Which True Grit film is better?

Tools    


Which True Grit was better?
36.36%
4 votes
John Waynes True Grit
63.64%
7 votes
Joel & Ethan Coens True Grit
11 votes. You may not vote on this poll




I just finished watching the Coen Brothers True Grit. As expected I found it grittier than the original John Wayne movie. Im sure it was more true to the book compared to the Wayne movie too.

Was it better?! I say no. -puts up large shield to protect from airborne rocks & garbage thrown by fellow MoFos-

Yknow folks its not entirely impossible for a hollywood movie to be better then the original work. Look at Peter Benchleys book JAWS. I saw the Spielberg masterpiece then read the novel. Unlike the other 99% of the times in comparison I felt the movie was better than the book, Spielbergs JAWS was superior to Benchleys. Bottom line Steven Spielbeg is a better storyteller, the actors were at the top of their form, and the music helped alot.

Again watching the Coen brothers readaptation Im sure it was true to the novel, but I underestimated John Wayne and what he brought to film. Jeff Bridges did a competent job, and would be the only actor Id trust to take that role on in Waynes footsteps, but the character interaction in the first movie, though campy by todays moviegoers opinion, was superior to the second. The lines were much better delivered in the first flick, and basically the first movie had more "magic" in it than the recent "authentic" version. Authenticity is opinion when dealing with fictional stories, and the Coen brothers Grit just didnt do it for me like John Waynes Grit did.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
I never read it either, but those who have said the Coens version lacked the humor on the printed page so it might not have been any more authentic. As has been pointed out, in both movies RC has an eyepatch and in the book he has a bad eye but no patch so neither film is a stickler for detail.
__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula



I've never seen a film with Marion in it. He was a bit before my time, so I fell into the Eastwood camp. With that being said ... my only choice is the Coen's version.
__________________
"Sometimes dead is better." -- Jud Crandall




I've always found the original True Grit to be incredibly light and, while it has a modicum of charm, it plays like TV-movie in its quality so much of the time. I am not a fan of Wayne's, but that he got the Oscar for this performance is silly (and not just because it was over Hoffman and Voight in Midnight Cowboy and Dick Burton in Anne of the Thousand Days). Had Wayne won for The Quiet Man or Man Who Shot Liberty Valance or Red River or The Searchers, sure, I could live with that...but frickin' True Grit?!? Oh, well. He wasn't the first or last to get an Academy Award late in their career for work that isn't in the same league as their best.

True Grit does have some nice panoramic vistas, but despite being photographed by the great Lucien Ballard (who also lensed many of Peckinpah's films) it mostly looks like it could be any episode of "Bonanza" or "Little House on the Prairie". The score, the look, the costumes, it's all unintentionally cheesy.

Put it in context of its day and remember that True Grit was released the same year as both Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and The Wild Bunch, which are beautiful, groundbreaking, timeless classic films that transcend the Western genre. By direct comparison True Grit is a kind of silly B-movie starring an aging icon.

Even I can see that Wayne has been better, and while Kim Darby's performance is the best thing in the flick and gives off a much needed energy, the rest of the performances...not so much. Country singer Glen Campbell is terrible and didn't get much work as an actor afterward (thank the movie gods). And while there are some good actors in the supporting roles, including Robert Duvall, Dennis Hopper, Strother Martin and Jeff Corey, they are really handcuffed by director Henry Hathaway. He was seventy-one, and this was his eighth and final collaboration with The Duck (I Says). Look at what Strother Martin did that year in both Butch Cassidy and The Wild Bunch, then watch his stilted TV sitcom level work in True Grit. Corey has more life and presence in his one Butch Cassidy scene than he does as the main antagonist in all of True Grit. Dennis Hopper was starring in and directing Easy Rider this same year, fer cripe's sake, but while on the Wayne set (he had also been in The Sons of Katie Elder) his most indelible quality is the length of his bangs, not what he's permitted to do when the cameras are actually rolling. And Duvall, obviously a brilliant actor and one of the best of his generation, barely registers on screen.

