True Grit vs. True Grit

21 comments

20 comments

2010. No contest. Superior in every way unless you have a John Wayne fetish.

Yes, no contest indeed unless you have a Coen fetish. True Grit 1969 is a true original and the MUCH better film. This 2010 rehash really does fall short in every way that matters. I know hollywood caters to the under 20 crowd but are there really that many ignorant children and/or pure Coen fans clamoring to see remakes of good films? I honestly lump this less than True Grit in with Poseidon, Pink Panther, Psycho, The Invasion, The Longest Yard, Planet of The Apes, and others as inferior modern re-telling of good tales. I like Jeff Bridges but his grumbling cross between Yosemite Sam and The Dude is so far below John Wayne’s Oscar winning performance that it’s not even funny.

I love Wayne. But the new True Grit is amazing. I give the nod to True Grit (2010) simply on the strength of Hailee Steinfeld's performance and Roger Deakins' (The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, O Brother Where Art Thou) beautiful cinematography. It was not as strong as No Country for Old Men but I don't mind watching remakes when they are of this quality.

The new True Grit is almost shot for shot the original and don't let anyone tell you different. (Save the flashback stuff) Taken in that context, it's not even close. As with most cases, the original rules. John Wayne is vastly better than Jeff Bridges so much so that it's not even debatable.

It's amazing how similar these movies are to each other. The Coens have the benefit of making it 50 years later and so can afford not to flinch at the violence. Nor do they sugar the ending. The reason why the Coens version is better comes down to three things 1) Cinematography. I mean wow. Deakins is way overdue for an Oscar. 2) Humour. They've both got it, but I prefer the Coens oddball, drier sense of fun. 3) Acting. Bridges and Wayne - there ain't much to choose between them. But the acting of Hailee Steinfeld and Matt Damon are what sets the new version apart from the old. True Grit (2010) wins.

Will there be another remake in another 50 years?

Will there be another remake in another 50 years?

I'll go with the Coens version because I like the cinematography and the cast but I prefer the Charlie Portis book ahead of both.

Don't get me wrong, I really like the original and adore John Wayne but the Coen's True Grit is amazing in every way. The cinematography, acting, score, editing, production design, are all head and shoulders above the original.

The 2010 version is better in every way.

I have not yet watched the original version. One reason is I am afraid I will just not have the love for it as I do this new one. I (for one) do have a "Jeff Bridges fetish" and The Duke was a little before my time but that is not to say I have no respect for older films or for John Wayne, BECAUSE I DO!. I will be watching it soon I'm sure, but Its gonna have to be PERFECT to beat the Coens. I just don't see that happening. If it weren't so good, there would not even be this debate.

The 2010 version of course. Geoff bridges is an actor, John Wayne played John Wayne throughout his whole career!

I have to go with the Coen brothers version of TRUE GRIT. The original version is one of my favorite John Wayne movies, but if I have to pick between the two I could go with the 2010 movie simply on the strength of all the performances.

In my mind, John Wayne will always be Rooster Cogburn. With that said, I liked the Coens version of True Grit better. The dialogue was more in line with the Charles Portis novel and the darker tones (in terms of both cinematography and storyline, especially the ending) give the film more gravity when conveying the danger of a young girl traveling into unknown territory with two complete strangers.

Coen Brothers....Bow Down.

Each is good in their own way.One may compare scenes and they about even out. The 1969 version does have better actors such as Stother Martin,Robert Duvall etc. with the exception of Glenn Campbell,and the jaunty movie score by Elmer Bernstein.John Wayne gave a performance of a lifetime (Oscar worthy) .The 2010 was nominated for 10 oscars and did not win one but it was very worthy of several.Jeff Bridges was more realistic,and gruffy.The 1969 was more engaging because it showed Tom Chaney laughing at the top of the pit which is a major key scene in the book along with what happens to little Blackie.Please read the book!I read it in 1975.Kim Darby was more tender when sh ewas with her Mattie's father posessions,and her feeling toward Little Blackie.The 2010 has stilted dialogue for do you know anyone who talks like some oof the dialogue shows. ETC.!!! I repeat that Each is good in their own way! Some of my mannerisms has come from the 1969 version for it has influenced me through the years.I stood up against 3 opposite race members in the high school bathroom wanting a little money and I said "No." It has given me courage throughout the years in other situations as well. Etc.!!!

