the original's awesome! the source material's really underrated, lots of cool moments and cracking dialogue...
― Princess TamTam, Saturday, 4 December 2010 14:20 (thirteen years ago) link
I'll see it, because I see most Coen films--well above half, anyway. But the idea that the guys who made Miller's Crossing, Fargo, and No Country for Old Men felt it necessary to revisit a popular, not-seriously-regarded John Wayne film (which, in fairness, I've never seen) is not all that encouraging to me. If nothing else, I'm sure it'll be better than Scorsese's Cape Fear remake.
― clemenza, Saturday, 4 December 2010 14:24 (thirteen years ago) link
It's on my Netflix queue.
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 4 December 2010 14:26 (thirteen years ago) link
i'd probably recommend the book first... the movie's pretty watered down though still beloved for the elements it does retain... since Cape Fear was brought up, that material is a lot less strong and it's the kind of thing that succeeds because of Mitchum and some moody photography, but there are a lot of actors who could knock Rooster Cogburn out of the park because it's such a great part and its such an awesome story... imo...
― Princess TamTam, Saturday, 4 December 2010 14:39 (thirteen years ago) link
well, mattie ross is really The Great Part but w/e
― Princess TamTam, Saturday, 4 December 2010 14:40 (thirteen years ago) link
anyone not anticipating this is nutso
― ice cr?m, Saturday, 4 December 2010 15:43 (thirteen years ago) link
John Wayne pretty much gives a comedy performance in the first film. (I know you ppl who will never see it will say that's probably unintentional cuz u know he was a Republican moron and not one of the great American stars blah blah.)
anyway, had no time to read the book, seeing this Tuesday.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 4 December 2010 16:10 (thirteen years ago) link
Wayne, at his best (The Searchers, Red River), was as good as almost anybody; my own post above wasn't intended to imply otherwise. I just always assumed, perhaps unfairly, that Red River: True Grit = Godfather II: Scent of a Woman (which I also haven't seen...I make a lot of assumptions).
― clemenza, Saturday, 4 December 2010 16:19 (thirteen years ago) link
But the idea that the guys who made Miller's Crossing, Fargo, and No Country for Old Men felt it necessary to revisit a popular, not-seriously-regarded John Wayne film (which, in fairness, I've never seen
Don't understand why people can't get their heads round the fact that this is simply another adaptation of the book, not a remake of the John Wayne movie
― Number None, Saturday, 4 December 2010 17:07 (thirteen years ago) link
cuz if they're too lazy to watch a john wayne movie they're sure as fuck not about to read some book
― balls, Saturday, 4 December 2010 17:11 (thirteen years ago) link
maybe they just heard abt it and thought that sounds good is all
― ice cr?m, Saturday, 4 December 2010 17:13 (thirteen years ago) link
this is simply another adaptation of the book, not a remake of the John Wayne movie
That's a good point. Again, I don't know either book or film, but: if they're putting the Wayne film aside and going back to the book, and if the book has lots of elements that the Wayne film missed, then remaking it would seem justified. There's some precedent I'm trying to remember, where somebody got it right the second time, but I can't come up with the title. (There are probably a number of precedents.)
― clemenza, Saturday, 4 December 2010 17:16 (thirteen years ago) link
― clemenza, Saturday, December 4, 2010 11:19 AM (51 minutes ago) Bookmark
it aint red river, but yeah that's pretty unfair. im amazed how many people havent seen it, did you guys not have TBS when you were kids? i think its more like... carlito's way, idk.
― Princess TamTam, Saturday, 4 December 2010 17:16 (thirteen years ago) link
their justification for making it was prob they liked the work and thought they could make a good movie out of it im guessing
― ice cr?m, Saturday, 4 December 2010 17:17 (thirteen years ago) link
everything i've heard from folks who have seen it is that it owns
― omar little, Saturday, 4 December 2010 17:18 (thirteen years ago) link
I think there's been a number of times where something was adapted once, then adapted again with the aim of being more true to the material
― Princess TamTam, Saturday, 4 December 2010 17:19 (thirteen years ago) link
yaaaaa
It is weird that I've never seen True Grit. Possibly I saw it at a drive-in as a kid, but if so, I don't remember. I guess I've always stayed away because 1) Wayne's best-actor award is usually singled out as Exhibit #1 in the career-achievement category of undeserved Academy Awards (I'm a huge Midnight Cowboy fan...), and 2) it makes me think of the word "rollicking," and that's not my favorite kind of film.
― clemenza, Saturday, 4 December 2010 17:22 (thirteen years ago) link
BATMAN BEGINSTHE INCREDIBLE HULKSPIDERMANSSTAR TREK
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 4 December 2010 17:23 (thirteen years ago) link
clemenza, you may be over thinking this
― ice cr?m, Saturday, 4 December 2010 17:24 (thirteen years ago) link
Wow, that's what someone said to me on the Woody Allen thread the other day...for someone who doesn't do a great deal of serious thinking, you folks sure do think I do a lot of thinking!
― clemenza, Saturday, 4 December 2010 17:26 (thirteen years ago) link
quantity/quality
― ice cr?m, Saturday, 4 December 2010 17:28 (thirteen years ago) link
let go
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Saturday, 4 December 2010 17:29 (thirteen years ago) link
Now, don't get me mad--I'm pretty good at nasty if the right button's pushed.
