Is it just me or is John Wayne's True Grit...

[gambolputty]

lacking grit?

Wife and I have watched both Wayne's version and Jeff Bridges version and think that the new version kills the old one. Bridges performance is spot on. Halie Steinfeld is a far more believable Mattie (and really does play the part with grit and determination). Even the supporting cast seems far better in terms of performance and casting.

The one nice thing about John Wayne's version is that you see the lawyer Mattie is always talking about. Nice touch. And Robert Duval was on hand. Always have to give points to a movie with Robert Duval.

Is it just a reflection of how movie making has progressed since 1969? Did John Wayne fear trying to play a deeply flawed anti-hero? Or was it considered box office poison to have the duke really play up the alcoholic, gun slinging killer/thief with a badge aspect of the story?

Anyone one else have some thoughts on this?

[Blue Light]

I'm a huge fan of the Coen Bros, but I still prefer Wayne's version. I kinda like that classic western cinematography, for one thing. And as much I like Jeff Bridges, I could not stop thinking about his mannered performance throughout.
Maybe it's just me.

When the first True Grit came out, there some critical talk about the way he overplayed it. I think it was Peter Bogdanovich who said ruefully that Wayne never won his Oscar until he lampooned himself. But I really liked the way he did it. He really made the most of all those funny lines he had.

The one weakness of the earlier version is the presence of Glenn Campbell. He acquitted himself well under what much have been pretty tough circumstances. He only made a couple movies in his life, I think, and he's gotta go toe-to-toe with the toughest scene-stealer in film history? Boy, not a job for the faint-hearted. Still, he strikes too modern a note.

You ask if he was afraid to play a lush. Well, he plays it with such roguish charm, it's not like he was doing Jack Lemmon in "Days of Wine and Roses" -- a real serious, down-and-out boozehound.
That would've been interesting to see!

[mbargav]

I prefer the original by far, especially the last scene. I'm a big Coen Bros. fan, but their take on True Grit didn't do it for me at all.

[lespaulreedsmith]

I liked both of them but I grew up in the late 60's and 70's in a "John Wayne is the king" household....

Your stance dissing 'The Duke' is therefore blasphemous and probably due for an infraction here...
(or an infraction in my old household)

kidding, I like them both

[kelvinator60]

Originally Posted by mbargav

I prefer the original by far, especially the last scene. I'm a big Cohen Bros. fan, but their take on True Grit didn't do it for me at all.

This X 1000. I mean who remakes a John Wayne film? Really?

[A-Bone]

John Wayne starred in a number of substantial and classic Westerns, among them Stagecoach, John Ford's "Cavalry Trilogy", The Searchers, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Red River, and Rio Bravo. The original version of True Grit is a comparatively weak example of the Duke's better work in the genre.

[A-Bone]

Originally Posted by kelvinator60

This X 1000. I mean who remakes a John Wayne film? Really?

Also, the Coen brothers did not, strictly speaking, remake a John Wayne film. Rather, they made a film adapting the same source material as the Wayne version.

[Gandalf5150]

The new version is a good film, but the original is a timeless classic.

Wayne just exudes a charm in the role which is fantastic imo.

[Mudder]

The new version absolutely drills the original.

[kelvinator60]

Originally Posted by A-Bone

Also, the Coen brothers did not, strictly speaking, remake a John Wayne film. Rather, they made a film adapting the same source material as the Wayne version.

If you watch both versions 75% of the dialog is identical. The endings are different. From they hype I was expecting a drastically different film but just got a shoddy remake with a more cynical ending. I really went into the movie hoping to like it. It could have been pulled off. But after the disaster ending of No Country for Old Men I am not surprised they dropped the ball either.

[SLBlues]

Huge John Wayne fan here so I am going with those in the original film camp.....no contest IMO.

[Timmo]

Originally Posted by mbargav

I prefer the original by far, especially the last scene. I'm a big Cohen Bros. fan, but their take on True Grit didn't do it for me at all.

Could NOT AGREE MORE!

[mbargav]

Originally Posted by kelvinator60

If you watch both versions 75% of the dialog is identical. The endings are different. From they hype I was expecting a drastically different film but just got a shoddy remake with a more cynical ending. I really went into the movie hoping to like it. It could have been pulled off. But after the disaster ending of No Country for Old Men I am not surprised they dropped the ball either.

I felt this to be especially true about Jeff Bridges' performance. I actually re-watched the original the night before I saw the remake, and Bridges' debt to the Duke is undeniable. Only one man deserves to yell "fill your hands you son of a bitch".

[A-Bone]

Originally Posted by kelvinator60

If you watch both versions 75% of the dialog is identical. The endings are different. From they hype I was expecting a drastically different film but just got a shoddy remake with a more cynical ending. I really went into the movie hoping to like it. It could have been pulled off. But after the disaster ending of No Country for Old Men I am not surprised they dropped the ball either.

Of course, the consistent dialog is explained by the common source material, as well. It is my understanding that the Coen film's ending is more in line with the ending of the book.

[dangeroso]

I just watched the new version last night, and didn't care for it much. Haven't seen the original.