Posted by Cindy Stalcup (+586) 10 years ago
Had occasion to see True Grit- was quite swell.
Top
newbie
Posted by bigskywarn (+2) 10 years ago
I agree the movie was very authentic of the time. I felt like I was in the pioneer days. I bought the sound track too.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17321) 10 years ago
Yep, True Grit is most excellent.....While I feel that Jeff Bridges did not quite come up to the level of John Wayne as Marshall Cogburn, Matt Damon was 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times better than Glen Campbell as Ranger LeBoeuf.
Top
Posted by Bob's sister (+26) 10 years ago
I understand the young woman did an awesome job. I just have a hard time thinking that Jeff can out act John.
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1596) 10 years ago
John Wayne played John Wayne he was not an actor and he was never on the sands of Iwa Jima. Jeff Bridges is an actor Fabulous Baker boys or Crazy Heart.

Do not get me wrong I love John Wayne movies but I know good acting when I see it and John Wayne was never it. Robert Duvall on the other hand.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 10 years ago
Ditto.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 10 years ago
Bill and Steve are off to see it tonight. I didn't feel up to an emotionally draining movie just now but I have heard great things about the movie and the quality of the acting from everyone!
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 10 years ago
I haven't seen True Grit yet, however from a review I saw or read (don't remember which) it is supposed to be more of a rewrite rather than a remake of the original John Wayne one. The reviewer said not to compare the two; they're different movies for different times.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 10 years ago
They are both based on the same novel but the new version is closer to the original. Or so I've read.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3712) 10 years ago
I watched both versions in the last two weeks and I don't know what they were getting at by saying don't compare the two. The movies are very similar. A large amount of dialog is word for word although there are some significant digressions in the new version, I do think that they are the same movie.

As far as Bridges vs. John Wayne goes, John Wayne was the best John Wayne ever but Bridges did a very good job. He has a pretty interesting voice in the movie and his delivery is hilarious. I also felt that he was more convincing as a drunk than John Wayne. Bridges doesn't impress as much when he says "Fill your hand you son of a bitch" but he puts in a very credible performance IMO.

Matt Damon was good and I barely recognized him and the girl was outstanding. I didn't like the epilogue in the new movie as well as the original, but both movies were very enjoyable. Definitely worth the price of admission.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17321) 10 years ago
The John Wayne bashing in this thread more than convinces me to hang out at MilesCityhome.com.
Top
Posted by sdrew (+228) 10 years ago
John Wayne played John Wayne he was not an actor and he was never on the sands of Iwa Jima. Jeff Bridges is an actor Fabulous Baker boys or Crazy Heart.

Do not get me wrong I love John Wayne movies but I know good acting when I see it and John Wayne was never it. Robert Duvall on the other hand.



Couldn't have said it better myself. I never understood the whole "John Wayne- is- a -great -actor" thing. I thought he was like Nicholas Cage is now...one dimensional-the same in every role.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bill Freese (+479) 10 years ago
Enjoyable dialog, fine acting, wonderful performances by the supporting cast. Like any movie directed by the Coen brothers, the real stars are the Coen brothers. Oh, and violence.
Top
supporter
Posted by JCF (+393) 10 years ago
The new version, with Bridges, is excellent. Bridges is good at playing a drunk (see The Big Lebowski). And the "feel" of the movie was very authentic late 1800's. The girl is simply amazing. The actor (cant recall name?) deserves much credit for pulling off the little hellcat she played. The end was a little weird, with the whole ongoing scene of Bridges carrying her on and on. But, all told, an excellent movie, and one of the rare times I felt I got my money's worth in the theatre, vice waiting for the DVD.
Top
Posted by Steve Allison (+981) 10 years ago
I went last night and enjoyed the film greatly. It is natural to compare this to the old one but not really fair to either. They were made in different times, different goals and much different equipment. I remember when Stanley Kubric made "Barry Lyndon", Zeiss spent hundreds of thousands of dollars developing new low light lenses for him. Now anyone can rent or buy these lenses when they want a more authentic look and feel in their film. No one can say what the original film would have looked & felt like if the director and crew had modern equipment and techniques and were selling to a modern audience. It is always best to jude a movie for what is on the screen now and not compare it to other films or the original book. Each have value in their own right.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3712) 10 years ago
Anyone have a theory on the significance of the apples? There was a bowl of perfect red apples in the boarding house and on two different occasions the camera lingers on that bowl. In addition, the stable hand kid tells Mattie "He's a horse, so he likes apples" and she feeds him a piece of one of those red apples in another scene.

For one thing, I thought those flawless apples seemed kind of improbable in a frontier boarding house and secondly I know that in a Coen brothers movie the apples didn't get that much attention by accident, but I am terrible at understanding symbolism in movies so I have no clue what they were going for.
Top
Posted by Forsyth Mike (+475) 10 years ago
I think John Wayne WAS a good actor but he just had a limited range. He couldn't play "any" kind of role, the way (for example) Tom Hanks can. But he was definitely cut out for the westerns. Besides "True Grit," look at his performances in "The Cowboys" or "The Shootist" for good examples.

The new "True Grit" follows the book much more closely than the original movie did, including the epilogue.

Also nobody in this thread so far has mentioned the name of the girl playing Mattie Ross in the new version. It's Hailee Steinfeld.

[This message has been edited by Forsyth Mike (1/15/2011)]
Top
Posted by mule train (+1055) 10 years ago
The Duke was king.

MOST actors are themselves in every picture they star in. I have to disagree with Stone that Bridges plays different roles. I haven't seen true grit, but Bridges is the "dude" in every movie that I have ever seen him in.

There are very few actors that I have seen that can really change personnas. Johnny Depp is one that can change. DeNiro...not so much. The Duke...never, and why the hell should he?
Top
supporter
Posted by Ken Minow (+375) 10 years ago
" Bridges is the "dude" in every movie that I have ever seen him in."
Uhm....Bridges played a respectable businessman in both Tucker and Seabiscuit.He was definitely spaced out in Starman and a drunk in Crazy Heart,but still he was "Very UnDudelike".He did play a crazy man in Thunderbolt and Lightfoot.
True Grit w/ Bridges was great.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 10 years ago
I have to say that the recent True Grit is excellent. My husband and I both loved it. I'm not a big fan of westerns in general but the Coen brothers do it right.
Top
Posted by Mathew Schmitz (+284) 10 years ago
I have friends that play a drinking game while watching The Big Lebowski. Every time Bridges lights a doobie, they drink a shot. And every time John Goodman says "Shut the procreate up Donnie" they drink a shot. Sounds like fun, but I can't drink like that anymore.
I thought the new True Grit was great. Bridges proves again that no role is too big for him. I find him to be very believable, in every role he has played. He just sells it like very few can.
Top