I LOVE John Wayne movies. I loved the original "True Grit" -- it taught me, among other things, that a well-played paladin need not have a stick up his tail.
That said, the new "True Grit" was very, very good. As noted by others, it isn't a remake; the perspective is all different (sort of like the difference between Stephen King's "Desperation" and "The Regulators"). The girl is the real hero in the new film, and she's excellent. Cogburn, instead of an exemplary hero dominating the film, is now a vehicle to allow things to happen.
|
The progression of this thread just once again reminds me of how annoyed I get when people decide that a movie (or a book or a tv show or whatever) is going to suck or is a bad idea before they’ve seen it or before it’s even been made.
Disclaimer: I am not suggesting that anyone who previously thought this would suck does not still think so. Also, I’m probably guilty of hypocrisy in this regard for different things.
The girl is the real hero in the new film, and she's excellent. Cogburn, instead of an exemplary hero dominating the film, is now a vehicle to allow things to happen.
This. The girl is the actual star of the movie as she is practically in every single scene throughout the entire film. Here's to hoping she gets some accolades for her performance.
The progression of this thread just once again reminds me of how annoyed I get when people decide that a movie (or a book or a tv show or whatever) is going to suck or is a bad idea before they’ve seen it or before it’s even been made.
Disclaimer: I am not suggesting that anyone who previously thought this would suck does not still think so. Also, I’m probably guilty of hypocrisy in this regard for different things.
But if someone decides to do a thread for Flashdance, it wouldn't be hypocritical. It'd be predictive. :P
|
|
I've gotten over the whole "no more remakes" thing. If studios want to remake films, I'm ok with it. I won't necessarily see what they put out, but I won't complain and moan about it, just like I wouldn't complain and moan about a theater company doing _yet another_ production of Hamlet or Les Miserables or Rigoletto. Just because it is put to film doesn't remove the possibility of a) a new director or cast bringing something new to the film or b) a new director or cast enjoying performing in a film that they have seen performed before. (I mean, its almost cliche about how some stage actors have a dream to play certain roles, why should it be any different for film actors?)
Now, do I want to see remakes of movies that I didn't like the first time? Probably not, and I'll vote with my dollar then. But if directors and talent want to make a go of something I'm interested in, more power to them.
Just saw it last night. Not bad at all. The girl reminded me of an old friend of mine...
AMC is showing True Grit with John Wayne tonight!
Thanks for the heads-up; set that to record on the DVR. =)
|
The progression of this thread just once again reminds me of how annoyed I get when people decide that a movie (or a book or a tv show or whatever) is going to suck or is a bad idea before they’ve seen it or before it’s even been made.
Don't get me wrong, I did not believe that this would suck. I assumed that it would work out fairly well based on the names attached. I am more concerned with the fact that too much of what comes out of the entertainment industry these days is either a "remake","retooling", or "reimagining." it saddens me that there does not seem to be any new ideas or that great new ideas, like the BSG reimagining, have to be wrapped in a thin veneer of familiarity in order to see the light of day.
Don't get me wrong, I did not believe that this would suck. I assumed that it would work out fairly well based on the names attached. I am more concerned with the fact that too much of what comes out of the entertainment industry these days is either a "remake","retooling", or "reimagining." it saddens me that there does not seem to be any new ideas or that great new ideas, like the BSG reimagining, have to be wrapped in a thin veneer of familiarity in order to see the light of day.The progression of this thread just once again reminds me of how annoyed I get when people decide that a movie (or a book or a tv show or whatever) is going to suck or is a bad idea before they’ve seen it or before it’s even been made.
To be blunt, it's a matter of money. Are you really going to give gobs and gobs of your hard earned cash to someone who says they have a great idea on nothing more than their word? ESPECIALLY in the sci-fi and fantasy genres- you KNOW how horrible we are to each other, let alone to movies or television shows we feel are not good. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any originality or exploration, just that a lot of times it really isn't worth the money invested in that it results in VERY low returns.
|
|
Don't get me wrong, I did not believe that this would suck. I assumed that it would work out fairly well based on the names attached. I am more concerned with the fact that too much of what comes out of the entertainment industry these days is either a "remake","retooling", or "reimagining." it saddens me that there does not seem to be any new ideas or that great new ideas, like the BSG reimagining, have to be wrapped in a thin veneer of familiarity in order to see the light of day.The progression of this thread just once again reminds me of how annoyed I get when people decide that a movie (or a book or a tv show or whatever) is going to suck or is a bad idea before they’ve seen it or before it’s even been made.
Fair enough. I’ve lamented ‘Hollywoods’ (by which I really mean the movie and tv industry as a whole) seeming inability to come out with much that is original at times as well. Everywhere you look it appears to be remakes, re-imaginings, reboots, sequels, prequels ... however, I’ve realised that original does not always mean good (by a long shot sometimes) and that some of the unoriginal stuff is actually very good.
