Official RAZZIE® Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > General MOVIE & DVD Discussions > TRUE GRIT Times Two...
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Forum DISCUSSION of The 2 TRUE GRITS...
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

Forum DISCUSSION of The 2 TRUE GRITS...

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
HeadRAZZBerry View Drop Down
Berry Important MODERATOR
Berry Important MODERATOR


Joined: April 23 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5074
Post Options Post Options   Quote HeadRAZZBerry Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Forum DISCUSSION of The 2 TRUE GRITS...
    Posted: May 29 2011 at 2:27pm
HERE's WHERE to X-PRESS YER PREFERENCE:

JOHN WAYNE...

or JEFF BRIDGES??  

AND WHILE YOU'RE AT IT, WHY NOT THROW in YER 2 CENTS 
ABOUT HOLLYWOOD's CURRENT 
HABIT of REMAKING 
ALMOST EVERYTHING THEY'VE EVER MADE??  


IN CASE YOU MISSED IT, 
HERE's the LINK to VOTE in OUR POLL 
REGARDING THESE TWO VERSIONS of the SAME MATERIAL...


Ye Olde Head RAZZberry
Back to Top
Vits View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 01 2010
Location: Chile
Online Status: Online
Posts: 6697
Post Options Post Options   Quote Vits Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 30 2011 at 12:18pm
I haven't seen the first one, but it would have to be a masterpiece to beat the 2010 version.

You can follow me @Vits_Chile
Back to Top
Vheid View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: December 10 2010
Location: Utrecht
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1187
Post Options Post Options   Quote Vheid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 30 2011 at 1:08pm

I voted for the Bridges/Coen-version... 

I never really cared for John Wayne's brand of non-acting. I know that the man is some sort of "Hollywood Icon," and played in some good films, but to me, he just wasn't a very good actor. 


RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Wayne's TRUE GRIT Oscar® win, for his second nomination (LINK) was clearly a sentimental one -- Among the performers he beat out that year were Best Actor perennials Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole, and both Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight in that year's Best Picture winner, MIDNIGHT COWBOY. Here's an IMDb LINK to see what all the Academy nominated as 1969's supposed "best." 

Pitting the two versions of TRUE GRIT head-to-head as Oscar® contenders, the 1969 film received 2 nods (its other one was for Best Song - LINK) while the 2010 version racked up a more impressive 10 nominations, including Best Picture and Best Actor (for Jeff Bridges - LINK). The 2010 remake, though, did not win a single Little Gold Naked Man®...



Back to Top
GTAHater767 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: October 25 2009
Location: I shall not say
Online Status: Online
Posts: 1335
Post Options Post Options   Quote GTAHater767 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 30 2011 at 10:23pm

I say the 2010 version is better by a tad. On my Top 40 Films of '010, True Grit [remake] was #4.

Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Ags. 27; The November Man.
Back to Top
Film Reel Redemption View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: August 19 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 311
Post Options Post Options   Quote Film Reel Redemption Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 31 2011 at 11:19am
Maybe this article (it's a comparison of the 2 versions) may spread a bit of light on the situation:
 
You see in this filmmaking world there's two types of people my friend. Those with the knowledge of film and those who think they do but really don't.
Back to Top
Vits View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 01 2010
Location: Chile
Online Status: Online
Posts: 6697
Post Options Post Options   Quote Vits Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 31 2011 at 4:27pm
It also made the list of "The 50 Best Remakes Of the Last 50 Years".Guess which place it's in.
You can follow me @Vits_Chile
Back to Top
Movie Man View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: August 19 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 217
Post Options Post Options   Quote Movie Man Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 03 2011 at 12:14pm
I'm sorry, but I'm not the biggest John Wayne fan and would not see the original if it was reccomended to me. (yes, let the hate messages begin) That being said, I found the Jeff Bridge/Hailee Steinfeld version to be a truly good ORIGINAL western (more hate messages) and would proudly place it next to "Unforgiven" as one of the greatest westerns of all time. I made a top 10 of 2010 list last year, and placed it as number two. I even praised Hailee Steinfeld's performance (who would've been a good head-to-head with Portman if she was nominated in the BEST ACTRESS role instead of it being a clear expected victory) and, if she makes good decisions in the future, will grow up to be an outstanding actress. The film itself should've walked away with 3 or 4 wins instead of the number of wins it actually walked away with: ZERO.

