A big thing to note in the remake, is that the very second that Mattie pulls the trigger to shoot Chaney in cold blooded revenge, her life immediately goes to shit as it starts the series of dominoes that leaves her minus an arm, a horse and bitter and alone. Had she just captured him for the authorities instead of going vigilante, her whole life would have been different. Quite a direct "Don't do revenge, it's bad" depiction by the Coens but it really works.
Yep quite right, that is pretty much the moral of the whole story, it’s a wonderful story of tenacity, how justice is good and should always be sought, but if you allow your need for justice to build up into a desire for vengeance you’ll probably end up bitter and losing a part of yourself, hence the metaphor for that was Mattie losing her arm, she got her vengeance but she remained bitter and she lived a lonesome life, had she left it to Rooster and LeBeouf justice would’ve been still been served (for her and the family LeBeouf was working for) but her life would’ve been dramatically different.
I don't think so, both are about seven wariors fighting a battle but have differnt settings, one is in japan the other is in the old west. you have to take into account that not only will the villains be differnt but the story, characters and fighting style.
I felt the remake of True Grit taught an interesting lesson and framed the story in a more metaphysical way. The ending was intended to position John Wayne's Cogburn and the original True Grit as a retelling of this story, the "real" tale of Mattie making a terrible decision in the spirit of revenge and going on a quest to kill a man accompanied by two men who were like the two halves of what we consider a "old west cowboy". You had Rooster, who was the outlaw, the drunk, the gunslinger, the dangerous one, and you had LaBoeuf, the lawman and hero soldier. In the remake ending, Mattie goes to find Rooster at a Buffalo Bill Wild West traveling show, the precursor to Western films like you saw John Ford and Henry Hathaway make. We see the reality behind the tale that would go on to become the original film. That's why it seems like a shot by shot remake at times. It's intended to be the metaphysical "reality" behind the story that becomes the romanticized ending of the original. The Coen brothers were pointing out that the beauty and romance of wild west films are bathed in...cough...NOSTALGIA...and although reality if much rougher and the so-called "heroes" of the old west were men of mixed morality and deep flaws, it still showed that LaBoeuf could be a selfless icon of the law, while Cogburn could still be an almost superheroic, bigger-than-life cowboy hero of old, simply because their ultimate actions gave them that distinction, with Cogburn going beyond his own seeming capabilities to save Mattie's life from the snake bite. A man who we had been questioning as a broken down drunk turned out to be almost supernaturally iconic and LaBoeuf turned out to be a wounded hero who had to limp home with the death he was looking to accomplish. Mattie learned a powerful life lesson and the adventure helped define who she turned out to be as an adult. The whole story is a morality play, not for Mattie or the other characters, but for us as a modern movie audience. We live rough lives, but pioneers lived even rougher lives, and what we know as a "cowboy" or "old west gunslinger" or a "old west lawman" or an "old west spinster" or a "wild west revenge tale" are all far dirtier and less romantic than we could ever imagine and yet because it was REAL was far more epic and life changing than we could ever hope to imagine just watching a movie made about these men and women of lore. The movie challenges our own lives. Perhaps, one day, a filmmaker like Henry Hathaway will put our adventure up on the big screen, and wash away all the "True Grit" in favor of a better ending. Perhaps the men we worship in Westerns were based on men who were beyond our expectations, because they were real. The ending tips its hat at the Western genre, saying "ok, audience, these were the real people behind the legends." Finally, by Mattie finding Rooster having passed away, it puts a period on the end of the sentence. Mattie had gone on an adventure at the end of the "Old West". When she returned to find Rooster at the end, the "Old West" was over. It had faded into legend. Rooster Cogburn had faded into the stories of American folklore. The ending was like a love letter to the fact that myth takes over, and myths evolve from the stories of the real, only to become bigger and more sweeping because we see our own past in them.
Robert Charles This comment belongs at the top of the list. This is the best thought out and written comment I've seen on a comment section in a long time.
Your comment is so well put. It gives me a new perspective on both films. The old is a story and the new is the real story. The old being a folklore, passed from parent to child or told by a camp fire. People heard about what happened and passed it on. The new however is Mattie telling the story. She's the same age as she is at the end of the film, the story as been passed around. She is asked about what happened and she tells the real story. Not to discredit or disparage the story that people told, the old film, but to say that there was more to what happened. As in the legends about Rooster and LaBouef were true, but there was more to them then what people said. My life was saved, but I lost my arm, I never saw Rooster after that night, I avenged my father but what did I gain from it? To which people begin to tell Mattie's story.
I am in no way arguing your point, because I seriously doubt I have the words to do so, and frankly, I agree with you. The modern Grit takes off the shine of the Old West and shows us the roughness underneath. And I would point out, I think that's why some people flat out prefer the original. Like a good deal of our current "remakes" or "re-telling" or "Reboot" or whatever "re" they want to do with older stories these days, a large number of the time people don't WANT their nostalgia or memories questioned. They don't want to think that King Arthur might've just been some jerk with a well made sword and Merlin was just a party magician in a time where making fire was "astounding", they want to believe in Excalibur and the Court Wizard. And frankly, the fact that we're talking about a western doubles down on that feeling. The US is a relatively young nation compared to say European or Asiatic countries, who have legends dating back centuries if not millennia. We have our Cowboys, our Gunslingers stepping out for gunfights at high noon, saloon brawls over Dead Man's Hand card games, and they're our little bits of legend and lore that we frankly know, deep down, we don't wanna know the truth about because we know the Heroes were probably just as bad (or maybe worse) than the "Bad" guys, that good things happened to bad people and vice versa, and riding off into the sunset was probably just a great way to get shot in the back. So while I applaud the Coens for what is a fantastic remake that deserves all the praise it gets, I can't help but side with those who enjoy the, let's say, finer Grit. I can't say either of them has a truly "happy" ending, but the original gives us the closest thing to it.
I auditioned to play Mattie in the remake back in 2009/2010 when I was in middle school. I guess I was bitter about not being cast because I still haven't gotten around to seeing it, dang I should've seen it by now! I think I still have a copy of the script used for the pre-read...
Dang. You should've just prepped the wrong script and shown up in full makeup as Wednesday Addams like Hailee. Then we'd be reading her comment about you!
It's worth mentioning that the remake is much more faithful to the book, which wasn't afraid to paint the West as it was. Whereas the original has that total John Wayne rosy attitude that makes me roll my eyes
@@jonahhex6593 You're a moron so I'm obviously not your "bro". "TF am I doing here?". I'm "nostalgically criticizing" your hero, using a dose of reality. BTW, if you want to take the shortcut of using acronyms, you probably want to include all the letters!
I like both movies for different reasons. Even though story-wise the movies are almost verbatim, it's hard to make comparisons between each movies style. The John Wayne version is very much a John Wayne film; it's bright, it's charming, it has good action, and it doesn't get bogged down with dialogue. I also like seeing the relationship develop between Rooster and Mattie-- it's so endearing how he calls her "Little Sister," and it sets him up as this grandpa-like figure. The remake is dark, morbid, and dare I say, grittier! It doesn't paint a pretty picture of the old west, and wants to get as far away from the John Wayne take on westerns as possible. It explores a depth and sense of realism about what makes a hero, and what seeking vengeance for death really accomplishes. I don't think of either of these films being superior to the other. If you want a good old-fashioned western, good heroes and good action, go for the original. If you want complexity, darkness, and something that challenges the cliches of other westerns, watch the remake. Both are very enjoyable.
