BoyScoutKevin:
I really liked your point-counterpoint analysis. Well done. I still haven't seen it, but I will. I'm sure it will be worth seeing. Being a Coen Brothers film makes it unlikely to be crap. In any case I appreciated the style of your post.
Thank-you. He does try. Actually, he's very trying.
But, I don't want anyone to think it was a crap film. It's not a crap film. The Coen Brothers are too good of filmmakers to make a crap film.
But, does it surpass the 1969 version? No.
Does it surpass the book? No. I've read the book. It's a wonderful book. Wonderful characters. Wonderful dialogue. Wonderful pacing. Wonderful scenes.
So what happened?
The 1969 filmmakers were smart enough to follow the book.
The 2010 filmmakers were not as smart. They started screwing around. They subtracted scenes, that added to the film, such as the shooting of Mattie's father, and instead, they started adding scenes that added nothing to the film, such as the high hanging.
That is why (IMHO) as much as some viewers hate the ending, that is my favorite part of the film, because that is the nearest thing to the book in the film. It may make Mattie's character more unlikable, but it is honest to her character.
The other weakness of the the 2010 film is the acting. No, not that of the stars, which compares with that of the 1969 version, but of the acting of the supporting cast. None of whom were surpass their counterparts in the 1969 film. Some of them equal their counterparts in that film, but alot of them turn in a worst performance than those in the 1969 film. I don't know whether that is the fault of the Coen Brothers, the fact that most of the 2010 supporting actors are lesser talented than their 1969 counterparts, or both.
But the 2010 film is not a crap film.
