True Grit (2010)

trekgeezer · December 27, 2010, 04:16:27 PM

My one question about this movie is "Why did they make it?"

A majority of the dialogue and scenes were nearly identical except for small details. The added scenes except for the ending didn't add a whole lot to the story.

It is worth seeing for the performances. Matt Damon got shorted in this area. Bridges' portrayal of Rooster is a hoot , but he does come across as meaner than John Wayne in the part . I think newcomer Hailee Steinfeld has a career ahead of her. She blows Kim Darby away as the pain in the ass Mattie Ross. For one thing she is really 14 years old (Darby was 21).

The movies does have a more authentic tone and they filmed it somewhere that at least bears some resemblance to Northwest Arkansas and Oklahoma, unlike the first film which was mainly shot in Colorado.

Like I said it is definitely worth seeing, but you may want to wait for Netflix.

lester1/2jr · December 27, 2010, 04:58:39 PM

the only western I ever liked was "Buck and The Preacher". I just don't get it.

Rev. Powell · December 27, 2010, 05:46:20 PM

I'm looking forward to seeing this in the theater, probably tomorrow.

Silverlady · December 27, 2010, 06:20:18 PM

Quote from: Trekgeezer on December 27, 2010, 04:16:27 PM
My one question about this movie is "Why did they make it?"

A majority of the dialogue and scenes were nearly identical except for small details. The added scenes except for the ending didn't add a whole lot to the story.

It is worth seeing for the performances. Matt Damon got shorted in this area. Bridges' portrayal of Rooster is a hoot , but he does come across as meaner than John Wayne in the part . I think newcomer Hailee Steinfeld has a career ahead of her. She blows Kim Darby away as the pain in the ass Mattie Ross. For one thing she is really 14 years old (Darby was 21).

The movies does have a more authentic tone and they filmed it somewhere that at least bears some resemblance to Northwest Arkansas and Oklahoma, unlike the first film which was mainly shot in Colorado.

Like I said it is definitely worth seeing, but you may want to wait for Netflix.

My hubby and I went to see this recently, and he said pretty much the same thing. We were both kind of disappointed with it.

BTM · December 27, 2010, 06:48:06 PM

Quote from: Trekgeezer on December 27, 2010, 04:16:27 PM
Like I said it is definitely worth seeing, but you may want to wait for Netflix.

Do you think it's better if you haven't seen the original?

Sidenote, I read a funny story about the making of that film in USA today. The two male co-stars had such a bad habit of swearing on the seat the young Hailee started a Swear Girl, and made them pay a dollar each word, giving the collected money to charity. But the guys got even with her and started another jar, making her pay fifty cents every time she used the word, "like".

Pilgermann · December 27, 2010, 08:34:56 PM

I loved it! I haven't watched the original film, although I have it in a John Wayne DVD set. The new film is probably my favorite movie from this year.

Jim H · December 28, 2010, 03:05:45 AM

It's been a while since I saw the original, but as I recall it the remake is better in almost every way and significantly departed from it in style and tone. Much closer to the book, is my understanding.

I thought it an excellent film. Great acting from everyone involved, gorgeous cinematography, and still a good story. There were a number of bits that were clearly nearly identical, meant as homage I think, like the delivery and shots of Pepper's last scene in the movie.

Overall, a 9/10 from me.

The Burgomaster · December 29, 2010, 08:44:20 AM

I'm hoping to take my nephews to see it today. I watched the original a few nights ago to get me ready.

The Burgomaster · December 31, 2010, 08:28:59 AM

I saw it yesterday. Worth seeing, but not a classic. As Trekgeezer mentioned, there are many scenes that are very close to the John Wayne version. I'd give it a 7.5 on a scale of 1 - 10, with 10 being the best.

Hammock Rider · January 01, 2011, 02:02:24 AM

Taken on its own it's a pretty good film. This one focuses more on Maddie Ross and the kid who plays her does a fantatic job. I'd agree that she definitely has a career in film ahead of her. Bridges and Damon are both good too.

The main difference for me was that the relationship between Maddie and Rooster seemd a little more developed in the original. Rooster, over time, seemed almost like an uncle to Maddie. In the new one not so much. Plus, I liked the[ SPOILERS]...............................................happier ending in the original.

Raffine · January 01, 2011, 01:57:22 PM

Who's gonna play Katharine Hepburn in the sequel?

BTM · January 01, 2011, 11:01:06 PM

Okay, I admit, I haven't seen this yet, but here's a question...

As others have pointed out, why is Hailee Steinfeld up for Best Supporting Actress when she's in almost every scene? Shouldn't it be Best Actress?

The Burgomaster · January 03, 2011, 11:53:06 AM

Quote from: BTM on January 01, 2011, 11:01:06 PM
Okay, I admit, I haven't seen this yet, but here's a question...

