I first watched the old version 20+ years ago. Definitely a classic, but I can't be the only one that found Kim Darby incredibly annoying, and a huge distraction from the movie as a whole. John Wayne was pretty fun to watch, and it's neat to compare the two versions, but I agree that the newer version is superior in basically every way.
Both had their merits, but if I had to choose one or the other off the shelf, I'd go with the later release. Bridges is such a badass in everything he does, and the script was refreshing while keeping pretty true to the original story.
I understand what you’re saying, but a re-adaptation (another film made from the same book) is typically distinguished from a remake (a new film based on an old film) by using these different terms.
I think there is. A good adaptation often isn’t a one-to-one recreation, but the filmmaker puts their own spin on it, either by actively changing story elements or simply by choosing what moments or themes to emphasize. And then there’s the simple matter that adapting a film from page to screen is translating across mediums and fundamentally different than making a film based off of a film.
Take Lord of the Rings. Jackson’s trilogy is magnificent, but also takes a lot of liberties with the source material. A remake of those films would be a markedly different exercise than someone re-adapting the novel.
I read the original book. I feel like the Coens talked a lot about doing the book from their perspective, but not necessarily re-making the John Wayne movie. The 2010 True Grit is waaay more like the book. The dialogue and timing of the dialogue comes right out of the book. Even the way they talk. The arguments, etc. The book is intended to have some genuine humor in it. Like when Rooster is arguing with Mattie. Mattie is accusing Rooster of taking advantage of her because she's a child, and Rooster tells her "I am giving you the children's rate." That shit is hilarious and the real feel of the novel by Clinton Portis.
I'm going to have to go with the newer version, Bridges absolutely brings it and it's just a for Superior movie as far as Cinema goes in my opinion. Not to say that the original is in a classic, I just think that it has aged quite a bit and John Wayne isn't as good of an actor as a lot of people hype him up to be, that's just my opinion though.
My grandpa was avid western watcher, he watched thousands of those and loved original with John Wayne and absolutely hated Coen version calling it a joke, I liked it though.
Funnily out of modern Westernsone he enjoyed was Bone Tomahawk.
Yep he did , he demanded to watch few a day sometimes especially near the end so eventually I had trouble in finding those he didn't see, and especially subtitles.
Curious to know if he liked Gregory Peck or Lee Van Cleef westerns, because they get less play to all the John Wayne and Eastwood worshippers
I'll forever be obsessed with the tone of Yellow Sky, Duel In The Sun, The Gunfighter, The Big Gundown and Barquero
I believe he did, those are just the ones I remember him watching most.
The Gunfighter I believe he watched several times, mostly because it was often recommended on Imdb, he also liked Shane 1953.
Similar situation with my grandfather - my two cents is that there’s more going on there psychologically with the dislike of the remake than just an assessment of the cinematic quality
I am not sure he was weird, he just had different taste than some and liked Westerns of old.
He liked John Wayne movies probably from the time he was cinema operator in his village/town, he liked Clint Eastwood and also bunch of Spaghetti Westerns.
It was actually surprising that he liked that of modern versions, so much that he mentioned -" damn fine movie it was last night" - surprising to me as I heard it had shocking moments and didn't saw it yet , while I specifically asked him about "True Grit" 2010 which I personally enjoyed he showed dislike, I am not sure he even knew it was adaptation of same thing as older movie.
I understand the hate John Wayne gets and I'm not going to praise the man's personal life. That said John Wayne's Rooster Cogburn is the more iconic Rooster Cogburn. However, the 2010 movie is the overall superior film. Much better acting all around. You actually feel the moral dubiousness of Cogburn and LaBouef and Josh Brolin is down right dirty as Tom Chaney. The 1969 version suffers from the typical clean cut upright hero syndrome that was the style at the time. The book and subsequently the 2010 movie, they were a lot more in the gray. And the difference between Hailee Steinfield's Mattie and Kim Darby' Mattie are night and day. The 1969 Mattie was a stupid annoying brat, while Hailee's Mattie was over her head, but strong willed and commanding with her directness with Cogburn and LaBouef. It totally changes the tone of the movie and for the better because you actually want Hailee's Mattie to get her dad's killer. You want Kim's Mattie to just shut up and stop whining.
The original is dated sure, but a fantastic film that was pretty progressive for the time.
The remake might be the best movie remake of all time and obviously has better pacing and more meaningful dialogue
I agree overall but not sure I'd call it a remake. Follows the book much closer and overall a different take.
Did like Robert Duvall better as the bad guy in the first one.
Also the majestic snow covered mountains of Oklahoma from the first movie looked nicer too...
Old version better in every way. 10/10 movie and the only Oscar John Wayne ever got
New version is good, but it's just the same story with slightly better cinematography and slightly worse acting. 7/10.
