New true grit vs. old true grit

The only reason I can think that someone would like the original version more is out of nostalgia or a love of anything John Wayne.

The original had so many glaring issues:

1. The Mattie character was so far off from what Portis created in the novel. That was the selling point of the book. She's the main character, the narrator and her "voice" is what made the book. The original movie seems more a John Wayne vehicle with a 14 year old girl along for the ride. Plus, Kim Darby was just all wrong for the part. She was too old and seemed like a princess more than the tough character from the book. She delivered the sweet lines well like when she asks if Rooster and LeBoeuf want to hear the story of the midnight caller. But when she has to deliver the lines that are stern, like when negotiating with Stonehill, she is totally unbelievable.

2. Glen Campbell was just awful, nearly ruined every scene he was in.

3. John Wayne was way too hammy, never really seemed that drunk/belligerent. This is probably more due to when the movie was made. The 60's westerns were a little softer than more modern ones. I never saw Wayne as Rooster, I just kept thinking, "hey, there's John Wayne". (Which is a problem with a lot of his movies.) John Wayne is awesome and all and had a ton of charisma but he kind of played the same character in most of his movies. But that's what audiences wanted and expected of him.

4. For most of the movie, I felt that the actors were not acting but merely reading their next line. The deliveries were so flat it was hard to watch at times.

5. The original was too long, it dragged at parts. I know they included more of the dialogue from the book but they lost so much of the book's character and theme that the trade off was not worth it. Which brings me to...

6. The ending in the original was SO cheesy and awful. Again, more typical of a 60s Western. But when you watch it now it seems so bad. And was very far off from the book's ending and more egregiously was a huge departure from the tone and theme of the book.

Not to mention the new version was just technically better. Better sound, camera work, cinematography, lighting, etc. The scene in the original movie where Rooster charges Ned and the 3 others on horseback was laughably bad. But I suppose 40 years of improvements to movie making give the Coens an unfair advantage there. Still, there are other movies from this era that were shot much better.

Again, if you're just huge fan of The Duke or saw the original many times and have fond memories of it you may prefer that version but to me it's no contest. Especially when you have the book to compare them to. The original movie didn't capture the tone or theme of the book at all.

John Wayne been forgotten


- - -
Fill your hand you son of a bitch!

How is it not a remake. It has most of the same dialog and the exact same scenes. Yeah its a Novel Adaptation of the exact same god damn book. 2010 version is a pretty soulless film that has none of the human emotion that the 1969 had. Mattie was a 1D Terminator Wannabe. Explain to me why Mattie would want Rooster buried next to her in the new version. He treated her like sh!t in that movie. Hell it was Matt Damon character that treated her with any respect. At least the 1969 version gives you some reason for actions.