― clemenza, Saturday, 4 December 2010 17:30 (thirteen years ago) link
Coen Brothers and Roger Deakins are making a movie so who cares what it's based on or remaking or adapted from.
― Gukbe, Saturday, 4 December 2010 17:31 (thirteen years ago) link
http://www.ba-services.co.uk/Push%20Button%20Link.gif
― ice cr?m, Saturday, 4 December 2010 17:33 (thirteen years ago) link
Big cartoon hand as metaphor for "Sorry for saying something so silly" noted.
― clemenza, Saturday, 4 December 2010 17:35 (thirteen years ago) link
yeah thats how i always note that
― ice cr?m, Saturday, 4 December 2010 17:38 (thirteen years ago) link
Anyway, take a step back, Yojimbo. I began by expressing skepticism that this project was a good idea, always making my assumptions clear along the way; conceded what I thought was a very good point by Number None; then tried to honestly explain why I've never seen the original. At what magical point did I begin "over-thinking"? That seems to be a very fluid line around here.
― clemenza, Saturday, 4 December 2010 17:41 (thirteen years ago) link
thats just cr?my bein cr?my bro, dont take it personal
― Princess TamTam, Saturday, 4 December 2010 17:43 (thirteen years ago) link
its a v fuiud line
― ice cr?m, Saturday, 4 December 2010 17:44 (thirteen years ago) link
lol i read it that way too, at first
― Princess TamTam, Saturday, 4 December 2010 17:44 (thirteen years ago) link
Ah, acronyms...could it be at all possible that you might under-thinking a little?
― clemenza, Saturday, 4 December 2010 17:46 (thirteen years ago) link
unpossible
― ice cr?m, Saturday, 4 December 2010 17:46 (thirteen years ago) link
Okay--we make the peace over a well-placed Ralph Wiggum quote. Touche.
― clemenza, Saturday, 4 December 2010 17:48 (thirteen years ago) link
There's some precedent I'm trying to remember, where somebody got it right the second time, but I can't come up with the title.
Huston-Bogart was the THIRD version of The Maltese Falcon.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:27 (thirteen years ago) link
That fits for sure, but it wasn't the one I was thinking of...I don't know. I love Michael Radford's 1984, but I haven't seen the '50s version and can't compare them. I know that Radford stayed fairly true to the novel, and I'm assuming (more assumptions) that he stayed truer than the earlier film.
― clemenza, Saturday, 4 December 2010 18:48 (thirteen years ago) link
kind of amazed that anyone is anticipating this when the trailer strongly indicates that jeff bridges' character may be grumpy in some scenes
― shirley summistake (s1ocki), Saturday, 4 December 2010 19:36 (thirteen years ago) link
You're coming perilously close to over-thinking there--be careful.
― clemenza, Saturday, 4 December 2010 19:49 (thirteen years ago) link
Reviews are coming in.
Also, NYT talking about Wayne vs. Bridges and points this out:
But other film devotees were less charmed, particularly when they viewed “True Grit” through the filter of Vietnam-era politics and Wayne’s conservative principles — which he had said were illustrated by a scene in which Cogburn shoots a rat after demonstrating the futility of trying to treat it under due process of law. (The new film has no such moment.)
The rat scene was in the book, so who knows yet which one is more faithful.
― Pleasant Plains, Sunday, 5 December 2010 19:52 (thirteen years ago) link
Wau, first ed of book had aws cover:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2b/True_Grit.jpg/418px-True_Grit.jpg
― ball (Hurting 2), Sunday, 5 December 2010 21:17 (thirteen years ago) link
Thats the edition i have! Bought it at a library sale <3
― Square-Panted Sponge Robert (VegemiteGrrrl), Sunday, 5 December 2010 21:34 (thirteen years ago) link
This is perfectly fine. Bridges is a hoot whenever he's yakking, and ultimately touching (but then i gasp "I've grown old" about 5 times a week).
An attendee who watched the 1969 version yesterday reports it's 90% like the Wayne film. I'm glad they filmed the book's epilogue, though, as not liking Mattie much pays off.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 04:04 (thirteen years ago) link
Borderline spoiler --- there's a character that lives in the book, but dies in the 1969 movie. What happens to that character in the 2010 version?
― Pleasant Plains, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 04:56 (thirteen years ago) link
zombie
― ice cr?m, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 05:00 (thirteen years ago) link
you'll hafta see, wontcha
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 05:11 (thirteen years ago) link
kinda skimmed the thread but key takeaways i took from a joel (?) coen interview was that the original lacked the humor and darkness of the book, as well as the narrative POV was not very faithful to the source.
that said, i saw the trailer and am very stoked. i'm planning on taking my mom to see it around xmas.
― i love you but i have chosen snarkness (Steve Shasta), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 05:34 (thirteen years ago) link
I'm honestly shocked the book is so popular. Is it that good?
― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 12:14 (thirteen years ago) link
Are you shocked because the characters wear chaps instead of the petticoats required by fine literature?
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 8 December 2010 15:56 (thirteen years ago) link
Ok so admittedly I am probably not going to love this in the first place, but I gave it a chance. Pretty good performances all round, particularly surprised by Matt Damon. Shot beautifully. Nice score. Just really...kinda boring?
Keep in mind I do like SOME westerns, but not many, and I mostly like the Coen brothers.
― Tilda Swinton Wreck Up A Dread Dub (admrl), Sunday, 12 December 2010 07:37 (thirteen years ago) link