The 2011 Version is more realistic. Like the @jabscha7051 said: "the characters actually look like they're from the 19th century and not just people from the 60's in cowboy hats". That's what I like to see, when I watch a movie playing in the past. I want to experience, the mindset, the behavior, the looks and the way of talking from people of that time. I don't want to see modern people with 300 Dollar Haircuts in perfect clean costumes, playing for example people of the wild west.
As much as I generally loathe re-makes, I had to admit that the new True Grit was damned awesome. Howsabout some more horror in old vs new? Texas Chainsaw, Nightmare On Elm Street, The Blob or a little lighter fare- Bedazzled!
Old vs New, 3 Godfathers, another John Wayne movie, vs Tokyo Godfathers. Both are about three people trying to look after an infant near Christmas. Difference, one's a western with outlaws looking after the baby whose mother died in childbirth and they're wrongfully accused of murder, and the other is an anime film about three homeless people in Tokyo trying to find the mother of an abandoned baby.
Don't forget: Unforgiven, Dances With Wolves, Tombstone, Bone Tomahawk (recent and disturbing), ect. I'm not the biggest Western fan, but there are some great ones.
Something I like about the new version is that the characters actually look like they're from the 19th century and not just people from the 60's in cowboy hats
The Thing pictures were too dissimilar to compare. Carpenter's film in essence was no remake, more of a Think, Invasion of the Body Snatchers hybrid. And a great piece of film making.
+LoveOverlord Except that the new Rooster almost gives up midway through the film. Where's that "true grit" and tenacity? Not coming from The Dude apparently! The Duke's portrayal had unbreakable grit.
@@bigguy4421 That's what I really dislike about the 1969 version. The book was about the girl, yet since it was John Wayne they had to make it about him. The story got simplified and he became the focus instead.
I think some extra consideration should be given to John Wayne, as in 1964 he had a lung removed due to cancer. Yep, he did all the stuff in this movie missing a lung.
The soundtrack of the remake is sadly and largely unnoticed. I love that the majority of the soundtrack is old gospel hymns which is a great contrast to the dark tones of the movie. It's the subtle things like Mattie's theme song is "Leaning on the Everlasting Arms" that make me love this movie. The song is about relying and trusting in God and finding the peace and joy that comes from leaning on God which contrasts Mattie's unrelenting quest to find peace in vengeance, which as NC pointed out, ends up leaving her very bitter and seemingly joyless.
My appreciation for the remake grew to the point where I felt compelled to read the book, which was well worth it and added further to my enjoyment. I would also recommend listening to the audiobook with narration by Donna Tartt. I am going to try to get to the original movie version, though based on some clips I have seen, it might be hard for me to appreciate it.
I think judging these movies together is unfair, but I have to agree. You gotta keep in mind John Wayne movies just have that feel, ya know? The "cowboy rides off into the sunset" feel. The ending, in context for both movies, fits both to a T as they're both completely different when it comes to tone. The John Wayne movie is that A-Typical Western flick your folks enjoy watching, while the True Grit of today is much darker and... Well, grittier.
If there was anybody that stood out to me, it was the Bear Guy. He was just interesting when he walked in, he was interesting when he spoke and even interesting when he disappeared. I don't know why but for a character that shouldn't be remembered, I couldn't help but remember him the most. That and Rooster's reaction. "......You're not LeBoeuf..."
The REAL reason the remake is the better movie is that the Western genre had gone through a rigorous deconstruction period and come out the other side well-tempered; better balanced, more nuanced. The impurities (the good guy always wears a white hat, never gets dirty, and always wins, riding off into the sunset with the pretty gal, singing a cowboy ballad) had been hammered out
It feels like the new film was made with the intention of making it earn the name True Grit as fully as possible, as opposed to the original where it felt like any other Western style name. Its a good film, but like any goody two shoes western it had rosy glasses and happy endings that romanticised that era too much for a name like True Grit to not feel over the top The remake seriously makes Mattie earn that respect from Rooster, and he from her, specifically BECAUSE the film doesn't shy away from the harshness, the cruelty, the... Well, grittiness
Something I love about these 2 movies is how they're so similar yet so different, they're almost scene for scene the same but because of the tones they feel completely different, the original feels like a fun popcorn action movie, something you'd put on, kick your feet up on the couch and watch with a big happy grin on your face, whereas with the remake you're on the edge of your seat in silence and whispering "Oh shit" whenever something intense happens, and so it kinda gives you a reason to wanna watch both versions every now and then, because they really do give you 2 different types of emotional experiences
I like the original better personally. John Wayne didn't sound like he had a mouth full of marbles & you could understand him when he talked, but to each their own
The original had two scenes that were better than the remake: the court hearing, and the scene inside the dugout with the two house thieves. The original had better villains. In the original, we hear about Ned Pepper and his lip scar almost from the beginning of the movie and his reveal is kind of impressive. The character of Leboeuf is better in the remake, and him getting left behind with injuries, and never being seen again is more mysterious and dramatic. We think he probably didn't make it, but we'll never know. It feels more realistic. Additionally, in the remake, we really feel how far away from medical help Maddy is, and it feels realistic that she lost her arm. The remake should also win points for being a good remake and not just a shameless cash grab.
Saddens me a bit that the Old lost. I'm a huge fan of classic Westerns that personally thinks that the modern Westerns kinda lost their teeth, but, it seems that New True Grit did it well.
I like the old version SLIGHTLY more, very slightly because both are great and in reality pretty much as good as each other, so I would suggest watching the new version, enjoying both the similarities and differences. I also would second 'Bone Tomahawk'.
I've got an idea for an Old vs New. "Our Man Flint" vs "The Avengers." No, not "The Avengers" as in "Marvel." "The Avengers" as in that James Bond parody movie with Uma Thurman where Sean Connery plays a villain trying to control the weather. They're both secret agent movies where in both, an intelligent man who hesitates to use firearms goes against a villain or a group of villains that are trying to rule the world by controlling the weather. Any takers?
+Jarrett Smith I don't think they'll buy this. In this section (old vs new) movies are compared to their remakes and these movies are not. "The Avegers" is the movie adaptation of the british tv-series of the same name from the 1960's to 70's I think.
TyrWolfsblood Maybe so, but you see where I'm coming from, right? About how the stories of both movies are so alike? Heck, the two movies even have a scene where the main girls both endure a hypnosis session to become pleasure slaves to the villains.
Jarrett Smith Yes I totally see your point and would agree in terms of similarities in the story. The only problem (beside the fact that i don`t know if they are still willing to make new episodes of "Old vs New") is that beside some similarities in the story both movies are not related. It would be like comparing Tron to Johnny Mnemonic because both have virtual reality in it. And besides that as i saw it the story of "The Avengers" is more influenced by the storylines of the original series. There they even had an episode where a scientist could control the weather - at least he could make it rain at will.