You mentioned BSG, now I don’t know the politics behind bringing that back to the screen, how many concessions to the original series needed to be made, and whether an original sci fit v series done with the same quality would have been as well received ... but I actually thought it was really good (well ... mainly), it did not detract from or insult the memory of the original, to me it actually rewarded fans of the original series by having a number of easter eggs in there and/or new twists on old ideas.
Similarly, I think that the Star Trek reboot of a couple of years ago was one of the better movies I have seen in the past several years (despite a few large plot holes) – well acted, well directed, well cast, very well edited, good special effects and some good new ideas and new spins on tried and tested old ones.
What does frustrate me is when you see an old idea ground out again – badly, with little or no attempt to make it different or better – simply to make money. I know that is the reality of the industry, but it is sad.
Don't get me wrong, I did not believe that this would suck. I assumed that it would work out fairly well based on the names attached. I am more concerned with the fact that too much of what comes out of the entertainment industry these days is either a "remake","retooling", or "reimagining." it saddens me that there does not seem to be any new ideas or that great new ideas, like the BSG reimagining, have to be wrapped in a thin veneer of familiarity in order to see the light of day.The progression of this thread just once again reminds me of how annoyed I get when people decide that a movie (or a book or a tv show or whatever) is going to suck or is a bad idea before they’ve seen it or before it’s even been made.
Fair enough. I’ve lamented ‘Hollywoods’ (by which I really mean the movie and tv industry as a whole) seeming inability to come out with much that is original at times as well. Everywhere you look it appears to be remakes, re-imaginings, reboots, sequels, prequels ... however, I’ve realised that original does not always mean good (by a long shot sometimes) and that some of the unoriginal stuff is actually very good.
You mentioned BSG, now I don’t know the politics behind bringing that back to the screen, how many concessions to the original series needed to be made, and whether an original sci fit v series done with the same quality would have been as well received ... but I actually thought it was really good (well ... mainly), it did not detract from or insult the memory of the original, to me it actually rewarded fans of the original series by having a number of easter eggs in there and/or new twists on old ideas.
Similarly, I think that the Star Trek reboot of a couple of years ago was one of the better movies I have seen in the past several years (despite a few large plot holes) – well acted, well directed, well cast, very well edited, good special effects and some good new ideas and new spins on tried and tested old ones.
What...
How is it sad when without the capital such movies/ventures generate, you don't get the money for people to go out on a limb with stuff that won't make as much money but is highly original?
... and then we have Ed Harris' "Appaloosa," filmed on a fraction of the budget it looks ($20M total, vs. $48M for production alone of the 3:10 to Yuma remake), because Ed Harris had just read the Robert B. Parker novel and said it changed his life or something, so he called in every favor he could beg.
|
|
What does frustrate me is when you see an old idea ground out again – badly, with little or no attempt to make it different or better – simply to make money. I know that is the reality of the industry, but it is sad.How is it sad when without the capital such movies/ventures generate, you don't get the money for people to go out on a limb with stuff that won't make as much money but is highly original?
It is sad. I think you might have misunderstood me. My focus here was when remakes or unoriginal ideas are done badly, not simply because they are done at all or to make money. I have no problem with movies (whether ‘original’ or not, whether big or small budget) making money, what I do think is sad is when a remake (etc) is poorly executed (with the film makers presumably thinking they can bank on the reputation of the original?). In these cases no one really wins, because surely a poorly executed remake will not make as much money as a well done one?
It is sad. I think you might have misunderstood me. My focus here was when remakes or unoriginal ideas are done badly, not simply because they are done at all or to make money. I have no problem with movies (whether ‘original’ or not, whether big or small budget) making money, what I do think is sad is when a remake (etc) is poorly executed (with the film makers presumably thinking they can bank on the reputation of the original?). In these cases no one really wins, because surely a poorly executed remake will not make as much money as a well done one?What does frustrate me is when you see an old idea ground out again – badly, with little or no attempt to make it different or better – simply to make money. I know that is the reality of the industry, but it is sad.How is it sad when without the capital such movies/ventures generate, you don't get the money for people to go out on a limb with stuff that won't make as much money but is highly original?
AH, I missed the *badly* part. Sorry about that.
|
|
AH, I missed the *badly* part. Sorry about that.It is sad. I think you might have misunderstood me. My focus here was when remakes or unoriginal ideas are done badly, not simply because they are done at all or to make money. I have no problem with movies (whether ‘original’ or not, whether big or small budget) making money, what I do think is sad is when a remake (etc) is poorly executed (with the film makers presumably thinking they can bank on the reputation of the original?). In these cases no one really wins, because surely a poorly executed remake will not make as much money as a well done one?What does frustrate me is when you see an old idea ground out again – badly, with little or no attempt to make it different or better – simply to make money. I know that is the reality of the industry, but it is sad.How is it sad when without the capital such movies/ventures generate, you don't get the money for people to go out on a limb with stuff that won't make as much money but is highly original?
