have our differences and favorites. But for me, it's the new True Grit.