Jeff Bridges' portrayal of Rooster doesn't even come close to John Wayne's, and the boring actress playing Mattie, has none of Kim Darby's acting chops or personality!
Hell...even Glen Campbell was better than any of the actors in this dud.
Of course you have a right to your opinion and opinions are subjective. However, I think you might be in the minority thinking this is a piece of garbage. If you check this site to see the very, very large number of awards for which it was nominated (10 Oscars for example) it seems clear a lot of people think this is an excellent film. My opinion is that it is better than the Wayne film. And, just a reminder, this was made from the original book...it is not a remake of the Wayne film.
shareA film being nominated for 10 academy awards can mean jack squat and Oscars are subjective too. I don't think this film is a piece of garbage; but I also don't find it as enjoyable or entertaining as the Wayne original. It is because it is a Coen Bros. movie, that is why many fan boys think it is cool.
Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata:💩
I don't normally like the Cohen brothers, but I liked this. I probably prefer the Kim Darby version, though that's probably got as much to do with having seen it first (and Kim Darby) as anything; the Cohen's version is closer to the book, what with all the snow and that.
share[deleted]
I wouldn't call the original light-hearted comedy, though it does have funny bits; but then, so does the novel. Both films were good, in different ways. They both deviated from the novel, but in different places.
shareJohn Wayne is not 1/10ththe caliber an actor as Jeff Bridges. Wayne is more of a caricature and less of an actor. Much like Chaplin or Marx Bros.
And by Kim Darby, are you referring to that amazingly brilliant totally talented amazing actress that seldom ventured outside the walls of daytime cheeseball tv?
That is very funny to me
I've seen both. I'm a fan of both. The remake is far superior to the original. Most would agree
Welcome to the modern era: where darker and dumber reigns supreme.
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .
[deleted]
Firstly... It's not a remake. It's a seperate adaptation of a source material.
Secondly... it deserves a higher score that 7.7 for being a good film.
I love the John Wayne version, I really do, but John Wayne just plays himself in it, or at least the same character he plays in every other western he's been in. I like John Wayne and I know why he's an icon of American cinema... but he's no Jeff Bridges.
Who loves ya, baby?
[deleted]
John Wayne didn't play himself, I don't recall a movie where he pitifully fell off his horse after one whiskey drop too many, he played a deliberately hammy veteran who loved to be challenged and to listen to himself talk, he was fun, larger-than-life and entertaining, the closest to an antihero he could be. Sure, Bridges is a great actor, but let's not pretend that he was better than Wayne. This is Wayne's finest and bravest performances and it belonged to him for four decades, I liked both movies but I enjoyed the first one a little more.
Darth Vader is scary and I The Godfather
If you had not seen the original what would your opinion be of this film?
Some people thrive to compare to original films and ridicule a remake.
I haven't seen the original and I thought this film was brilliant and the acting was also in my opinion top notch.
If I am honest I would not watch the original and sorry you're not going to like this but I don't particularly like John Wayne and again that's my opinion. For me Jeff Bridges was excellent and played his character very well.
Just because you see something remade try and watch it without being negative and enjoy it for what it is.
I agree the John Wayne True Grit is by FAR the better film. The original has far better performances (apparently 'realism' involves getting people to mumble their lines in a highly uninteresting way), way more charm, superior cinematography (beautiful daylight photography instead of lazy night-time scenes all the time, and has almost all the same story and dialogue so how the remake is said to be an improvement is beyond me. I do not think the remake is terrible but the good stuff is not original and is not done as well as in the older film.
share7/10 tops. It's average.
shareIt's not a remake of the John Wayne film, it's based off the novel. The John Wayne film is a remake of the novel (meaning: it's the 'original' remake, where as this is the additional remake of the same source; in case you didn't get that.)
-Nam
I am on the road less traveled...