One thing the remake did do much better than the original was the death of Tom Chaney. In the original his death didn’t feel satisfying, Rooster just kills him and rescues Mattie. In the remake Mattie shoots Chaney, which is much better. It’s after her all her fight, and he killed her father so it’s much more fitting. Besides that I feel like I’m in the minority here but I like the original a lot more than the re make.
Maybe it's just because of where I live, or how I was raised, but this is literally the first time I EVER heard someone praise the remake for ANYTHING.
TheWolverine1987 No, I meant the Remake of True Grit. Everybody I know really bashed it. I had no idea some people liked it. I thought it was near Godzilla 1998 levels of hate train. As for remakes in general, I definitely have some I love. :D "The Thing" looks awesome, and I really want to see it, but I'm too scared LOL.
Seeing as this wasn't intended to be a "remake". but a retelling of the novel, I think the newer version is far superior. Even taking the book out of consideration the new one is much more compelling.
the new rooster looks a lot like my dad's best friend, and lived the scene when he carries her all the way home in both films, but I love the classic more
Do you ever think about film technique when doing these old vs new? I mean...I haven't seen the remake or the old, but goshdarnit, the new one has 14-time Academy Award-nominated (and so far only 1-time winer) DP Roger Deakins on board. Cinematography in the Old West couldn't look better than that.
Even though I love old-school movies with actors that have been gone for a lot of years, I did really enjoy the new version. Jeff was really good. Hell, everyone made a damn good showing here!
I’d like to see an old vs new between Kurosawa’s seven samurai and the western remake “the magnificent seven “ or Maybe Kurosawa’s Yojimbo vs A fistful Of dollars
If you like The Magnificent Seven, you should also like Seven Samurai, the original Eastern that started it all, and also Parada, a European remake that takes place in modern times and features war veterans as private security guards.
The True Grit movie comparisons remind of the many times I often tell people who debate why the gritty, darker, more adult Batman films are better than the cheesy versions or others like it to not belittle those that like the campy versions more. The styles and tones are different but what is "better" in the end all comes down to preference. There's no scientific answer as to what's the better version. Some prefer one version over the other and that's okay. It's film and we should enjoy what we like regardless of the critics or general public's perception of it. Keep an open mind and be objective when discussing movies. If a movie has bad reviews but you like it that's okay. If a movie has stellar reviews but in your opinion is not as good as people say it is that's okay too. You're not weird. Don't take opinions and reviews of anything too seriously because your brain will get way too exhausted from overthinking. Its not a big deal. You're not gonna save the world if any form of media should be loved or hated by everyone.
That’s funny. I never actually saw the remake’s ending as depressing. More bittersweet. I felt like she was satisfied with how everything went down, but it was still sad that she never saw Rooster again. But maybe that’s just me.
It was really fun to see a movie that takes place in my home state of Arkansas, or at least mentions the locations that aren’t actually visited. Whenever they mentioned a city I knew exactly where they were talking about, it just helped me get into the story much more easily. Fort Smith, Little Rock, Dardanelle, Jonesboro, Pine Bluff, etc. They even mentioned Monroe, Louisiana, the twin city of my Mom’s hometown (which is West Monroe). True Grit will probably always be special to me because very rarely do I find any kind of story that takes place in Arkansas and the surrounding area, not to mention the fact that it’s just a great story (American classic novel and two great movies).
I disagree with the choice for the girl. While the drive for vengeance was slightly more interesting, it also made her really one-dimensional. Yeah, it was cool that she was so driven for revenge, but that's all her character is. That's all there is to see. The older version had a character that was more complex and relatable, and changed as the movie went on. Overall, I also disagree with the overall choice. I felt that the new version took itself way too seriously and exaggerated a lot of the emotions, though this was due mostly to the girl. I like the new one, but I personally found it a lot less entertaining and was actually somewhat depressed by it. It felt too modern, I could tell this was made in the 21st century. I don't mean that as in the camera work and picture was better, I mean that like most modern movies, it felt like they tried to hard to make every character overly complex. A drunk is a drunk, and drunks get angry, but how angry is subject to the drunkard. John Wayne's drunk obviously held it better, he's a big guy, and I felt like his level of emotion when drunk was more in accordance with how a drunk his size would act. That's my two cents.
Iowa Class, Steinfeld’s portrayal of Mattie worked because she ends up being a spinster at the end with a missing arm. It was to show how a drive for vengeance can lead a person to a distant and cold lifestyle.
I saw the 1969 movie of True Grit in an Anchorage movie theater and seen it on T.V several times over the years. I am a John Wayne fan and remains as one of my favorite movie actors. In 2011 I saw the Coen Brothers True Grit movie. I think that the 2010 version was more authentic for the viewers. I keep watching this movie quite often and enjoy the later movie the most. Great job by all actors especially Forrester who practice doctoring for those who will stand still for it. So my vote is for the later version.
Liked your comparison. Not surprised at your conclusion because the quality and impact of the 2011 version surprised me when I first saw it. I saw a bootleg copy of the new one and was so impressed that I vowed to buy my own copy full price. Just accomplished that recently via UA-cam. I really didn't expect much from the Coen version: probably watched it to marvel at their audacity.and ridicule their quirkiness. I was dead wrong. They studied the novel (which I still have not read) and lovingly exerted themselves in adhering to the storyline. I liked that Arkansas dialogue in both films. I know many felt that John Wayne received lifetime achievement recognition with the Oscar he won for playing Cogburn. It was a good story and I think he did step outside his comfort zone in taking the role - if only in mouthing the stilted dialogue. Jeff Bridges didn't just approach Wayne's performance - he made Cogburn his own. The revelation for me was Hailee Steinfeld. I think Kim Darby was considerably older than the heroine in the novel - and I accepted her as I did Judy Garland in "The Wizard of Oz." Hailee Steinfeld looked like the 14-year-old she was playing - and the maturity she displayed was amazing. I'm glad you scoffed at her playing a supporting actress: she carried the movie All told, the 1969 version is a classic - and the Coen Brothers remake in no way takes a backseat to the original. I meant to mention Carter Burwell's score. He based it on two hymns I am well familiar with - "Hold To God's Unchanging Hand," and, "Leaning On the Everlasting Arms." I picked up on both of them as they played at points. It seems strange, since Mattie Ross became such a bitter woman, but the music and message fit the film for me. Even now, tears begin to well in my eyes when I watch these clips and hear the music. Thanks for your comparison review.
The original is a classic, but the remake is definitely superior in terms of book faithfulness, acting, casting, & cinematography. Plus, young Hailee gave one hell of a performance.
The main thing I liked about the 2011 versions is that it actually follows the book more closely. It's always been a thing with me, when I see movies that are supposed to be based on a book but don't follow the book hardly at all. I hate that. Both movies here do follow the book fairly well, but the ending in the 2011 version was the same as the book's ending.
