True Grit (2010)

[snapt]

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/paramount/truegrit/

One of my favorite films and novels growing up. Wasn't sure what to think when I heard about the remake but the Cohen bros, Jeff Bridges and Josh Brolin are making me optimistic. I like what I see so far, so stoked for this.

[Tippster]

Yeah, that won't suck.

[Like a Boss]

Yeah, that won't suck.

Looks really really good. Seeing as I like even the bad Coen Bros. movies (Hudsucker Proxy), I can't see how I won't like this one.

[la_banda]

this looks unreal, cast is stacked

[aliciavali17]

Another Coen Bros. movie is always a good thing. Still have to check out A Serious Man.

[Caucasian Asian]

I love westerns. I really do.

If you hadn't seen the original, this might not be that bad. And from the trailer it doesn't look like Jeff Bridges is trying to act like John Wayne, but playing the role. It may not suck.

Anybody ever see the original 3:10 to Yuma?

[dookeyXXX]

Granted, the buzz I've heard is that they (The Coens) undertook a new cinematic adaptation of Charles Portis' novel, rather than re-making the Henry Hathaway 1969 film, but I still don't get it.

The original filmed version of the book with John Wayne is so iconic (Wayne even won an Oscar for the part of Rooster Cogburn, plus it spurned a sequel that wasn't based on a novel) that re-making the film (even if you are stating that it's a new interpretation of the novel) seems kind of pointless.

To me it would akin to somebody saying that they were going to film a new adaptation of 2001: A Space Odyssey. They might say that they are merely re-interpreting the novel, but again when there already exists a film interpretation that is so iconic, what is really the point of doing it again? (the same could be said for somebody who wanted to re-interpret A Clockwork Orange or Farenheit 451, amongst other classic/cult novels that have received stellar cinematic interpretation).


PS
anybody else notice that they seem to have switched the eye patches?
(Wayne has his on his left eye, and the pix I've seen of Bridges, he's wearing one on his right eye...)

PPS:
anybody seen True Grit: The Further Adventures, starring Warren Oates (!) as Rooster Cogburn?

[digitaldeath]

hey dookie- u seem to love movies, curious if you have seen "buffalo 66" awesome indie film- very funny!

[rush1975]

Not sure what I'm more excited to see this of Tron, Mr Bridges has been a busy man.

[Benny Profane]

Yeah, he's the American Michael Caine.

[The AD]

re-making the film (even if you are stating that it's a new interpretation of the novel) seems kind of pointless.

Pretty sure the sole point is to make money...

[bagtagley]

Pointless or not, I thought it was a really good movie. Bridges nailed Cogbern and the girl was awesome. It followed the same basic theme of the original movie, but was definitely different. It seems they stayed truer to the book than the original. Typical Coen darkness, dialogue and unusual humor. I recommend seeing it.

[splat]

Granted, the buzz I've heard is that they (The Coens) undertook a new cinematic adaptation of Charles Portis' novel, rather than re-making the Henry Hathaway 1969 film, but I still don't get it.

The original filmed version of the book with John Wayne is so iconic (Wayne even won an Oscar for the part of Rooster Cogburn, plus it spurned a sequel that wasn't based on a novel) that re-making the film (even if you are stating that it's a new interpretation of the novel) seems kind of pointless.

To me it would akin to somebody saying that they were going to film a new adaptation of 2001: A Space Odyssey. They might say that they are merely re-interpreting the novel, but again when there already exists a film interpretation that is so iconic, what is really the point of doing it again? (the same could be said for somebody who wanted to re-interpret A Clockwork Orange or Farenheit 451, amongst other classic/cult novels that have received stellar cinematic interpretation).


PS
anybody else notice that they seem to have switched the eye patches?
(Wayne has his on his left eye, and the pix I've seen of Bridges, he's wearing one on his right eye...)

PPS:
anybody seen True Grit: The Further Adventures, starring Warren Oates (!) as Rooster Cogburn?

It's widely acknowledged that John Wayne got a sympathy Oscar for that role. I saw an interview with Coen bros and they said they never even watched the earlier version, as hard as that is to believe.

I don't think you're opposed to bands doing covers or djs doing mixes, dookey, are you? If someone can do something better and sell it, I guess the size of the global population that can buy it is financial motivation enough, as The AD said.

[rockcreek]

saw this last night.... Awesome movie, great dialogue, maddy (sp?), rooster and lebeef were well played by their respective actors. Coen brothers deliver on the directing end. A fine western, if you've nothing to do this weekend (besides skiing of course) check it out.

[Trapp]

Saw it last night also. Entertaining, but I was a little disappointed. I kept hearing things like "not trying to remake the original" and "solely basing it off the novel" yadda yadda. It was a complete remake of the original IMO. I enjoyed it, but didnt love it.

[vinzclortho]

Saw it Christmas eve with my cousins and it is pure Coen brothers/the dude magic. Now I've never seen the John Wayne version or read the novel but I loved this movie. All the acting was strong, the characters were amazing and a few really weird characters thrown in for good measure like say...Dr. Bear....SUPER WILY. Jeff Bridges and the girl who plays Maddie deliver exceptional performances. My cousins and I spent all day yesterday and Christmas eve imitating Rooster Cogburn!


I highly highly recommend. 45 out of 47 stars!
u

[Tap]

appropriate for 10 year olds?

[JoeStrummer]

appropriate for 10 year olds?

I am reminded of that Dylan Thomas quote - "This is just the book to give your sister - if she is a loud, dirty, boozy girl."

But seriously, there is one brief, fairly violent scene and a few other minor scenes. But there is probably more violence in 20 minutes of Lord of the Rings, and the language isn't any worse than network TV.

[spanghew]

a provocative review in today's Times--

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...-true-grit/?hp

[Wildman]

Saw this film the other not. I have not read the book or seen the previous movie (Wayne). I was very, very dissapointed. While matt damon and Jeff bridges delivered solid performances the girl was just awful. It is a classic case IMHO of overacting. I could not even understand her half the time because she was trying to spit her lines out so damn fast. the cinemtography and landscapes were beautiful. But the music was awful (almost like a cheesy soapbox western / disney movie), and I was left dumbfounded as to how the Coen bros could possibly have directed such a dissapointment.

[ill-advised strategy]

I liked it.

[Meadow Skipper]

I liked it.

Me too.

...

[Like a Boss]

Just saw it. Awesome.

[digitaldeath]

Saw this film the other not. I have not read the book or seen the previous movie (Wayne). I was very, very dissapointed. While matt damon and Jeff bridges delivered solid performances the girl was just awful. It is a classic case IMHO of overacting. I could not even understand her half the time because she was trying to spit her lines out so damn fast. the cinemtography and landscapes were beautiful. But the music was awful (almost like a cheesy soapbox western / disney movie), and I was left dumbfounded as to how the Coen bros could possibly have directed such a dissapointment.

this movie sucks bigtime- i almost walked out

and the girl is the only redeeming quality about the movie.

i really hated it

the fighter is superb as well as black swan

[Tye 1on]

Liked all of it except the ending. I'm amazed how deeply Bridges can get in to his character development.