I put the Coen brothers version of "True Grit" among the greatest remakes of any movie. It is right up there with "The Maltese Falcon" (John Huston) & "His Girl Friday" (Howard Hawks' remake of "The Front Page")! Does anyone else want to start a thread discussing their favorite remakes. (There's not enough room here to list the WORST movie remakes of all time!;.))
sharePlease stop calling it a remake!!! I cringe whenever people refer to True Grit as a remake. Another adaption to the novel, yes. And totally agree that this one was better than the first adaption. I hate how people feel as though the first one was sacred and untouchable yet it was made over 40 years ago. This movie followed the book much more closely than the 1969 movie, and personally I don't even think there is a comparison....this movie is amazing.
Back off, man. I'm a scientist!
Please stop calling it a remake!!! I cringe whenever people refer to True Grit as a remake. Another adaption to the novel, yes. And totally agree that this one was better than the first adaption. I hate how people feel as though the first one was sacred and untouchable yet it was made over 40 years ago. This movie followed the book much more closely than the 1969 movie, and personally I don't even think there is a comparison....this movie is amazing.
Yes, it is a remake. And Batman Begins is not a remake -- it is a different story with the same characters.
That being said -- I like this remake very much. It is easy to compare characters, but not that fruitful (both John Wayne & Bridges were great; Matt Damon wasn't, but neither was Glen Campbell; personally I liked Hailee Steinfeld over Kim Darby, but Barry Pepper had an impossible task) however the filming was better in the remake. This is where you can see the benefit of modern filming. The filming of the scene toward the end with Rooster & Mattie was incredible -- the way the horse was framed with the stars in the background -- just beautiful.
Plus, I got my bear skin!
You missed the point. It's over here >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
The filming of the scene toward the end with Rooster & Mattie was incredible -- the way the horse was framed with the stars in the background -- just beautiful.
I agree, celtic55. This film is NOT a remake! It's another adaptation of the novel. It pisses me off when people call this film (or any other re-adaptation) a remake. It's like saying that "The Dark Knight" is a remake of Tim Burton's "Batman".
Please replyshare
any movie based on a literary source, as TRUE GRIT was, can always be remade. sometimes the remake is better, sometimes worse, sometimes not much difference. problems arise when a movie is not based on a literary source but is an original screenplay and a remake is made.
shareMy favourite remakes;
True Grit (As good as the original)
3:10 to Yuma (Again, as good as the original)
John Carpenters The Thing (Much, much better than the original)
The Fly (Way better than the original)
The Departed (Tidier than the original)
Cape Fear (DeNiro's amazing as Cady)
Man on Fire
Scarface
"My God, it's full of stars."
in terms of westerns it is one of the best remakes ive seen. i liked the original too, but i felt that it was a great modernization of the first John Wayne true grit, and jeff bridges was great in the part.
3:10 to yuma was a really good remake too, and probably my personal favorite remake.
[deleted]
while the movie was good, it was pretty average for a coen brothers film. I'm not much of a John Wayne fan, but the original seemed better to me. probably only because i had big expectations for this.
great remake would be, The Thing, and The Fly.
Are you saying The Fly by David Cronenberg is better than the one by Kurt Neumann? And The Thing by John Carpenter or Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. are both better than the one by Christian Nyby? I would really disagree with that one. Any movie with Vincent Price or Robert Cornthwaite is always better than any other movie could possibly be! I'm biased because I saw a lecture on The Thing From Another World by Robert Cornthwaite on its 50th anniversary in 2001!
Seriously? You're arguing that the 1982 The Thing is inferior to any of the others? The prequel or the original one from 1951? Because that's just outrageous. By ratings alone (without considering how much better The Thing is in itself), the prequel from 2011 has a 6.2, the original has a 7.3, and Carpenter's version has an 8.2.
And I really really hoped I wouldn't die
I watched both, and being young I may be biased to contemporary cinematography and editing, but I certainly preferred the remake. John Wayne's a legend, but Bridges was much grittier to me.
Most horror remakes (Amityville Horror, Psycho, Halloween) suck, but I liked the reboot of Nightmare on Elm Street. The new Les Mis was pretty cool (if you disregard the singing). The remake of the Great Gatsby releasing in May promises to give the Robert Redford classic a real run for best adaptation of the classic novel.
[deleted]
I started this thread so I am going to comment here. What is a remake? If there was a silent movie made (like "Wizard of Oz" or "Ben Hur") I don't consider it a remake because silent movies are a different genre from sound films (or even TV). I probably wouldn't consider "Casino Royal" w/Peter Sellers & David Niven a remake because the Peter Lorre & Barry Nelson was on TV before the film & don't WANT to count it. But I will count the Daniel Craig "Casino Royal" as a remake.
But more to my point, is "Les Misrables" a remake? I say no! The new "Les Misrables" is a musical and stands on its own. "My Fair Lady" is NOT a remake of "Pygmalion" because it, too, is a musical. Anyone agree or disagree?
[deleted]
With the Wizard of Oz, the silent movie, actually movies, are way too different to say the 1939 classic is a "remake".
However, the Heston/Wilder Ben Hur was a remake of the silent movie.
So I differ there.
"It's the system, Lara. People will be different after the Revolution."
omfg...this movie was a pitiful retelling. what has gotten into people ?
classic? hell f no... the acting is wooden shameful.. bridges tries to out growl wayne and talks as if he has pirates aargh syndrome and damon is so badly miscast and how the hell did this movie get
so many accolades..its just awful
"So, a thought crossed your mind? Must have been a long and lonely journey"share
I must agree with you. I intentionally avoided the Coen brothers' version of True Grit because it seemed unnecessary and did not seem likely to equal the quality of the original.
But, the new True Grit was on TV and nothing else was, so I watched it.
Since I've seen the original film with John Wayne, Kim Darby, and Glen Campbell dozens of times, maybe it would be fair to hold off on expressing an opinion until I've seen the new film at least a few more times. But I don't think that's going to happen, since it was hard to sit through the whole thing even this once. IMO both Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon could have phoned in their performances; there was nothing particularly interesting about either one.
In almost every respect, the original film was better. In particular, I have an even greater regard for Glen Campbell's portrayal of the Texas ranger -- a role that never should have been given to Bostonian Matt Damon!