I disagree with the choice for the girl. While the drive for vengeance was slightly more interesting, it also made her really one-dimensional. Yeah, it was cool that she was so driven for revenge, but that's all her character is. That's all there is to see. The older version had a character that was more complex and relatable, and changed as the movie went on.
Dallas Cowboys For Life I don't really count Django as a Western, it is too stylized with Tarantino flare (which I adore) for me to say it is a true Western. I have yet to watch any of Clint Eastwood's western films.
I think the 2007 3:10 to Yuma was amazing. Not as big a fan of True Grit, but maybe I need to replay it. Watching this made me miss Red Dead Redemption.
I kinda wish he would do an old vs new episode for Fargo. By that I mean comparing the movie to the tv series, of course. Idk I thought it would be interesting
The Duke will always be the best Rooster to me. I can't help liking his charm. I also genuinely felt he grew to care about the girl. And i'm sorry his scene at the end riding on his horse shooting is awesome and iconic.
I feel like the points the old version won were pity points so it wouldn't be a washout....the acting of the originals in Ned's gang is so wooden including Duvall himself that it actually takes you out of the film and I saw this as a kid because it was one of my grandpaw's favorite westerns and therefore favorite films.I grew up loving it but the retelling was so powerful that it quickly became my favorite version. The Coens know how to craft a western which gives you a feeling somewhat like an existential crises where you yearn for something like that but at the same time are terrified of it. All good westerns do, whether modern or antiquated.
I partially agree, but Kim Darby did a better Mattie. Both stories were true to their Matties, but because Kim was better so was her story. Bridges, Damon, and Duval were far and away the best. I'm just disappointed that the new didn't use the same location for the stand-off as the old.
It's pretty apt that this is a review down by the Nostalgia Critic because there sure are a ton of people looking at this through nostalgia tinted glasses.
Better title: The Duke vs The Dude.
The Dude just beat the Duke
Vive la révolution!
Vs the Duck
A big thing to note in the remake, is that the very second that Mattie pulls the trigger to shoot Chaney in cold blooded revenge, her life immediately goes to shit as it starts the series of dominoes that leaves her minus an arm, a horse and bitter and alone. Had she just captured him for the authorities instead of going vigilante, her whole life would have been different. Quite a direct "Don't do revenge, it's bad" depiction by the Coens but it really works.
Yep quite right, that is pretty much the moral of the whole story, it’s a wonderful story of tenacity, how justice is good and should always be sought, but if you allow your need for justice to build up into a desire for vengeance you’ll probably end up bitter and losing a part of yourself, hence the metaphor for that was Mattie losing her arm, she got her vengeance but she remained bitter and she lived a lonesome life, had she left it to Rooster and LeBeouf justice would’ve been still been served (for her and the family LeBeouf was working for) but her life would’ve been dramatically different.
Or to put the "Vengeance is bad" in a cooler way
"Vengeance is an idiot's game." - Arthur Morgan.
How the fuck would she have captured him in that situation
Seven Samurai vs. The Magnificent Seven. It has to be done.
I don't think so, both are about seven wariors fighting a battle but have differnt settings, one is in japan the other is in the old west. you have to take into account that not only will the villains be differnt but the story, characters and fighting style.
@@scantopup2226 Magnificent Seven is literally the remake of Seven Samurai its just a westernized remake
Not even a debate. Seven samurai is massively better in every way
Old vs new magnificent seven
Yojimbo vs Fist Full of Dollars would be a more fitting comparison.
I felt the remake of True Grit taught an interesting lesson and framed the story in a more metaphysical way. The ending was intended to position John Wayne's Cogburn and the original True Grit as a retelling of this story, the "real" tale of Mattie making a terrible decision in the spirit of revenge and going on a quest to kill a man accompanied by two men who were like the two halves of what we consider a "old west cowboy". You had Rooster, who was the outlaw, the drunk, the gunslinger, the dangerous one, and you had LaBoeuf, the lawman and hero soldier. In the remake ending, Mattie goes to find Rooster at a Buffalo Bill Wild West traveling show, the precursor to Western films like you saw John Ford and Henry Hathaway make. We see the reality behind the tale that would go on to become the original film.
That's why it seems like a shot by shot remake at times. It's intended to be the metaphysical "reality" behind the story that becomes the romanticized ending of the original. The Coen brothers were pointing out that the beauty and romance of wild west films are bathed in...cough...NOSTALGIA...and although reality if much rougher and the so-called "heroes" of the old west were men of mixed morality and deep flaws, it still showed that LaBoeuf could be a selfless icon of the law, while Cogburn could still be an almost superheroic, bigger-than-life cowboy hero of old, simply because their ultimate actions gave them that distinction, with Cogburn going beyond his own seeming capabilities to save Mattie's life from the snake bite. A man who we had been questioning as a broken down drunk turned out to be almost supernaturally iconic and LaBoeuf turned out to be a wounded hero who had to limp home with the death he was looking to accomplish. Mattie learned a powerful life lesson and the adventure helped define who she turned out to be as an adult.
The whole story is a morality play, not for Mattie or the other characters, but for us as a modern movie audience. We live rough lives, but pioneers lived even rougher lives, and what we know as a "cowboy" or "old west gunslinger" or a "old west lawman" or an "old west spinster" or a "wild west revenge tale" are all far dirtier and less romantic than we could ever imagine and yet because it was REAL was far more epic and life changing than we could ever hope to imagine just watching a movie made about these men and women of lore.
The movie challenges our own lives. Perhaps, one day, a filmmaker like Henry Hathaway will put our adventure up on the big screen, and wash away all the "True Grit" in favor of a better ending. Perhaps the men we worship in Westerns were based on men who were beyond our expectations, because they were real. The ending tips its hat at the Western genre, saying "ok, audience, these were the real people behind the legends."
Finally, by Mattie finding Rooster having passed away, it puts a period on the end of the sentence. Mattie had gone on an adventure at the end of the "Old West". When she returned to find Rooster at the end, the "Old West" was over. It had faded into legend. Rooster Cogburn had faded into the stories of American folklore. The ending was like a love letter to the fact that myth takes over, and myths evolve from the stories of the real, only to become bigger and more sweeping because we see our own past in them.
Robert Charles This comment belongs at the top of the list. This is the best thought out and written comment I've seen on a comment section in a long time.
The 2011 remake also follows the original book more closely
Robert Charles So, when can I read a book written by you or a movie that you write and direct? Damn, you have talent!
Your comment is so well put. It gives me a new perspective on both films. The old is a story and the new is the real story. The old being a folklore, passed from parent to child or told by a camp fire. People heard about what happened and passed it on.
The new however is Mattie telling the story. She's the same age as she is at the end of the film, the story as been passed around. She is asked about what happened and she tells the real story. Not to discredit or disparage the story that people told, the old film, but to say that there was more to what happened.
As in the legends about Rooster and LaBouef were true, but there was more to them then what people said. My life was saved, but I lost my arm, I never saw Rooster after that night, I avenged my father but what did I gain from it? To which people begin to tell Mattie's story.
I am in no way arguing your point, because I seriously doubt I have the words to do so, and frankly, I agree with you. The modern Grit takes off the shine of the Old West and shows us the roughness underneath.