Sorry too be so disrespectful against John Wayne if I offended anybody. That's for another post.
Back to Top
Vits View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 01 2010
Location: Chile
Online Status: Online
Posts: 6697
Post Options Post Options   Quote Vits Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 03 2011 at 1:09pm
Most people think that being original and being fresh is the same thing.TRUE GRIT is an adaptation so it's not original,but a lot of it keeps it fresh.And I liked Hailee's performance a lot more than Natalie's.
You can follow me @Vits_Chile
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557
Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 03 2011 at 2:12pm
As much as I am a hater of remakes, this is one of the few times when the remake was not vastly inferior to the original in every way. So I say, like whichever one you want to, and don't bother thinking about the one you hate. Problem solved! 
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Back to Top
netqueen33 View Drop Down
Berry New Comer
Berry New Comer


Joined: June 14 2011
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1
Post Options Post Options   Quote netqueen33 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 14 2011 at 1:17pm
I'd be curious to know the ages of everyone posting.  If you grew up in the late 60's,  you would probably understand that in many ways we're comparing apples to oranges.  As a young girl watching the original with my Grandfather, we loved the movie without dissecting the ideas of racism, sexism, vengeance, and violence.  We could enjoy the film together in all its pollyanna glory.  I don't know if my granddaughter and I could view the latter version the same way.

In the article posted above (http://abortionsforall.wordpress.com/2010/12/29/truegrit/), the author argued the superiority of the latter version based on its dark, deeper probing and portrayal of vengeance, violence, etc.  For the most part, it would be too graphic to show tendons being severed; or too racy for serious cleavage in '69, whereas today anything goes. 

In today's world, film goers would rate today's horror/slasher films scarier, more "realistic" and "darker" and therefore better than those of the Master, Hitchcock.  Filmmakers in the past were constrained by the values and mores of their times. 

I just don't think it's that easy to compare movies of different generations.  Your age and the times do matter.  And by the way, I did enjoy the remake very much. 

Please not too many "senile old lady" comments...





Cathy Young
Writer & Mom
Surviving infidelity
Marital affair
Back to Top
saturnwatcher View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: July 14 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2577
Post Options Post Options   Quote saturnwatcher Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 14 2011 at 4:50pm
First of all, Netqueen, welcome to the board. Your points are well taken, and it is difficult to compare these movies because the times and respective approaches of the filmmakers are significantly different. I frequently get impatient with some of our younger contributors here who undervalue some of the classic  films of the past. They have neither the life experience nor the context of the times to properly evaluate them.
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken
Back to Top
ZKath View Drop Down
Berry New Comer
Berry New Comer


Joined: January 23 2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 11
Post Options Post Options   Quote ZKath Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 30 2012 at 8:49am

I am probably of an age with Netqueen, having grown up in the 1960's.  I'm also from northwest Arkansas, and read Charles Portis' book True Grit before seeing the John Wayne movie when it was released.  It was practically required reading where we lived!  I was too young to fully understand the book, but enjoyed the story. 

Even at the tender age of 10, there was a lot I hated about the JW version.  I hated that the movie was obviously filmed in the Rockies and not the gentle rolling Ozark Mountains of my home.  I hated Kim Darby as Mattie.  She was clearly too old for the part, as well as being a terrible actress.  I hated Glen Campbell as LaBoeuf, one of the worst acting jobs I ever saw.  But John Wayne lit up the screen as Rooster.  I can see now that he was basically John Wayne playing John Wayne, but he and Robert Duvall (and Dennis Hopper in a bit part) provided plenty of entertainment for a satisfying movie experience.
 
Forty years later, the Coen brothers brought their vision to this American masterpiece of fiction.  I was very excited, especially by the casting.  Finally, Mattie being played by an actress of appropriate age!  Jeff Bridges as Rooster!  Matt Damon (be still my foolish heart...) as LaBeouf!  The postscript of Mattie as an adult!
 
The new version was far better in terms of acting, cinematography, music.  The new version was more faithful to the book in developing the characters of Rooster and Mattie.  And yet, and yet... I was deeply dismayed at the liberties the new version took with the original story.  The Coens made a lot of story changes, added characters and scenes that, IMHO, did nothing for the plot, and took out scenes that I found particularly moving and important in the book. 
 
I cannot help but compare both versions to the book as well as to each other.  The JW version was more true to the original story than was the Coen version.  Though superior in every other way, the Coen version, again IMHO, made a big mistake messing so much with the story. 
 
Back to Top
Vits View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 01 2010
Location: Chile
Online Status: Online
Posts: 6697
Post Options Post Options   Quote Vits Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2012 at 2:46pm
Originally posted by Vits

I haven't seen the first one, but it would have to be a masterpiece to beat the 2010 version.
And now I have seen it. Skip to 07:03.
You can follow me @Vits_Chile
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Quick Reply
Name:

Message:
   NoFollow is applied to all links from this forum (rel="nofollow")
 Enable BBcodes to format post
Security Code:
Code Image - Please contact webmaster if you have problems seeing this image code  Refresh Refresh Image
Please enter the Security Code exactly as shown in image format.
Cookies must be enabled on your web browser.

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down