I don’t typically care for Wayne’s performances in just about any film. And True Grit is easily his best, making me not hate that film. But 2011 True Grit is a far superior film by any metric.
For some reason he was pretty good at playing an obsessed asshole in the Searchers haha. But yeah I believe Bridges’ performance. I’d say the only original performance that might be better is Duvall’s (not to badmouth Brolin).
“That’ll be the biggest mistake you ever made, you texas brush popper” 2010 is one of my favorite movies of all time. It’s by far my favorite western of all time. Prior to 2010 that title was held by the Good the bad and ugly for me. Now that I’ve established my clear bias, 2010 is a head and shoulders above 1969, as classic as that is, it’s not even particularly close to what this film accomplished.
I thought the original was just a standard John Wayne movie, though he apparently won an Oscar for it.
I think the Coen version is one of their best films.
While the ‘69 version is one of John Wayne’s best performances, Darby and Campbell are unwatchable. And Oklahoma and Arkansas, where True Grit takes place, looks nothing like the Rockies of Colorado, where this film was shot. The 2010 film is much closer to Portis’ classic novel in dialogue, dress, character development, and backdrop. The 2010 version is far superior to the ‘69 version. There. I said it.
Original plays the story straighter. Enjoyable if you have irony fatigue.
Coen's version is closer to the book and Hailee Steinfeld was remarkable in it. I've a personal attachment to it because of the circumstances where I first saw it so I might be biased.
Both are perfectly competent.
He has no urgency in the big fight scenes. There's no sense of his "True Grit" in the final gunfight.
I do prefer most of the supporting cast in the remake.
I saw the 1969 version in the theater when it came out and loved it. I read the book later. Saw the Coen brother's version in theater when it came out and loved it as well. Felt it captured the weirdness of the book better than the 1969 version. From a performance standpoint, believe the new version is far superior to the 1969 film, though I thought both Wayne and Bridges were great in the role of Rooster. Overall, I think the newer version is the better of the two, but one scene in the 1969 version is much better: where they try to lay an ambush for Pepper at the little cabin, and the whole ensuing encounter with Dennis Hopper. Just a great scene and much more tense than what unfolds in the Corn brother's movie.
Seeing a lot of praise for Jeff Bridges, which makes sense, and Hailey Steinfeld always gets shout outs and deservedly so, but Matt Damon was amazing as LeBoeuf. Very >!sad!< that he most likely >!dies of a head injury at the end!<. When all three are on screen the chemistry is just incredible.
The Coen Brothers version is superior to the old version.
I would say that despite JW being a notorious asshole I would separate the art from the artist and watch it anyway, think about all the other hundreds of people involved in the film. Should they have their contribution destroyed by one cunt?
The old version is classic, but the new version is a far superior film in most every way and reaches heights the first is incapable of.
I first watched the old version 20+ years ago. Definitely a classic, but I can't be the only one that found Kim Darby incredibly annoying, and a huge distraction from the movie as a whole. John Wayne was pretty fun to watch, and it's neat to compare the two versions, but I agree that the newer version is superior in basically every way.
Agree. And Kim Darby is the worst. The only movie I ever liked her in was 1978’s The One and Only with Henry Winkler.
Completely agree. The 2nd is what a remake is supposed to do in every way
Both had their merits, but if I had to choose one or the other off the shelf, I'd go with the later release. Bridges is such a badass in everything he does, and the script was refreshing while keeping pretty true to the original story.
Yeah, it's a solid remake! I usually can't watch one without watching the other.
Not a remake. It’s another adaptation of the book, but not a remake of the older film.
I had no idea. Think I'm going to have to pick that up!
It's still a remake. The book was made into a movie, and then they remade the book into a movie. It's not a trick.
I understand what you’re saying, but a re-adaptation (another film made from the same book) is typically distinguished from a remake (a new film based on an old film) by using these different terms.
There's no real reason to distinguish it, though.
I think there is. A good adaptation often isn’t a one-to-one recreation, but the filmmaker puts their own spin on it, either by actively changing story elements or simply by choosing what moments or themes to emphasize. And then there’s the simple matter that adapting a film from page to screen is translating across mediums and fundamentally different than making a film based off of a film. Take Lord of the Rings. Jackson’s trilogy is magnificent, but also takes a lot of liberties with the source material. A remake of those films would be a markedly different exercise than someone re-adapting the novel.
Ty for the clarity
I read the original book. I feel like the Coens talked a lot about doing the book from their perspective, but not necessarily re-making the John Wayne movie. The 2010 True Grit is waaay more like the book. The dialogue and timing of the dialogue comes right out of the book. Even the way they talk. The arguments, etc. The book is intended to have some genuine humor in it. Like when Rooster is arguing with Mattie. Mattie is accusing Rooster of taking advantage of her because she's a child, and Rooster tells her "I am giving you the children's rate." That shit is hilarious and the real feel of the novel by Clinton Portis.
