New true grit vs. old true grit

I've been told by a few people I personally know that the remake is as good -if not better than the original. I'm rarely a fan of 'remakes' especially almost all 'remakes' that have come out in the past 10-15 years; nearly all of which look mediocre to terrible.

I don't see the overrated Jeff Bridges as being anything other than miscast filling the shoes of the 'Duke.'

Saw a preview of the remake and I wasn't impressed. Is the remake really 'THAT' good or is it perhaps vastly overrated by critics and public alike?

The old version was not as true to the book although it appeared to use more of the book's dialog other than at the end compared to the new version. The 2010 version also had some new scenes near the middle of the movie that were not in the book.

Glen Campbell did a poor job compared to Matt Damon, as did Kin Darby compared to Hailee Steinfeld. John Wayne was excellent, so was Jeff Bridges once he got his fist out of his mouth and started to talk more clearly. Barry Pepper and Robert Duvall were fine in their roles. Josh Brolin also outperformed Jeff Cory as Chaney.

The end of the original was a cop out, the ending of the 2010 version was much more compelling to watch.

I agree -there is no comparison- the original was much better than the lame remake. It did not measure up to the other films of the Coen brothers.

Kim Darby's portrayal of Mattie Ross is far better than the other girl , though she was the more appropriate age for the character she was doing . Even Glen ,not being an actor ,did a better job in the original. The writing, directing ,acting , photography, everything was far better in the original film.- jmho

The locations of the 1969 version are spectacular, shot at Inyo National Forest, California (the outlaw dugout), Colorado (Ouray, Canon City, Ridgway, Montrose & Gunnison) and Durango, Mexico. Unfortunately, they're not accurate in the least. The story in Charles Portis' book starts near Fort Smith in West-Central Arkansas and proceeds into the Choctaw Indian Territory of Southeastern Oklahoma, which looks nothing like the breathtaking Rocky Mountain scenery observed in the movie. The 2010 version is a little more accurate on this front with a relatively mundane backdrop shot in East-Central Texas and New Mexico.

It's interesting comparing the two movies, which are on par IMHO. They're the same story and each has their highlights.

I personally prefer the original despite the acting of Glen Campbell.

I liked both a lot

I like the original better.

The original will continue to be the definitive version, and will still be a classic long after the remake is forgotten. The remake was good; however, Jeff Bridges's decision to talk like a drunk stroke victim was a big mistake, and diminishes his performance.