No worries. Figured you might have.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Other than I felt that they sped through the conclusion of the film once the mission was completed, this was an excellent film all-around. The fears that were ignited at the beginning of this thread were all for naught. Excellent dialog as I found myself laughing a lot.
That girl took no crap from nobody, that is for sure. Seriously, the dialogue in this movie is great. The almost stilted but perfectly flowing streams of archaisms and formal speech tangled up with frontier colloquialisms were terrific.
The girl is the star of the film, no doubt, but really everybody was pretty enjoyable in their parts. I thought Josh Brolin's character was the weakest - for the most part, he was more of a MacGuffin than a character.
If you had to choose the Jeff Bridges film to watch right now, it's easily this one over Tron: Legacy.
I liked Tron 2, but this movie was better.
For the record, I've never seen the original (I think I saw part of it or Rooster Cogburn on TV many years ago, but never the whole thing for sure), so I was blissfully free of the need to compare. I'm usually kind of indifferent to Westerns, seen a fair number over the years, like em all right but wouldn't call myself a huge fan of the genre, but this one was definitely a good Western and a flat-out good movie. I went with my dad and my son for a birthday outing (their birthdays are a week apart) and we had a great time.
OT: TOZ, got the disk and card. Thanks!!!! Now Mrs Gersen is stuck watching the original before we go catch the sequel. Sweet!
Now here I have to disagree about John Wayne movies. Thanks to my father and uncle, who are definately Wayne fans, I have seen a lot of his flicks. All I have to say is, hunh? I don't see the appeal of John Wayne...but that's me. I also don't understand how so many people can be such rabid fans for everything Stephen King writes, though he does have one or two exceptions.Part me wants to see this since I know Jeff can act and a good western has been missing since Unforgiven.
Then there's the part that dreads anyone trying to remake a John Wayne movie. There's just some lines you don't cross. And most Wayne movies are good for the simple reason that Wayne's in them.
The 'Duke' was the manliest of manly men..nuff said
The 'Duke' was the manliest of manly men..nuff said
For a different perspective, see Repo Man.
I saw this and all I can say is it was a hell of a lot better than the Coens' remake of The Ladykillers.
Speaking of remakes, nothing has changed. Hollywood has been pumping out remakes since it was Hollywood. As soon as they started making feature-length films they were either making movies of books or plays (e.g. Birth of a Nation, Ben-Hur). As soon as they started making talkies, they were re-making silent pictures. And so it's been ever since.
A good example would be the play The Front Page which debuted in 1928, was first filmed in 1931 was remade in 1940 as His Girl Friday with Cary Grant, remade under its original title in 1974 by Billy Wilder and finally remade again in 1988 with Burt Reynolds and Kathleen Turner as Switching Channels (thank you, Wikipedia!)
Speaking of manly men, I prefer Robert Mitchum.
EDIT: Oh, and someone said something up above about The Godfather, Pts. 1 & 2 which wasn't true. Yes, you can edit them into one huge-ass movie, but GF1 was a surprise hit by an untested director and there was never any intention of making a GF2 until the first one became huge.
Thanks for the article. It's a great read.
What does a Gunslinger say when he faces down a Magus
Still; good movie or not; I wish they would have just done a a new story and done a new western and leave True Grit alone. As one of the first posters said; been a while since we have had a good western.
Badass
|
|
Full Disclosure: I'm not a John Wayne fan. That said, "True Grit" is probably my favorite John Wayne movie.
I saw the remake of "True Grit" last week, and it's better than the original in pretty much every single way. And that's not because the original was a bad movie; it's quite good, in fact. The remake though? It's a GREAT movie.
Most remakes are pale copies of the original, it's true. But now and then, a remake outdoes the original. It's happened before, it'll happen again.
I agree with everything James said. I've never been a fan of John Wayne, don't care for any of his movies, and think he's entirely overrated as an actor - I just can't watch him without thinking he's parodying himself.
I saw this version of True Grit and was blown away. This is right up there with Pale Rider and The Magnificent Seven for my all time favorite western.
Not so much because of Jeff Bridges, who was great, but because of that Hallie Whatshername girl. My god, that girl can act circles around some of the best in the business.
|
|
I've gotten over the whole "no more remakes" thing. If studios want to remake films, I'm ok with it. I won't necessarily see what they put out, but I won't complain and moan about it, just like I wouldn't complain and moan about a theater company doing _yet another_ production of Hamlet or Les Miserables or Rigoletto....
So much this.
We, as a society, think nothing at all of different directors and actors trying their hand at the same body of classic theater works and operas. Nobody suggests a director is uncreative and out of ideas if wants to stage Hamlet (we might if he does a bad job of staging Hamlet, but we wouldn't say it for the mere desire to do it), but for some reason we act like film is a completely different animal.