As others have pointed out, why is Hailee Steinfeld up for Best Supporting Actress when she's in almost every scene? Shouldn't it be Best Actress?

Actually, I think it should be neither. Her performance is very good, but I think it's a bit shy of "best actress" or "best supporting actress" calibre. However, if I had to choose a category it would be "best actress." The movie centers around her character and she is in essentially every scene . . . in fact, she narrates the whole movie. I don't know how this would fit into the definition of a "supporting" role.

Jim H · January 03, 2011, 01:09:24 PM

It's Best Supporting likely as the studio is lobbying for it - the Academy has no rules for which type thespians get nominated. So the studio submits it a certain way they feel is most likely to win - or sometimes to prevent competition they don't want. That's why Jamie Foxx got nominated for Best Supporting in Collateral despite being the main character etc... They thought he'd have a better chance of winning on Ray and didn't want to split the vote. Apparently it worked.

Likely they feel the competition in Best Actress is stronger. Also the older voters can be paternalistic and sort of look down on very young actresses and not take them seriously.

BoyScoutKevin · January 23, 2011, 05:15:11 PM

Okay. Finally seeing the film yesterday, here's my take on it.

If "Season of the Witch" was more enjoyable than I expected, then . . . With a point-by-point comparison of the 1969 and 2010 versions.

John Wayne vs. Jeff Bridges
If I saw a John Wayne film, it was to see John Wayne. If I saw a Jeff Bridges film, then it was to see the film. 1969 (1) 2010 (0)

"Fill yer hand ya s.o.b."
Of course, they didn't say s.o.b., but I thought John Wayne had a better way with a line than Jeff Bridges. 1969 (2) 2010 (0)

Believability
I thought Wayne was more believable in the role than Bridges. 1969 (3) 2010 (0)

Kim Darby vs. Hailee Steinfeld
Singularly unimpressed with Steinfeld's acting. Outside chance of receiving an Oscar nomination for her work in the film. Still unimpressed. We'll call it a wash. No points for either side.

Age
I did like the fact that Steinfeld was closer to age of the character than Darby. 1969 (3) 2010 (1)

Glen Campbell vs. Matt Damon
It wasn't hard, but Damon did turn in a better performance than Campbell. 1969 (3) 2010 (2) It's the little things that make a character. I liked that LaBoeuf smoked a pipe.

Supporting cast
(1969) Jeremy Slate, Robert Duvall, Dennis Hopper, Strother Martin, Jeff Corey, John fiedler, John Doucette, and Carlos Rivas and in uncredited parts Wilford Brimley, (making his motion picture debut here) James McEachin, Boyd "Red" Morgan, Jay Silverheels, and old Hank Worden. 2010. Ah . . Josh Brolin and ah . . . Barry Pepper. And that's it. Maybe that's why . . . 1969 (4) 2010 (2)

Acting
There was not a supporting actor in the 2010 version that turned in (IMHO) a better performance that their 1969 counterpart. They were the same or even worst. 1969 (5) 2010 (2) And who told Barry Pepper to start channeling Robert Duvall. He even began to sound like Duvall.

Goofs
Apparently there were fewer goofs in the 2010 version than the 1969 version. 1969 (5) 2010 (3)

Pacing
When we did not see Mattie father's death in the 2010 version, but only his body, seeing his actual shooting by Chaney in the 1969 version, I knew the 1969 version was better paced. 1969 (6) 2010 (3)

Script
Reading the script and taking the quotations out of order, the humor comes out better in the 1969 version that the 2010 version. (1969) (7) 2010 (3)

Believability
Much to my amazement, the 2010 version was less believable to the time, the 1880s, and the place, Arkansas and the Indian Territory, than the 1969 version. 1969 (8) 2010 (3)

Faithful adaptation
Yeah, right. There were alot incidents and characters in the 2010 version that were not in the book. The 1969 being a more faithful adaptation. 1969 (9) 2010 (3)

The ending
From the time that Mattie appeared as an adult to the ending, now that was a "faithful" Adaption, and (IMHO) it showed. The whole film should have been right that, but they couldn't leave the book alone and messed up the film. And I never liked the fact that LeBoeuf got killed in the 1969 version, but survived in the book and the 2010 version.
1969 (9) 2010 (4)

The rest is a wash between the two versions.

Conclusion
I was glad that I saw the 2010 version, because it was just as I expected, most remakes, as in this case, are a perfectly good waste of celluloid, as there is already a satisfactory version out there. What I was not expecting, was how much I disliked this version. Thus, if "Season of the Witch" is an example of a film I enjoyed much more than I expected , then "True Grit" 2010 version is an example of a film I enjoyed much less than I expected.