And I would point out, I think that's why some people flat out prefer the original.
Like a good deal of our current "remakes" or "re-telling" or "Reboot" or whatever "re" they want to do with older stories these days, a large number of the time people don't WANT their nostalgia or memories questioned. They don't want to think that King Arthur might've just been some jerk with a well made sword and Merlin was just a party magician in a time where making fire was "astounding", they want to believe in Excalibur and the Court Wizard.
And frankly, the fact that we're talking about a western doubles down on that feeling. The US is a relatively young nation compared to say European or Asiatic countries, who have legends dating back centuries if not millennia. We have our Cowboys, our Gunslingers stepping out for gunfights at high noon, saloon brawls over Dead Man's Hand card games, and they're our little bits of legend and lore that we frankly know, deep down, we don't wanna know the truth about because we know the Heroes were probably just as bad (or maybe worse) than the "Bad" guys, that good things happened to bad people and vice versa, and riding off into the sunset was probably just a great way to get shot in the back.
So while I applaud the Coens for what is a fantastic remake that deserves all the praise it gets, I can't help but side with those who enjoy the, let's say, finer Grit. I can't say either of them has a truly "happy" ending, but the original gives us the closest thing to it.
I auditioned to play Mattie in the remake back in 2009/2010 when I was in middle school. I guess I was bitter about not being cast because I still haven't gotten around to seeing it, dang I should've seen it by now! I think I still have a copy of the script used for the pre-read...
Even getting to the audition for a film with that budget is impressive. All of the most successful actors alive right now had plenty of rejections.
Dang. You should've just prepped the wrong script and shown up in full makeup as Wednesday Addams like Hailee. Then we'd be reading her comment about you!
It's worth mentioning that the remake is much more faithful to the book, which wasn't afraid to paint the West as it was. Whereas the original has that total John Wayne rosy attitude that makes me roll my eyes
Didnt even know there was a book
J.A.C Lot of westerns have books. John Wayne’s last movie “the shootist” was also based on a book
@@touristygull2059 that's cool
You obviously didn,t read the book.
More faithful? Sorry, but no way.
Let me guess...
Old one?
**Watches**
Oh.
The new one is actually based on the book that both of the movies were based on it's line for line word for word out of the book
The bear guy is obviously the living man's great-grandfather.
+Snowy Owl Lmao I thought the exact same thing, when I heard his voice I had to pause the video because I couldn't stop laughing.
Yes, just yes.
But John Wayne did the gunspin with his repeater
+wildside316 in stagecoach in 1939 John Wayne pulled it off first then Connors followed then McQueen
shut up!
Yeah... He had plenty of time to practice it while the REAL leading Men were off fighting World War II.
@@carlwilliams6977 bro posted a gotcha moment on a comment from 8 years ago on a Nostalgia Critic video no less. Dude, tf you doing here?
@@jonahhex6593 You're a moron so I'm obviously not your "bro". "TF am I doing here?". I'm "nostalgically criticizing" your hero, using a dose of reality. BTW, if you want to take the shortcut of using acronyms, you probably want to include all the letters!
I like both movies for different reasons. Even though story-wise the movies are almost verbatim, it's hard to make comparisons between each movies style. The John Wayne version is very much a John Wayne film; it's bright, it's charming, it has good action, and it doesn't get bogged down with dialogue. I also like seeing the relationship develop between Rooster and Mattie-- it's so endearing how he calls her "Little Sister," and it sets him up as this grandpa-like figure. The remake is dark, morbid, and dare I say, grittier! It doesn't paint a pretty picture of the old west, and wants to get as far away from the John Wayne take on westerns as possible. It explores a depth and sense of realism about what makes a hero, and what seeking vengeance for death really accomplishes. I don't think of either of these films being superior to the other. If you want a good old-fashioned western, good heroes and good action, go for the original. If you want complexity, darkness, and something that challenges the cliches of other westerns, watch the remake. Both are very enjoyable.
Yeah, but the Duke got an Oscar. However the Bridges' film is closer to the book that was written...
The 2011 Version is more realistic. Like the @jabscha7051 said: "the characters actually look like they're from the 19th century and not just people from the 60's in cowboy hats".
That's what I like to see, when I watch a movie playing in the past. I want to experience, the mindset, the behavior, the looks and the way of talking from people of that time.
I don't want to see modern people with 300 Dollar Haircuts in perfect clean costumes, playing for example people of the wild west.
As much as I generally loathe re-makes, I had to admit that the new True Grit was damned awesome.
Howsabout some more horror in old vs new? Texas Chainsaw, Nightmare On Elm Street, The Blob or a little lighter fare- Bedazzled!
The older ones all win
@@KreyzMcKormik Yeah pretty much
Old vs New, 3 Godfathers, another John Wayne movie, vs Tokyo Godfathers. Both are about three people trying to look after an infant near Christmas. Difference, one's a western with outlaws looking after the baby whose mother died in childbirth and they're wrongfully accused of murder, and the other is an anime film about three homeless people in Tokyo trying to find the mother of an abandoned baby.
Even though it's technically not a western, BLAZING SADDLES IS THE BEST WESTERN.
Back to the Future III.
Hey where the white chicks at?
"Wire the governor and tell 'em I said... OWWW!"
Personally I consider it to be a comedy wearing a western like a jacket.
That's a great way to put it.
I used to think I didn't like westerns very much, either; until I saw both the True Grit remake and Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid.
Don't forget: Unforgiven, Dances With Wolves, Tombstone, Bone Tomahawk (recent and disturbing), ect. I'm not the biggest Western fan, but there are some great ones.
It always pissed me off that Mattie in the original had a haircut that is totally historically inaccurate. Like a pixie cut in the 1800s?? Yea okay
I hadn't watched either movie before I saw this video and I was very confused about that. Thanks for clearing it up.
@HerrNilssonTheMonkey stow it
what a weird thing to be pissed off about.
You gotta remember that American Westerns are a romanticized version of the west, they're historically innaccurate from the start.
"Bowl" cuts were common in the old west and used to control hair lice so, despite the fact you think it is "modern" you are wrong.
Something I like about the new version is that the characters actually look like they're from the 19th century and not just people from the 60's in cowboy hats
I would to see an old vs new of:
The Fly (1958) vs The Fly (1986)
The Thing From Another World vs John Carpenter’s The Thing
The Blob (1958) vs The Blob (1988)
Invasion of the Body Snatchers.... only the good two. ;)
The Thing pictures were too dissimilar to compare. Carpenter's film in essence was no remake, more of a Think, Invasion of the Body Snatchers hybrid. And a great piece of film making.
this is the nostalgia critic at his best. Great to have him back.
"The new True Grit is newer, truer, and grittier."
+LoveOverlord
Except that the new Rooster almost gives up midway through the film. Where's that "true grit" and tenacity? Not coming from The Dude apparently!
The Duke's portrayal had unbreakable grit.
The title "True Grit" is referring to Maddie. The Girl. She proves she has true grit just as much as rooster and the guys and maybe even more.
