Print Page | Close Window


Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: General MOVIE & DVD Discussions
Forum Name: TRUE GRIT Times Two...
Forum Discription: Which Version of This Classic Western Tale is SUPERIOR?!?!?
Printed Date: May 01 2016 at 1:08am

Topic: Forum DISCUSSION of The 2 TRUE GRITS...
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: Forum DISCUSSION of The 2 TRUE GRITS...
Date Posted: May 29 2011 at 2:27pm




HERE's the - to VOTE in OUR POLL 

Ye Olde Head RAZZberry

Posted By: Vits
Date 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

Posted By: Vheid
Date 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 ( - Here's an - 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 - - ) while the 2010 version racked up a more impressive 10 nominations, including Best Picture and Best Actor (for Jeff Bridges - - ). The 2010 remake, though, did not win a single Little Gold Naked Man®...


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date 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.

Dirty12Dozen: Btlfld Earth, The Love Guru, Killers, Nw Yr's Eve, Paranoia, A Madea XMas, Dvl's Due, Sngl Mom's Clb, Annie [rmk], Atlas Shrugged III, T Wdg Rngr, Blart 2. Enemy #1: Age of Extinction

Posted By: Film Reel Redemption
Date 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.

Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: May 31 2011 at 4:27pm
It also made the list of - .Guess which place it's in.

You can follow me - @Vits_Chile

Posted By: Movie Man
Date 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.

Posted By: Vits
Date 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

Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date 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.

Posted By: netqueen33
Date 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 ( - ), 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

Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date 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

Posted By: ZKath
Date 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. 

Posted By: Vits
Date 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

Print Page | Close Window