Am I alone in thinking the True Grit remake far superior? (spoilers)

[mreilly]

It seems that the 1969 version is sacred somehow but I believe the Coen brothers remake to be far superior in so many ways. No disrespect to the original, but I find this to be an improvement across the board.

In the first place, Mattie Ross is played by an actual 14 year old, not a 20-something. And Hailee Steinfeld did a spectacular job.

Secondly, it seems like we just have a better sense these days as to what life was like back then - the grittiness, if you will - and can capture it more effectively, even in a 2010 film compared to a 1969 film. There's so much padded fluff in Westerns from the 40's, 50's, 60's, etc. that it's impossible for me to take them seriously. It feels like it wasn't until the 70's that they started getting it right; the squalor, dirty conditions, lack of education and grim outlook. A Western is not a movie with a bunch of handsome clean-shaven guys in stylish shirts riding the range.

Thirdly, I'll take Jeff Bridges's Rooster Cogburn for realism over John Wayne any day - again, I feel Wayne did credit in the '69 version, but it was the little brother to this movie. So much more realistic, believable and empathetic with Bridges at the helm.

Fourthly, the final shootout - even though the dialogue and action seem to be duplicated word for word and almost shot-for-shot between the 2 films - is so much more true to life in the 2010 version. When Jeff Bridges bellows "Fill your hand, you son of a bitch!" and starts riding, you believe that. When Wayne does it, you can see it being coached, scripted, or otherwise mailed in. And when the bad guys are riding towards Bridges and Mattie (up on the mountain with Texas Ranger Labeouf) implores: "Shoot them, Mr. Labeouf!" you can believe her anxiety and desire to help (confession: I actually teared up at this line, it was that good). When Damon's Labeouf answers, "Too far, ridin' too fast," nevertheless keeping the rifle against his shoulder waiting for the shot (an opportunity he gets and uses, to save Cogburn's life), you can believe his desire to help an ally that some people might say he doesn't owe much of a debt to - and that's what makes the 2010 characters so great, the way they bond and support each other.

I could go through the 2 movies piece by piece, but the gist is that I feel the 2010 version speaks for itself in terms of quality, character development and believability. I think it should have won at least some awards on Oscar night - maybe not Best Picture or Best Actor for Bridges (even though I think he's one of the finest actors around, this part wasn't exactly a stretch for him; seems he was born to play it) but I'd have given a best supporting actor nod to Damon and perhaps a best screenplay or - assuming the category existed - most improved remake.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

1. Nope.

About the only thing I would have changed is the teeth on Mattie Ross. They were too perfect for 1870 or whenever this took place. Otherwise, it was superior on every way. I also liked the way the dialogue was written. People used phrases differently then and the movie showed that. Finally, when Rooster kicks the indian kid off the porch and the indian being hung at the beginning is denied his last say, we are shown the way Native Americans were treated. Like dogs. This is a much more realistic look at life as it was then.
:toast:

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Swede]

3. Nice review.

I am struck that LeBoeuf is shot,trampled, and nearly severs his
tongue and not only does not cease to talk but spills the banks of
English.

[blogslut]

5. Matt Damon was robbed

His performance, especially during the scenes where his tongue is partially severed, was so effortlessly brilliant. He should have been nominated for an Oscar.

[JCMach1]

4. Loved the new film... superior is not the word I would use as they are so different

I thought this was one of the Coen Brothers best. I liked it much better than No Country for Old Men.

[Kali]

6. hell, from what I've read

you would be alone if you thought the Wayne version was superior. I haven't seen anybody who thought that.

[fishwax]

7. No, I think that's the general consensus, actually. I agree with you as well.

Wayne was good at times in the original but merely serviceable at other times. It wasn't a very consistent performance. Matt Damon vs. Glenn Campbell? Not much of a contest in terms of which performance is superior. The only performances from the original that come close to matching the remake are Robert Duvall as Ned Pepper and Jeff Corey as Chaney. The characters and story are more complex and the setting and music more effective in the Coen Brothers version.

[Skittles]

8. I couldn't stand John Wayne

so no, you are not alone

[Joe Fields]

9. I'll take the 1969 version.

John Wayne owns Rooster Cogburn. Jeff Bridges just rented the role for a short while.

[Orrex]

10. Fortunately, you see John Wayne play that role in every film he was in