@@bigguy4421 That's what I really dislike about the 1969 version. The book was about the girl, yet since it was John Wayne they had to make it about him. The story got simplified and he became the focus instead.
10:41 Sometimes the bear eats you
+DeaditeWheatley or in any place where you found yourself face to face with a savage killer bear
+PedroFelix or Nicholas Cage in a bear costume
***** and in other times the humor murders you
+PedroFelix in Soviet Russia Humor kills you
Bakorafanboy13 Sometimes there's a Cage in a bear.
I think some extra consideration should be given to John Wayne, as in 1964 he had a lung removed due to cancer. Yep, he did all the stuff in this movie missing a lung.
The bear guy made me think of that nicolas cage scean where he dresses up like a bear.... anyone?
"I have removed the bees from his eyes, but I will entertain an offer for their honey"
HeLp_I_KpOpEd AnD_I_cAnT_gEt_Up "How'd it get burned? HOW'D IT GET BURNED, HOW'D IT GET BURNED?!?!?!!"
You mean "Tropic Thunder" and it was a Panda. :-))
The soundtrack of the remake is sadly and largely unnoticed. I love that the majority of the soundtrack is old gospel hymns which is a great contrast to the dark tones of the movie. It's the subtle things like Mattie's theme song is "Leaning on the Everlasting Arms" that make me love this movie. The song is about relying and trusting in God and finding the peace and joy that comes from leaning on God which contrasts Mattie's unrelenting quest to find peace in vengeance, which as NC pointed out, ends up leaving her very bitter and seemingly joyless.
Imagine if Johnny cash was in it
Love Love True Grit!!! Both of them are special!!! Now I must read the book!!!
My appreciation for the remake grew to the point where I felt compelled to read the book, which was well worth it and added further to my enjoyment. I would also recommend listening to the audiobook with narration by Donna Tartt. I am going to try to get to the original movie version, though based on some clips I have seen, it might be hard for me to appreciate it.
This is the only Old vs New I hadn't seen before.
Ironically, this is my favorite John Wayne film.
he sets a low bar.
Nah...#2 for me..."The Shootist" is the best!!
I think judging these movies together is unfair, but I have to agree.
You gotta keep in mind John Wayne movies just have that feel, ya know? The "cowboy rides off into the sunset" feel. The ending, in context for both movies, fits both to a T as they're both completely different when it comes to tone. The John Wayne movie is that A-Typical Western flick your folks enjoy watching, while the True Grit of today is much darker and... Well, grittier.
Maddie's horse had a darker death scene in the remake, and LaBeouf died in the original and lived in the remake. I enjoy the remake more
Actually the remake is rather optimistic compared to a lot of old westerns that are well regarded mind you.
If there was anybody that stood out to me, it was the Bear Guy. He was just interesting when he walked in, he was interesting when he spoke and even interesting when he disappeared. I don't know why but for a character that shouldn't be remembered, I couldn't help but remember him the most.
That and Rooster's reaction. "......You're not LeBoeuf..."
The Dude abides
Quit playing around. Snake? Snake? Snake!
The REAL reason the remake is the better movie is that the Western genre had gone through a rigorous deconstruction period and come out the other side well-tempered; better balanced, more nuanced. The impurities (the good guy always wears a white hat, never gets dirty, and always wins, riding off into the sunset with the pretty gal, singing a cowboy ballad) had been hammered out
Oh wait this is before the Nostalgia Critic quit and almost bankrupted Channel Awesome.
Back when reviewing films was EMOTIONAL for him and not just about the money
It feels like the new film was made with the intention of making it earn the name True Grit as fully as possible, as opposed to the original where it felt like any other Western style name. Its a good film, but like any goody two shoes western it had rosy glasses and happy endings that romanticised that era too much for a name like True Grit to not feel over the top
The remake seriously makes Mattie earn that respect from Rooster, and he from her, specifically BECAUSE the film doesn't shy away from the harshness, the cruelty, the... Well, grittiness
Something I love about these 2 movies is how they're so similar yet so different, they're almost scene for scene the same but because of the tones they feel completely different, the original feels like a fun popcorn action movie, something you'd put on, kick your feet up on the couch and watch with a big happy grin on your face, whereas with the remake you're on the edge of your seat in silence and whispering "Oh shit" whenever something intense happens, and so it kinda gives you a reason to wanna watch both versions every now and then, because they really do give you 2 different types of emotional experiences
I like the original better personally. John Wayne didn't sound like he had a mouth full of marbles & you could understand him when he talked, but to each their own
The original had two scenes that were better than the remake: the court hearing, and the scene inside the dugout with the two house thieves. The original had better villains. In the original, we hear about Ned Pepper and his lip scar almost from the beginning of the movie and his reveal is kind of impressive. The character of Leboeuf is better in the remake, and him getting left behind with injuries, and never being seen again is more mysterious and dramatic. We think he probably didn't make it, but we'll never know. It feels more realistic. Additionally, in the remake, we really feel how far away from medical help Maddy is, and it feels realistic that she lost her arm. The remake should also win points for being a good remake and not just a shameless cash grab.
shameless cash grab trading on the popularity of the original is likely how the remake was pitched and why it got made in the first place.
Book spoilers:
Leboeuf survived in the book and retrieved Chaney's body.
@@hiramnooneThat is completely false. The Coen Brothers remade the movie to be closer to the original novel, not just for some boring old money.
@@captainhowlerwilson508 Uh, huh. Of course they did. Muss be why they never cashed the checks.
Saddens me a bit that the Old lost. I'm a huge fan of classic Westerns that personally thinks that the modern Westerns kinda lost their teeth, but, it seems that New True Grit did it well.
It did n;t lose because this jack leg stated it did, he's a nut.
Watch Bone Tomahawk. ;)
I like the old version SLIGHTLY more, very slightly because both are great and in reality pretty much as good as each other, so I would suggest watching the new version, enjoying both the similarities and differences.
I also would second 'Bone Tomahawk'.
I've got an idea for an Old vs New. "Our Man Flint" vs "The Avengers."
No, not "The Avengers" as in "Marvel." "The Avengers" as in that James Bond parody movie with Uma Thurman where Sean Connery plays a villain trying to control the weather.
They're both secret agent movies where in both, an intelligent man who hesitates to use firearms goes against a villain or a group of villains that are trying to rule the world by controlling the weather.
Any takers?
+Jarrett Smith the nostalgia critic did a review of that one, and he trashed it
+Jarrett Smith I don't think they'll buy this. In this section (old vs new) movies are compared to their remakes and these movies are not. "The Avegers" is the movie adaptation of the british tv-series of the same name from the 1960's to 70's I think.
TyrWolfsblood Maybe so, but you see where I'm coming from, right? About how the stories of both movies are so alike?
Heck, the two movies even have a scene where the main girls both endure a hypnosis session to become pleasure slaves to the villains.
This was originally uploaded in 2011
He won't listen
Jarrett Smith
Yes I totally see your point and would agree in terms of similarities in the story. The only problem (beside the fact that i don`t know if they are still willing to make new episodes of "Old vs New") is that beside some similarities in the story both movies are not related. It would be like comparing Tron to Johnny Mnemonic because both have virtual reality in it. And besides that as i saw it the story of "The Avengers" is more influenced by the storylines of the original series. There they even had an episode where a scientist could control the weather - at least he could make it rain at will.
