So, I watched TRUE GRIT last night...and I did enjoy it.
Comparing it to the John Wayne original:
Certainly the Coens Brothers have taken a darker, less humorous approach to the material.
I really liked the look of the picture, and Matt Damon was much better as the Texas Ranger than Glen Campbell.
The girl was terrific. If she keeps her head on straight, she could be a big star some day.
John Wayne or Jeff Bridges?
Wayne was a bit more fun, but it's really a toss-up. Both of them were excellent.
As an overall film, this new version is probably slightly better than the original, but Wayne's movie was good, too, and is a minor classic. That makes me wonder:
Why bother remaking this story at all?
Perhaps because it's more faithful to the novel, which the Coen Brothers like immensely?
I never read the book, but in comparing the two movies... storywise, they are pretty close. True, there are a couple of minor sequences that are left out of one version or the other, but all the main plot points and the essence of story are the same in both.
I think the thing that bothers me most about remaking hit movies is the fact that the new generation that sees the remake is not likely to go back and check out the original, claiming they've "been there, done that". I think that's very sad...because, more often than not, they miss out on the better version.
The people on this forum might go back and check out the original, but we're "different". We love movies and theatre.
I recall a story that was going around when MGM turned
GOODBYE, MR. CHIPS into the musical with Peter O'Toole.
Some columnist (I don't recall who) said that producer Arthur P. Jacobs (my late friend) wanted MGM to destroy the negative and all prints of the original
GOODBYE, MR. CHIPS w/Robert Donat...because he didn't want it around to be compared to his version.
I don't know if that story is true or not, but, thankfully, MGM didn't do it.