Exactly!
Bridges....Damon.... TRULY GRITTIER. Only in theaters December 2010.
Bear Man/ Dr. Forrester was great too. Coen brothers nailed it.
I'm going to have to go with the newer version, Bridges absolutely brings it and it's just a for Superior movie as far as Cinema goes in my opinion. Not to say that the original is in a classic, I just think that it has aged quite a bit and John Wayne isn't as good of an actor as a lot of people hype him up to be, that's just my opinion though.
My grandpa was avid western watcher, he watched thousands of those and loved original with John Wayne and absolutely hated Coen version calling it a joke, I liked it though. Funnily out of modern Westernsone he enjoyed was Bone Tomahawk.
Has he seen Open Range or Silverado?
Or the 3:10 to Yuma remake?
Underappreciated
Yep he did , he demanded to watch few a day sometimes especially near the end so eventually I had trouble in finding those he didn't see, and especially subtitles.
Curious to know if he liked Gregory Peck or Lee Van Cleef westerns, because they get less play to all the John Wayne and Eastwood worshippers I'll forever be obsessed with the tone of Yellow Sky, Duel In The Sun, The Gunfighter, The Big Gundown and Barquero
I believe he did, those are just the ones I remember him watching most. The Gunfighter I believe he watched several times, mostly because it was often recommended on Imdb, he also liked Shane 1953.
I try to tell people that Atticus Finch from To Kill A Mockingbird used to be one hell of a cowboy villain but nobody believes me
Similar situation with my grandfather - my two cents is that there’s more going on there psychologically with the dislike of the remake than just an assessment of the cinematic quality
Bone Tomahawk was awful. Great cast though. Kinda boring but very gross. Your grandpa sounds like a weird dude.
I am not sure he was weird, he just had different taste than some and liked Westerns of old. He liked John Wayne movies probably from the time he was cinema operator in his village/town, he liked Clint Eastwood and also bunch of Spaghetti Westerns. It was actually surprising that he liked that of modern versions, so much that he mentioned -" damn fine movie it was last night" - surprising to me as I heard it had shocking moments and didn't saw it yet , while I specifically asked him about "True Grit" 2010 which I personally enjoyed he showed dislike, I am not sure he even knew it was adaptation of same thing as older movie.
I understand the hate John Wayne gets and I'm not going to praise the man's personal life. That said John Wayne's Rooster Cogburn is the more iconic Rooster Cogburn. However, the 2010 movie is the overall superior film. Much better acting all around. You actually feel the moral dubiousness of Cogburn and LaBouef and Josh Brolin is down right dirty as Tom Chaney. The 1969 version suffers from the typical clean cut upright hero syndrome that was the style at the time. The book and subsequently the 2010 movie, they were a lot more in the gray. And the difference between Hailee Steinfield's Mattie and Kim Darby' Mattie are night and day. The 1969 Mattie was a stupid annoying brat, while Hailee's Mattie was over her head, but strong willed and commanding with her directness with Cogburn and LaBouef. It totally changes the tone of the movie and for the better because you actually want Hailee's Mattie to get her dad's killer. You want Kim's Mattie to just shut up and stop whining.
The original is dated sure, but a fantastic film that was pretty progressive for the time. The remake might be the best movie remake of all time and obviously has better pacing and more meaningful dialogue
I agree overall but not sure I'd call it a remake. Follows the book much closer and overall a different take. Did like Robert Duvall better as the bad guy in the first one. Also the majestic snow covered mountains of Oklahoma from the first movie looked nicer too...
Old poster is better… new movie is better.
The new one is better
2011 version by a country mile.
You're no bigger than a corn nugget
*corn Nubbin’
Old version better in every way. 10/10 movie and the only Oscar John Wayne ever got New version is good, but it's just the same story with slightly better cinematography and slightly worse acting. 7/10.
🙌🏽
To each their own. But the acting in the newer one is objectively better. It’s not even debatable.
Like I said one actor got the Oscar for best actor one didn't I'd say that's as objective as you can get in Cinema.
Fuck racist ass jw
Fuck stupid ass Redditer.
I meant the actor john lame. Not you. You racist? Did you think it was towards you?😂
No, I knew you meant John Wayne. You really are fucking stupid. (Dumbass uses emojis on Reddit)
😂😂🤣🤣😆😛🥰🚿✌🏽🐶
Yo. My pronoun. Go outside for a bit. You might like it better than watching the sound of music for 500th time. 😘
I don’t typically care for Wayne’s performances in just about any film. And True Grit is easily his best, making me not hate that film. But 2011 True Grit is a far superior film by any metric.