I love western! And I'm an eastern XD my new favourite is Slow West (2015)
how about the good the bad and the ugly?
Rouge Shadow Yes! That's my first western :D my step dad loves clint eastwood and got me into so many westerns
What's your favorite Eastwood film
Like Japan eastern or New York eastern
+The Tiger of insainity Eastern... like Asia
I think I would actually love a review of Maverick.
I think Jeff Bridges played the better Rooster
+sadlobster1 agreed
Not only that but the remake had a more realistic take on the story
+sadlobster1 Yeah. I read the original novel, and I felt the remake better captured the novel.
+SirJedi Consular Yes. Thank you! I still like both movies...
Tei Sukone yeah. the duke will always be the duke, but he played the duke, the dude on the other hand played rooster coughburn
One thing the remake did do much better than the original was the death of Tom Chaney. In the original his death didn’t feel satisfying, Rooster just kills him and rescues Mattie.
In the remake Mattie shoots Chaney, which is much better. It’s after her all her fight, and he killed her father so it’s much more fitting.
Besides that I feel like I’m in the minority here but I like the original a lot more than the re make.
Maybe it's just because of where I live, or how I was raised, but this is literally the first time I EVER heard someone praise the remake for ANYTHING.
+STIRRUPLEATHER Do you mean this particular remake or remakes in general? If it is the latter, google John Carpenter's The Thing.
TheWolverine1987 No, I meant the Remake of True Grit. Everybody I know really bashed it. I had no idea some people liked it. I thought it was near Godzilla 1998 levels of hate train.
As for remakes in general, I definitely have some I love. :D "The Thing" looks awesome, and I really want to see it, but I'm too scared LOL.
Seeing as this wasn't intended to be a "remake". but a retelling of the novel, I think the newer version is far superior. Even taking the book out of consideration the new one is much more compelling.
That just so happened to have most of the same dialog and scenes.
Really. I've never met anyone that didn't praise the hell out of it. Maybe it's a culture thing.
the new rooster looks a lot like my dad's best friend, and lived the scene when he carries her all the way home in both films, but I love the classic more
You need to review scooby doo 2 Monster unleashed, Yes it exists
+Nate Briggs YES he does!
Ehh
+Nate Briggs Ugh, thanks little boy.
Don't watch it it's worse then the original
he just made a review of that
Do you ever think about film technique when doing these old vs new? I mean...I haven't seen the remake or the old, but goshdarnit, the new one has 14-time Academy Award-nominated (and so far only 1-time winer) DP Roger Deakins on board. Cinematography in the Old West couldn't look better than that.
Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion man. Which I'm in total agreement on.
Even though I love old-school movies with actors that have been gone for a lot of years, I did really enjoy the new version. Jeff was really good. Hell, everyone made a damn good showing here!
hell, damn
True grit with John Wayne will always be my favorite
I’d like to see an old vs new between Kurosawa’s seven samurai and the western remake “the magnificent seven “ or Maybe Kurosawa’s Yojimbo vs A fistful Of dollars
Yojimbo in the fifties already had everything that would make Italo-Westerns great in the sixties - and more.
do a magnificent 7 of new vs old, that would be a good one because both are the same but very different with a lot of great moments.
If you like The Magnificent Seven, you should also like Seven Samurai, the original Eastern that started it all, and also Parada, a European remake that takes place in modern times and features war veterans as private security guards.
I really hope I'm not the only one here who agrees with NC that the 2011 version was better.
Douglas Miller I Think The 2011 Version Is Better.
I saw the remake in the theater with my cousin. Back in the good old days. And absolutely loved it.
I TOO feel the remake is the superior product.
Personally I feel that the remake is so much better that there was really no point comparing. And it seems I was right.
Sometimes I fantasize that Clint Eastwood and John Wayne are in an epic gunfight.
Also, Mattie in the old True Grit looks like 2013 Justin Bieber
true but at least shes better looking, HEYOHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
The True Grit movie comparisons remind of the many times I often tell people who debate why the gritty, darker, more adult Batman films are better than the cheesy versions or others like it to not belittle those that like the campy versions more. The styles and tones are different but what is "better" in the end all comes down to preference. There's no scientific answer as to what's the better version. Some prefer one version over the other and that's okay. It's film and we should enjoy what we like regardless of the critics or general public's perception of it. Keep an open mind and be objective when discussing movies. If a movie has bad reviews but you like it that's okay. If a movie has stellar reviews but in your opinion is not as good as people say it is that's okay too. You're not weird. Don't take opinions and reviews of anything too seriously because your brain will get way too exhausted from overthinking. Its not a big deal. You're not gonna save the world if any form of media should be loved or hated by everyone.
This is the same reason why I do not prefer the overall dark take on Superman by Zack Snyder for the most part.
I agree with Nostalgia Critic, the new True Grit is a re-adaptation to the book
Mister Who, that goes without saying.
I love John Wayne performances but the new one was pretty damn good
That’s funny. I never actually saw the remake’s ending as depressing. More bittersweet. I felt like she was satisfied with how everything went down, but it was still sad that she never saw Rooster again. But maybe that’s just me.
The old true grit is WAY BETTER to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
14:36 Now slowly, carefully... AGITATE THE HELL OUT OF THAT SNAKE!!!
Poor, poor Arya Stark...
oh shit......
They're both good. The remake is more like the book though. I love the book.
It was really fun to see a movie that takes place in my home state of Arkansas, or at least mentions the locations that aren’t actually visited. Whenever they mentioned a city I knew exactly where they were talking about, it just helped me get into the story much more easily. Fort Smith, Little Rock, Dardanelle, Jonesboro, Pine Bluff, etc. They even mentioned Monroe, Louisiana, the twin city of my Mom’s hometown (which is West Monroe). True Grit will probably always be special to me because very rarely do I find any kind of story that takes place in Arkansas and the surrounding area, not to mention the fact that it’s just a great story (American classic novel and two great movies).
I just watched the new one, it was a great movie !
I wasn't expecting that ending, though...
Here's mine.
Best Story: 2010
Best Mattie: 2010
Best Supporting Cast: 2010
Best Villains: 2010
Best Rooster: 2010
2010 version dominates.
I disagree with the choice for the girl. While the drive for vengeance was slightly more interesting, it also made her really one-dimensional. Yeah, it was cool that she was so driven for revenge, but that's all her character is. That's all there is to see. The older version had a character that was more complex and relatable, and changed as the movie went on.
Overall, I also disagree with the overall choice. I felt that the new version took itself way too seriously and exaggerated a lot of the emotions, though this was due mostly to the girl. I like the new one, but I personally found it a lot less entertaining and was actually somewhat depressed by it. It felt too modern, I could tell this was made in the 21st century. I don't mean that as in the camera work and picture was better, I mean that like most modern movies, it felt like they tried to hard to make every character overly complex. A drunk is a drunk, and drunks get angry, but how angry is subject to the drunkard. John Wayne's drunk obviously held it better, he's a big guy, and I felt like his level of emotion when drunk was more in accordance with how a drunk his size would act.
