True Grit (1 Viewer)

mikemiller1955 said:
Al...George...both versions are very good shows...the JW version is definitely more Hollywood...no argument there...

that movie was released in 1960...I was 5 years old...my father sat through two features with me on a Saturday morning...167 minutes...him spending his time with me...indulging his son like a good father...that may weigh on my decision as to which I like best...

if I remove the "Dad" factor...I dunno...it's a coin toss...

Dad made it a great memory as a child...but he was a JW fan too...
Click to expand...
Hi Mike. I know what you mean about the Dad connection as mine took me to my first viewing of The Alamo, also. I do find it interesting that there are at least three different length cuts of Wayne's Alamo available. I have a full length uncut version of it on tape, and it is up to 15 minutes longer than the one shown in the theaters and on TV. There is also a version that is shorter than the theater and TV film. -- Al
 
lancer said:
This is on my list to see but I have been made a little less enthusiastic by the ads. Bridges seems kind of wooden in the brief glimpses these ads provide. I will still see it if the reviews aren't all terrible but I will be very interested to see if Bridges is a worthy fill in for the Duke. I don't know if it can be done. -- Al
Click to expand...
First review in the Wash. Post is all positive and then some. Sounds like the Coen's have done it right. -- Al
 
Yes, I'll probably see it - might wait for TV though. The role of Rooster Cogburn is the Duke's! Bridges is good, the supporting cast will very likely be better than the 1969 version (except Duvall as Lucky Ned Pepper), but "True Grit" is JOHN WAYNE'S movie! There are lots of great stories out there waiting to be told. It's a statement about the lack of creativity in the modern entertainment industry that they have to re-do movies that were done right the first time, or they resort to old TV sitcoms or cartoons.

The only re-make I could get excited about might be "Sink the Bismarck" with modern CGI effects. Hollywood might likely screw that up too (I didn't know Angelina Jolie was a German officer on the Bismarck!).

Gary B.
 
mikemiller1955 said:
Oooooh come on man...

John Wayne, Richard Widmark, Richard Boone, Laurence Harvey...not to mention the sound track...that was the Lawrence of Arabia of San Antonio...it was a masterpiece...that is what actually started me collecting soldiers...my first set...the plastic "Alamo" set...no remake will ever best that movie in my opinion...

and being from Texas...most of us down here don't like the version (correct or not) of Davy Crockett surrendering...

you would not believe how proud most Texans are of the Battle of the Alamo...

"Dang boy"...we sit around the ranch, in our boots and cowboy hats and reminisce about it...

but the Billy Bob version was very good too...one of my favorites...

I just kept waiting for him to say...

"Errrrrrrr...I like that boy...errrrrrrr...I want some French fried taters...errrrrrr...reckon you could make me some biscuits...:D
Click to expand...

Michael,
Understood how the movie brings back childhood memories, so it has that going for it, you make a good point, I am sure that movie made many kids into toy soldier fans and the Louis Marx Company a fortune with all the Alamo sets they sold.

My cousin and I had our annual Christmas luncheon today and the Alamo came up, he told me he just finished a book about The Alamo that tells a very different story of the battle; most of the fighting actually took place outside of the compound, with Mexicans squaring off against Texians trying to escape, they put up a very good fight, several managed to escape despite what we are led to believe.

During the final assault, once the walls were breached, the fighting lasted about 25 minutes.

The Alamo in Texas is like the Battle of Bunker Hill here in Boston (it was actually fought on Breeds Hill), ie, essentially civilians standing up to a well trained army.....................
 
Your all wrong! Fess Parker will always be Davy Crockett. He,s probably still alive and swinging "ole betsy" at the Mexicans coming up the steps.
Gary
 
Warrior said:
Michael,

My cousin and I had our annual Christmas luncheon today and the Alamo came up, he told me he just finished a book about The Alamo that tells a very different story of the battle; most of the fighting actually took place outside of the compound, with Mexicans squaring off against Texians trying to escape, they put up a very good fight, several managed to escape despite what we are led to believe.


.....................
Click to expand...

I had never heard that...but several years ago...possibly before the Ron Howard version...the diary of a Mexican soldier from Santa Anna's army was uncovered...it has been authenticated I believe...according to him...Crockett died at the hands of a firing squad...

but we don't wanna believe that...:rolleyes:
 
Just saw True Grit and loved it. Well acted, beautifully photographed. Very well done.
 
Saw True Grit today and thought it well done. As good as the original. Still, with same dialogue and not many changes from the John Wayne version, not sure why the remake.
 
This is a fantastic movie...whichever version you like is your own opinion...but you would be doing yourself a disservice if you discounted this version because your a John Wayne fan...the Coen brothers nailed it...Hailey Steinfeld stole the show for the first 30 minutes...but Bridges rose to the top like cream...

notice the different eye for the patch...
 

Attachments

  • wayne-bridges_320.jpg
    wayne-bridges_320.jpg
    26.3 KB · Views: 154
I know of three John Wayne films that have been remade, Stagecoach, The Alamo and this one, True Grit, but have there been any others?
 
"El Dorado" was a remake of "Rio Bravo". Does remaking your own film count?:D -- Al
 
Just saw the new "True Grit" this weekend. Yes, both are very good. I still like Wayne's Cogburn character just a wee bit better. Bridges is probably more realistic. The new girl is definitely better than Kim Darby and Matt Damon is light years ahead of Glen Campbell as the Ranger. Barry Pepper really channelled Robert Duvall in his Lucky Ned Pepper but gave it enough change to make it his. Brolin did a good Tom Cheney.

The new one is more true to the book, but I like the ending of the 1969 version.

A lot more firearm variety in the recent version.

Gary B.
 
One thing I always liked about the original was the ballad. Did this new version have the ballad?

Walt
 
wds0855 said:
One thing I always liked about the original was the ballad. Did this new version have the ballad? Walt
Click to expand...

That's a negative on the ballad. The primary songs in the new movie are old hymns.

Gary B.
 
binder001 said:
That's a negative on the ballad. The primary songs in the new movie are old hymns.

Gary B.
Click to expand...
Thank goodness. While I like Campbell's song just fine, attaching it to the remake would have been a mistake. The Coen Brothers wanted a film of their own, not needing a tie in like the theme. Can you imagine Campbell warbling "True Grit" while Bridges and Damon ride into the sunset?:p -- Al
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top