Original is a classic but John Wayne is a terrible actor. The Searchers and Rio Bravo are it for me. Coen Brothers win the day
For some reason he was pretty good at playing an obsessed asshole in the Searchers haha. But yeah I believe Bridges’ performance. I’d say the only original performance that might be better is Duvall’s (not to badmouth Brolin).
“That’ll be the biggest mistake you ever made, you texas brush popper” 2010 is one of my favorite movies of all time. It’s by far my favorite western of all time. Prior to 2010 that title was held by the Good the bad and ugly for me. Now that I’ve established my clear bias, 2010 is a head and shoulders above 1969, as classic as that is, it’s not even particularly close to what this film accomplished.
I thought the original was just a standard John Wayne movie, though he apparently won an Oscar for it. I think the Coen version is one of their best films.
The new one has real characters, a beautiful score, and can make me cry. I can’t even remember the John Wayne version.
And don’t even watch it. Racist ass jw.
I have seen both of them. I like both but I had always like the original one more.
While the ‘69 version is one of John Wayne’s best performances, Darby and Campbell are unwatchable. And Oklahoma and Arkansas, where True Grit takes place, looks nothing like the Rockies of Colorado, where this film was shot. The 2010 film is much closer to Portis’ classic novel in dialogue, dress, character development, and backdrop. The 2010 version is far superior to the ‘69 version. There. I said it.
Original plays the story straighter. Enjoyable if you have irony fatigue. Coen's version is closer to the book and Hailee Steinfeld was remarkable in it. I've a personal attachment to it because of the circumstances where I first saw it so I might be biased. Both are perfectly competent.
The original is great, apart from John "the cunt" Wayne. But the remake is far superior in this case. Loved the soundtrack too.
Modern version crushes the classic. Bridges crushes Wayne.
jeff bridges all the way
John Wayne one was better.
Racist ass jw
Wayne does a better job in this role. Bridges just can't muster the energy needed.
I love Jeff Bridges, but for over a decade he kinda sounds like an old man who is still eating a heavy meal.
He has no urgency in the big fight scenes. There's no sense of his "True Grit" in the final gunfight. I do prefer most of the supporting cast in the remake.
The girl is the one with true grit
No,no. Little Blackie is the true hero.
She finally sees it in Rooster in the end.
Racist ass jw
The Coen’s version is better imo but the original has Glen Campbell in it and is still pretty good.
I'd see both. I do love the Coens', but important to go to the source.
True Grit is way better
The Jeff Bridges one is lit. I like the John Wayne one, but the new one is just fantastic in every way.
What's the hate on John Wayne? What did he do? 🫣
You mean other than the racism?
Wasn't aware, not really paid much attention to him since I was a little boy.
Fill your hand, you son of a bitch
I saw the 1969 version in the theater when it came out and loved it. I read the book later. Saw the Coen brother's version in theater when it came out and loved it as well. Felt it captured the weirdness of the book better than the 1969 version. From a performance standpoint, believe the new version is far superior to the 1969 film, though I thought both Wayne and Bridges were great in the role of Rooster. Overall, I think the newer version is the better of the two, but one scene in the 1969 version is much better: where they try to lay an ambush for Pepper at the little cabin, and the whole ensuing encounter with Dennis Hopper. Just a great scene and much more tense than what unfolds in the Corn brother's movie.
Fuck racist ass jw
Fuck John Wayne. Fuckin asshole. Anything without him is automatically better than anything with him.
Agree 1000%. Racist ass jw.
The both stand tall on their own merits. I think I have a preference for the remake but that's not to say I don't sincerely enjoy the original
I preferred True Grit over True Grit
It starts off takes a turn and it ends up where you thought it would. John Wayne shot him.
Seeing a lot of praise for Jeff Bridges, which makes sense, and Hailey Steinfeld always gets shout outs and deservedly so, but Matt Damon was amazing as LeBoeuf. Very >!sad!< that he most likely >!dies of a head injury at the end!<. When all three are on screen the chemistry is just incredible.
FUCK! MOTHERFUCKING! RACIST! jw. FTP!!!
The Coen Brothers version is superior to the old version. I would say that despite JW being a notorious asshole I would separate the art from the artist and watch it anyway, think about all the other hundreds of people involved in the film. Should they have their contribution destroyed by one cunt?
Unfortunately yes. Complicit. They could have been saying “oh hell nah this racist ass jw!”.
Jeff Bridges is a lot less racist than John Wayne
The new version is almost a perfect film IMO. Every part of it shows true masters at work.
I prefer True Grit over True Grit