That's my two cents.
Iowa Class, Steinfeld’s portrayal of Mattie worked because she ends up being a spinster at the end with a missing arm. It was to show how a drive for vengeance can lead a person to a distant and cold lifestyle.
I saw the 1969 movie of True Grit in an Anchorage movie theater and seen it on T.V several times over the years. I am a John Wayne fan and remains as one of my favorite movie actors. In 2011 I saw the Coen Brothers True Grit movie. I think that the 2010 version was more authentic for the viewers. I keep watching this movie quite often and enjoy the later movie the most. Great job by all actors especially Forrester who practice doctoring for those who will stand still for it. So my vote is for the later version.
Liked your comparison. Not surprised at your conclusion because the quality and impact of the 2011 version surprised me when I first saw it. I saw a bootleg copy of the new one and was so impressed that I vowed to buy my own copy full price. Just accomplished that recently via UA-cam.
I really didn't expect much from the Coen version: probably watched it to marvel at their audacity.and ridicule their quirkiness. I was dead wrong. They studied the novel (which I still have not read) and lovingly exerted themselves in adhering to the storyline. I liked that Arkansas dialogue in both films.
I know many felt that John Wayne received lifetime achievement recognition with the Oscar he won for playing Cogburn. It was a good story and I think he did step outside his comfort zone in taking the role - if only in mouthing the stilted dialogue.
Jeff Bridges didn't just approach Wayne's performance - he made Cogburn his own.
The revelation for me was Hailee Steinfeld. I think Kim Darby was considerably older than the heroine in the novel - and I accepted her as I did Judy Garland in "The Wizard of Oz."
Hailee Steinfeld looked like the 14-year-old she was playing - and the maturity she displayed was amazing. I'm glad you scoffed at her playing a supporting actress: she carried the movie
All told, the 1969 version is a classic - and the Coen Brothers remake in no way takes a backseat to the original. I meant to mention Carter Burwell's score. He based it on two hymns I am well familiar with - "Hold To God's Unchanging Hand," and, "Leaning On the Everlasting Arms." I picked up on both of them as they played at points. It seems strange, since Mattie Ross became such a bitter woman, but the music and message fit the film for me. Even now, tears begin to well in my eyes when I watch these clips and hear the music. Thanks for your comparison review.
The original is a classic, but the remake is definitely superior in terms of book faithfulness, acting, casting, & cinematography. Plus, young Hailee gave one hell of a performance.
The main thing I liked about the 2011 versions is that it actually follows the book more closely. It's always been a thing with me, when I see movies that are supposed to be based on a book but don't follow the book hardly at all. I hate that. Both movies here do follow the book fairly well, but the ending in the 2011 version was the same as the book's ending.
It came out in 2010, but yeah, I think the movie is better as an adaptation and highlights the gritty nature of the Old West.
I disagree with the choice for the girl. While the drive for vengeance was slightly more interesting, it also made her really one-dimensional. Yeah, it was cool that she was so driven for revenge, but that's all her character is. That's all there is to see. The older version had a character that was more complex and relatable, and changed as the movie went on.
"La-buff"
Can we talk about how fucking incredible the score in the remake is?
I haven't seen either film yet, but I'm thinking of seeing both :3
Go ahead, both are top notch films.
+18Gingasoldier same
+18Gingasoldier Yeah me too
Watch the original, then the remake.
I think that's the best way to view them.
Why are you watching this video if you haven't seen them? There are spoilers.
Both films are worth watching with Excellant performances.
I actually rarely enjoy Westerns and the 2011 True Grit as well as the 2007 3:10 to Yuma have been the only two Westerns that I absolutely adore.
Dallas Cowboys For Life I don't really count Django as a Western, it is too stylized with Tarantino flare (which I adore) for me to say it is a true Western. I have yet to watch any of Clint Eastwood's western films.
+John Klein Wow, true western and you haven't seen any? Most of his style is homage to spagetti westerns!
I think the 2007 3:10 to Yuma was amazing. Not as big a fan of True Grit, but maybe I need to replay it.
Watching this made me miss Red Dead Redemption.
What about No Country For Old Men?
This x10. I feel Django is way overrated and the styling of the film put me off.
Six years later, the murderer got so drunk he wiped up half the universe's population.
I kinda wish he would do an old vs new episode for Fargo. By that I mean comparing the movie to the tv series, of course. Idk I thought it would be interesting
My favourite western is Erron Black
John Wayne is my chuck Norris. You don't mess with him.
TheDisneyLover58 hes a white supremacist
TheDisneyLover58 expect for Chuck Norris
TheDisneyLover58 both are garbage
0:06 STAAAAATUE OF BIG DOG WITH FLEAAAAAAAS
Good luck unhearing that one.
Quarters in the Big Lebowski Jar from this review alone: 7
The remake is grittier, actually more believable. The original is almost a Disney movie.
"almost a Disney movie" is a perfect description. It even LOOKS like the Disney live-action films of the time
9:07
you did not just say matt damon'd'
You can realky tell which one is better by listening to the soundtracks back to back.
The Duke will always be the best Rooster to me. I can't help liking his charm. I also genuinely felt he grew to care about the girl. And i'm sorry his scene at the end riding on his horse shooting is awesome and iconic.
I still love the og, but I love the new one too
I wasn't aware it was remake when I first saw it. Now I see this is a remake done RIGHT!
I really can't pick between Campbell and Damon. I cannot do it, as they do it in COMPLETELY different ways, and both do it brilliantly.
Doug definitely got it right with this one.
Everytime there's a Big Labowski joke,take a shot.
6 Big Lebowski jokes in 1 movie (7 if you count this as an actual joke itself) well played.
Jeff Bridges did a good job playing Rooster, but John Wayne will always be number one.
11:52 I dunno why but that line makes me laugh every time.
"To seek revenge may lead to hell, but everyone does it, if seldom, as well" - Sweeney Todd
I feel like the points the old version won were pity points so it wouldn't be a washout....the acting of the originals in Ned's gang is so wooden including Duvall himself that it actually takes you out of the film and I saw this as a kid because it was one of my grandpaw's favorite westerns and therefore favorite films.I grew up loving it but the retelling was so powerful that it quickly became my favorite version. The Coens know how to craft a western which gives you a feeling somewhat like an existential crises where you yearn for something like that but at the same time are terrified of it. All good westerns do, whether modern or antiquated.
I partially agree, but Kim Darby did a better Mattie. Both stories were true to their Matties, but because Kim was better so was her story. Bridges, Damon, and Duval were far and away the best. I'm just disappointed that the new didn't use the same location for the stand-off as the old.
I like to think the bear guy is nick cage's character from the wicker man later in life and that rooster is roy from r.i.p.d while he was alive
It's pretty apt that this is a review down by the Nostalgia Critic because there sure are a ton of people looking at this through nostalgia tinted glasses.
Very true, the new version is superior.
Life was so much more tougher in those days than you can imagine now.