The exposition in the first third is clunky and awkward, and except for one kick in the pants when he's introduced and a couple times he plays a bumbling drunk, what exactly is supposed to be so hard-edged about Wayne's Cogburn?

If you're a John Wayne fan you probably forgive this movie a lot and put it in a vacuum, without even getting into how it plays versus the Coen Brothers' take on the material, they won't even put it next to the truly great Westerns of 1969 or Wayne's own better oaters. I truly don't see how even the most ardent John Wayne supporter, as much as they may enjoy True Grit as fluff and an icon poking a little bit of fun at his own image, would recommend it as one of the two or three Wayne flicks you just have to see. If you were introducing Wayne to a complete newbie, wouldn't you start literally with about ten or twelve obviously better movies and performances as prime examples of what his mystique was about before you'd get around to the footnote of, 'Oh, yeah: and they gave him an Oscar for True Grit...but it isn't one of his very best'?

But if you must compare it to the 2010 version of True Grit, that's fine with me. The Coens' flick is an improvement in every single way, from exposition to cinematography to the action scenes to the quality of the acting top to bottom and everything else. The first Matty, played by Kim Darby, again was the best part of that movie but she was an actress in her twenties playing a teenager...not very convincingly. Steinfeld was only thirteen during the filming, and though playing her age she has a level of skill far beyond her years...while still truly looking the part. As for Wayne vs. Bridges, The Duck, as usual, played himself, even if it is one time that he acknowledges he is old and fat (as if he hadn't been old and fat for years already on screen at that point), while Bridges has crafted an actual character.

This isn't even close to me.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Haven't seen the remake, but I am a big fan of the first one and think Wayne was outstanding and I am no fan of his usual phone it in style. I think Henry Hathaway was a very underrated director and did a splendid job here. Campbell isn't terrible, but clearly is no actor. This movie didn't kill his acting career. It was his next one where he starred and a box office flop. I think Strother Martin is excellent here. Hathaway was very good at directing actors and probably got the most he could from Campbell who isn't around long enough to hurt the movie.



If I judge a remake that came 40 years after the original I won't entirely judge it on technical excellence... My main concern would be the screenplay.

& honestly the new screenplay doesn't bring anything grea compared to the original, Coens promised a film more close to the book... I haven't read the book, but I can't see any difference.



As much as I liked the original the Coen Brothers version was better. It was darker and more gritty.

And as much as I loved John Wayne as Rooster Cogburn I think Jeff Bridges played the character better and I truly hope he wins the Oscar for Best Actor.
__________________
"Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and like it, never really care for anything else thereafter." - Ernest Hemingway



Originally Posted by Gunny
And as much as I loved John Wayne as Rooster Cogburn I think Jeff Bridges played the character better and I truly hope he wins the Oscar for Best Actor.
Bridges may manage a nomination this year, but I'd be shocked if he won again. There have only been two back-to-back winners in the Best Actor category: Spencer Tracy and Tom Hanks. Don't think True Grit is gonna do it for Jeff. It is shaping up to be Colin Firth's Oscar to lose this year.



I have only seen the remake. I mistakely said that the remake was better without seeing the original, although soon i will get the original on DVD and give it a watch. Maybe do a Old Vs New Type of thing like The Nostalgia Critic.



Bridges may manage a nomination this year, but I'd be shocked if he won again. There have only been two back-to-back winners in the Best Actor category: Spencer Tracy and Tom Hanks. Don't think True Grit is gonna do it for Jeff. It is shaping up to be Colin Firth's Oscar to lose this year.
If he does win I believe it would only be the second time in Oscar history that 2 actors have won an Oscar for the same character. The other is Vito Corleone from the Godfather (Brando and DeNiro).



If he does win I believe it would only be the second time in Oscar history that 2 actors have won an Oscar for the same character. The other is Vito Corleone from the Godfather (Brando and DeNiro).
interesting point.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
I certainly won't vote until I see the Coens' version, but while watching the original True Grit last month, I noticed that it was far more violent than I realized. I mean, that finger slicing scene in the cabin with Dennis Hopper was actually quite impressive. Is it that much more violent in the remake?