anticipate TRUE GRIT by the Coen brothers

plus he used that cattle killing thing to off the cop

bardem^

it's a noir in the desert, mostly

j0e that is an OLD MOVIE term, so get the garlic out

Mexico = Indian Territory, the suitcase = the gold under the grave next to Arch Stanton's, etc. Totally a western.

villain vanishes into ether at the end? not in any western I recall.

j0e that is an OLD MOVIE term, so get the garlic out

― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Sunday, January 2, 2011 11:48 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

not sure what youre referring to here, but fwiw i do agree that ncfom wasnt a western

noir

I'm glad we agree

oh lol yeah what does than mean even is it like 3D

almost, w/out glasses

ncfom is not a western. it's pretty straight noir w/ a touch of southern gothic (which may just be a subset of noir anyway). though to be fair the villain vanishes into ether at the end of shane.

heh i thought real cineastes hated the term 'noir'

this was tremendous, the sequence of running the horse to dxxth (spoiler) is some of the best stuff they've ever done, put me in mind of both buscemi burying the money in the snow and the dude's hallucinations, but w/o any fucking around, if that makes sense. everybody was great, esp. damon.

ever thtalwart

Lol at 19 movies on that westerns list doing worse than Heavens Gate

villain vanishes into ether at the end? not in any western I recall.

― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, January 3, 2011 5:00 AM (7 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

High Plains Drifter? (agree on ncfom absolutely not being a western)

No really, let's discuss how NCFOM is a western. For starters, it has the words "country" and "old men" in the title.

and "for"

the sequence of running the horse to dxxth (spoiler) is some of the best stuff they've ever done

yeah it was haunting and horrible. and the close-in shots of them riding had this borderline sexual passion to it.. amazing and uncomfortable and sublime all at the same time somehow

thought this was great, if not exactly stunning in any particular way. i went in having read much of this thread, and gotta say that the "disney" thing seems totally otm, but for reasons i can't quite pin down yet. also had no difficulty squaring old mattie with young mattie, and didn't find her to be "unsympathetic" at all, i dunno

not exactly "unsympathetic"; I think it was Glenn Kenny who described the character as "a real pill."

The one thing I'm trying to which I'm trying to reconcile is my forgiveness of some of the deus ex machina (that was in the book, too.)

Like oh no, Mattie is about to be kilt by Tom Chaney and oh look, there's La Bouef from out of nowhere there to save the day. Yay! Why is it that I would rmde any other time this happens, but I let it go with True Grit?

Also, the whole climax between Rooster and Ned's gang. Goes by pretty quick. It works, but the whole thing could've been shaky in the hands of any other actor/director/writer.

heh i thought real cineastes hated the term 'noir'

how'd you get that idea

i think there's a lot of things i'm willing to forgive ~in this film~ just because it's an adaptation (which may not be fair at all). i've never seen the original or read the book, but i'd probably roll my damn eyes a lot harder at a john wayne movie. here i'm like 'well this is what they're working with, and they managed it well.'

also i kinda liked how perfunctory the final showdowns were (both mattie/chaney and rooster/ned). just kinda 'welp.'

Kinda like the spoiler in No Country.

The one thing I'm trying to which I'm trying to reconcile is my forgiveness of some of the deus ex machina (that was in the book, too.)

Like oh no, Mattie is about to be kilt by Tom Chaney and oh look, there's La Bouef from out of nowhere there to save the day. Yay! Why is it that I would rmde any other time this happens, but I let it go with True Grit?

Also, the whole climax between Rooster and Ned's gang. Goes by pretty quick. It works, but the whole thing could've been shaky in the hands of any other actor/director/writer.

― http://tinyurl.com/MO-02011 (Pleasant Plains), Monday, January 3, 2011 10:08 AM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

yeah, the laboef coming in from off-screen to save the day stuff is cheap - but otoh who cares

the climax b/w rooster and the gang is handled pretty similarly in the first movie... i dont know if there's really a myriad of ways to get it across

It was really exciting in the book, especially the tension of La Bouef making that impossible shot.

and the close-in shots of them riding had this borderline sexual passion to it..

This shot was def in the wayne version too!

Still haven't watched that version yet. The book was so good, the 2010 version was so good, not sure if I want to see Rocky Mountain Rhinestone Cowboy with the Happy Ending just yet.

i'd probably roll my damn eyes a lot harder at a john wayne movie

RRREALLY

yeah duh it's old and corny

new one's still a lot better, funnier w/wayyyy better performances in the mattie and laboeuf roles, but the original's not bad - wayne's better than bridges, robert duvall owns, the dialogue is great and mostly untouched

challop, but Pepper as Pepper looked like he was doing his Duvall imitation.

I've read that in a 100 places, but agree with it.

no I totally agree - i liked him a lot, but his perf reminded me more of his counterpart's than anyone else's.

wayne plays the role a lot more dry than Bridges, so his lines are way funnier

Yeah, the consensus amongst friends who were familiar with the original: Wayne >>>> Bridges

"dry"

has anyone seen the '69 version since this one? am I right about the Strother Martin soundalike?

I wouldn't say one Cogburn is better than the other. Wayne made at least 20 better westerns.

yes, and you are

Bridges was fine if unsurprising. Wayne's turn is more winning when you've got those 20 other performances in mind.

wayne's better for the part too cuz he actually was a fat piece of shit - bridges looks like a trainyard hobo and it sounds weird when people keep calling him a fat old man

Yeah, the consensus amongst friends who were familiar with the original: Wayne >>>> Bridges

Despite top-billing, Bridges definitely kept his character in supporting role to Mattie Ross'. It's another cliche that I'm willing to forgive in this case, the young warrior taking guidance from an eccentric chief.

Some of the things in the book that were cut out of the Coen's version, like Rooster shooting the rat after asking it for writ of habeas corpus, could've filled out the 2010 Rooster character, but that wasn't really the new version's point to make.

xpost OTM

he's a year younger than Wayne was, and if I'm fat, he's fat

Aw, hell. I'll post one more:

http://orangepunch.ocregister.com/files/2010/06/grover-cleveland-1.jpg

They're both fat (Wayne and Bridges)

fat aint fat no more

bridges isnt fat, hes just like a normal old guy - prob same deal w/morbz

Let's not talk about One-Eyed Morbs.

heh i thought real cineastes hated the term 'noir'

how'd you get that idea

― Princess TamTam, Monday, January 3, 2011 9:13 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

so what you're saying is that you're not very real