I liked both versions, but I think that the 69' version was better. It had a much more coherant narrative. The new one felt disjointed at times.

The original is not much more than a glorified stool sample, primarily because Mattie Ross' character ranks right down there as one of the the most heinous embodiments of 'annoying bitch' since time began, but also because John Wayne is a lousy, lousy actor. The Coen's made a good movie. Not great, but good. The remake is more streamlined in length, but more filling in event. The dialogue is sharper, funnier and, frankly, more evolved. There's much more screen presence and charm, better violence, beautiful cinematography. Yeah, it really helps a movie not to cast an abrading cunt as lead actress. The Mattie Ross character may be easily dislikable, but at least Hailee Steinfeld comes off as a hustler rather than a sanctimonious ass wookie.

I love both versions, but have to give it to the Coen's. Their version sidesteps being a remake, and is instead an evocative, hillarious reinterpretation of the material from the book. I do have to say I kind of prefer the original's corny ending to the sour note the Coens end on.

I have to tip my hat to the Duke. I liked the remake, and found Matt Damon far better than Glen Campbell. However, in the climatic gunfight when Rooster shouts "fill your hands you son of a ..." there was true grit in the Duke's delivery, and with Bridges all I got was just a little tobacco spittle.

Both are great but you can't beat the original. Not enough people have seen the original True Grit

2010

1969 is the far better film. Anyone saying otherwise is a child that's better seen and not heard from to be honest.

The Coen's True Grit, far superior in everyway including performances, also it's closer to the novel

Usually remakes are poor ideas but the 2010 version was incredible. It was full of great acting performances and it was shot very well. It is simply a better film.

After reading the book and rewatching both films, I still prefer the 1969 version.

After reading the book and rewatching both films, I still prefer the 1969 version.

both films are equal on every point but on Matt Damon is the better LaBoeuf .

True Grit :)

The remake is less bloated and has the much better performances. The Coen brothers are a class above...

I grew up watching the John Wayne version but I still think the Coen's might take this one. A big part of that is that Haliee Steinfeld did a much better job than Kim Darby in the role of Mattie Ross. Kim Darby's portrayal always gets on my nerves.

The Dude abides.

Remake is worthy of being put right up there with the original. Can't always say that.

I just watched 2010 and I don't see what the fuss is. True Grit 1969

200 no haves the 1969's spirit

True Grit is just an bad shot-by-shot remake for me.

The remake is a pale imitation with no real soul. The original is ten times better. Hated the remakes dreary one arm ending being the only real difference.

Going with the remake. Bridges plays the unsavory lawman character better than Wayne.

Remake was way better

ear
ear

I prefer the Coen version but I like John Wayne in the title role better.

2010

Remake was better.

The original is FAR better. In fact, most people of taste simply ignore that the useless remake ever happened.

The original (1969) easily is the better film. More proof we don't need remakes for millennial morons.

Remake is easily better than original., by far 2010 version..

*sigh* MORE proof we don't need remakes for millennial morons.

The remake just makes lot better outstanding, the original not so much..

The remake is fine and wonderful, but Josh Brolin simply doesn't have the swagger or -- well, grit -- that Wayne does. Maybe in some film school sense, the Coens' is the superior fiim, but I'd prefer to watch the older movie every time.

Most definitely the remake is far impressive, the original was unsocial and boring.

Most definitely the remake is far impressive, the original was unsocial and boring.

ear
ear

The remake is superior.

To be honest, that's very close. The Coens are the way more capacitated filmmakers and Jeff Bridges is a way better Rooster Cogburn. That being said, I thought 1969 was more well developed and tighter. Also, that Glen Campbell song is a hidden gem. Okay, perhaps no Wichita Lineman or Southern Nights, but still pretty good. Also also, John Wayne receiving orders from his so despised women.

The original is vastly better. Not even close. TRUE true grit because the cast simply outshines the modern bleak take. John Wayne is the one and only Rooster Cogburn and simply is a better actor.

Upon re watching i think the original is a little better.