anticipate TRUE GRIT by the Coen brothers

are you kidding im anticipating the balls outta this

couldnt u say the original was john wayne in grumpy mode??? it still owned!

also i get the feeling that the girl playing mattie ross could end up stealing this, she looks great in the trailers

Never seen the original -- it looks, well, like the movie for which John Wayne won his Oscar.

the original's awesome! the source material's really underrated, lots of cool moments and cracking dialogue...

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.

It's on my Netflix queue.

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...

well, mattie ross is really The Great Part but w/e

anyone not anticipating this is nutso

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.

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).

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

cuz if they're too lazy to watch a john wayne movie they're sure as fuck not about to read some book

maybe they just heard abt it and thought that sounds good is all

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.)

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, 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.

their justification for making it was prob they liked the work and thought they could make a good movie out of it im guessing

everything i've heard from folks who have seen it is that it owns

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

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.

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

BATMAN BEGINS
THE INCREDIBLE HULK
SPIDERMANS
STAR TREK

clemenza, you may be over thinking this

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!

quantity/quality

let go

Now, don't get me mad--I'm pretty good at nasty if the right button's pushed.

Coen Brothers and Roger Deakins are making a movie so who cares what it's based on or remaking or adapted from.

http://www.ba-services.co.uk/Push%20Button%20Link.gif

Big cartoon hand as metaphor for "Sorry for saying something so silly" noted.

yeah thats how i always note that

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.

thats just cr?my bein cr?my bro, dont take it personal

its a v fuiud line

lol i read it that way too, at first

Ah, acronyms...could it be at all possible that you might under-thinking a little?

unpossible

Okay--we make the peace over a well-placed Ralph Wiggum quote. Touche.

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.

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.

kind of amazed that anyone is anticipating this when the trailer strongly indicates that jeff bridges' character may be grumpy in some scenes

You're coming perilously close to over-thinking there--be careful.

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.

Wau, first ed of book had aws cover:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2b/True_Grit.jpg/418px-True_Grit.jpg

Thats the edition i have! Bought it at a library sale <3

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.

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?

zombie

you'll hafta see, wontcha

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'm honestly shocked the book is so popular. Is it that good?