Joel and Ethan Coen's True Grit

First of all, what do you mean by "necessary"? No art is necessary per se. That's what makes it art, after all.

I don't think being first in line for an adaption automatically makes you more necessary than your successors, especially when considering how sound and lighting techniques really enhanced the more visceral aspects of the film.

All the Coens did was tighten the original version; cut it down and paced it for a more "contemporary" flow. Some of the sequences, like the final shootout, are basically shot for shot with the original, but the gunfire is louder and the image is crisper than you'll ever see of the original again. Jeff Bridges is a "cool" badass guy for our time, and so he's naturally going to be understood more so as one without the struggle. I think it's not surprising that these little, subtle tweaks can greatly affect how one feels about a remake, especially when it is hardly different in the scheme of remakes.

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

With this statement I LoL'd & assumed you haven't seen the original.

The hell? Look at it.

No it's not. Art is art, necessary or not. A computer chip is art if someone says it is. Didn't Deschamp settle all this in 1917?

Uh, you're wrong about Duchamp. It's true that anything can be deemed to be art, but the very act of deeming is never necessary. To deem something ready-made as art is to be the artist.

Planet, I suggest checking out the scene from the original movie on youtube & compare it.
You have picked one of the scenes which was the weakest compared to the original & clearly shows that Jeff Bridges couldn't be as badass as the Duke was in the original.


& yes, Jeff was mumbling throughout the film, in a way I liked that.
He was trying to act out the grumpy fat old man part.

The only scene which I loved over the original film was their first encounter with Ned Pepper, but it was too short. But I liked it anyway.

First of all, I'm not talking about being "bad-ass"; I said shot-by-shot.

Second of all, why is it "the weakest"? Is this implying that there are scenes more similar to compare? I don't think that's true. I also think the resemblance was intentional.

I think I'll try and do some screen-caps for comparison.

i cant wait to see this. I reckon it will do fairly well in the oscars.

No, it won't. It was snubbed at the Golden Globes and they are less snooty than the Oscar people. Might be nominated for best picture, won't win.

I notice a lot of people say here they can't wait to see this and they are still waiting.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

I'm still waiting cos it's not released in the UK till 11th Feb

Translation= I can't wait to see it on DVD, but there's no way I'm paying theater prices for it.

Just sayin'...

__________________
Family DVD Collection | My Top 100 | My Movie Thoughts | Frank Capra

I agree, the movie was tightened, which I thought was an improvement to the original.

GP, as I said in an earlier post:

I also think that Hailee Steinfeld's performance was superior to Kim Darby's, and some of what I think of as "cheesiness" was taken out. Plus, the humor was darker and more to my liking.

Keep in mind that these are all subjective opinions and nobody is "right". If you prefer the original, that is your prerogative.

Absolutely.

I looked at a clip on youtube of the sequel Wayne made with Katherine Hepburn. Ooh, does that look bad.

Talk about something that is unnecessary. Ha ha!

I can't believe I haven't seen this yet... will be watching later today fosho!!

It was a film worth watching but not nearly a Coen best. I remember some one saying on this thread that Bridges character in the film resembles his character in Crazy Heart. I dont see the resemblance. Yes they are both drunk the whole film but that is about all I see they have in common. Im going to give this film 3.5 ou of 5.