1969 version or 2010 version?
Which version do you like better?
share2010. Splendid performances all around
share2010 IS A MASTERPIECE,ITS TRUE...THAT SAID,THE 1969 VERSION IS THE LEGEND...I CANNOT VOTE AGAINST THE DUKE.
"THAT DAMN TEXICAN SAVED MY LIFE TWICE.ONCE AFTER HE WAS DEAD!"
There were some things I liked more in the 1969 version and some things I liked more in the Coen Bros. version. So it's actually about even for me.
Around the time I had rewatched the John Wayne one, read the book and then went to see the 2010 one. I do recall appreciating how the John Wayne version actually captured some elements of the book very well. I'll have to find my older IMDB posts from way back. I went into detail comparing the two.
2010 version was better. Damon and Steinfeld are better actors than than Campbell and Darby. Bridges is a good actor, but he mumbled too much in this one. Had I not read the book and knew what was going on in the trial scene, I would have been lost.
The 2010 version is much more true to the book. It is about a girl who seeks revenge for her father's death while the 1969 version is about a lawman who allows a girl to tag long while he hunts down the murderer. While the Coen Brothers changed a few things in the middle of their film, the beginning and end of the 2010 version matched the book well. The 1969 version had a completely different beginning and end than the book.
The 1969 version. Both versions have merits and Jeff Bridges is always welcome on my screens, but I'll have to give it to the 1969 version, even though the 2010 is truer to the book and Mattie is better cast.
For one thing, it's shot in glorious slightly-brighter-than-real-life color, and captures the beauty of the wild west in a way the sepia-toned Coen film does not. And it has one of my favorite all-time scores, I thought of the movie and now the wonderful "Adventure Theme" (my title) is earworming along and making me happy without the movie being on. And face it, John Wayne really nailed the role for once in his wooden life.
The original. I see no need for the remake even though it was pretty good ... I guess remakes these days are major successes if they don't completely trash the originals. I'm sick of Jeff Bridges over-acting face.
shareThe 2010 version was based more on the book than the 1969 version. In my mind this means it was not a remake of the 1969 version.
shareDefinitely 2010. I think this movie is one of the best movies of the decade (2010s). Very well done, IMO.
share