f13.net

I find it odd this has not been posted yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GkAH7IUWOE

Jeff Bridges has been busy.

That actually looks decent... I don't know how I feel about it being remade though.

It's not a remake of the movie, it's a new version from the original book apparently hewing a bit closer to it. Coen brothers plus Bridges equals awesome.

This. Squared.

Never saw the first true grit but this looks badass, with tron this is gonna be a jeff bridges christmas this year.

And Olivia - dear sweet Olivia is in at least three coming out this season.

Jeff Bridges has a lot to live up to here. That is to say, Wayne was spectacular in the first.

Wayne played the same character he always played in movies. John Wayne. All Jeff Bridges has to do is play a guy named Rooster Cogburn and he'll beat Wayne hands down.

Eastwood is more one-dimensional than Wayne was and I would be concerned with a retelling of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, too.

Being a good actor is more than angst and gravitas. Wayne had authority and charisma in spades. Bridges is good, but judging from the trailer it's going to be dark and pretentious. The book is a comedy and the "true grit" is a naïve assumption made by Mattie, everyone else has a fairly low opinion of Cogburn as a person and law enforcer. It's not a reflection of what he's really like as a person.

That said, I'm going to watch The Searchers. Fuck off, Wayne haters! :heart:

You take that back!

Wayne is a horrible actor. Hey, another movie where a fat old guy is the dashing hero and everyone has to pretend it isn't completely ridiculous.

Also charisma is highly subjective, to me Wayne always came off as repugnant, much like his real-life persona. His acting range makes Chris Tucker's look broad by comparison. Clint Eastwood has played a wide variety of roles, yeah he is best known as The Man with No Name and Dirty Harry but he was also in Play Misty for Me, The Gauntlet, Gran Torino, Unforgiven, True Crime, etc. Maybe he didn't go from outright comedy to badass hero at the drop of a hat but he doesn't deliver the exact same one-note performance in every role.

The Searchers - yikes. Talk about overrated dreck. Horribly cinematography, horribly cheesy "classic western" score, terrible anachronistic acting all around, bizarre nonsensical cuts in time and place and a horrible sense of the passage of time. It's like the go to movie for people who don't want to admit that Italian-made westerns completely outclassed anything the US ever came up with.

Jeff Bridges is ten times the actor that John Wayne ever was. Worrying about Bridges replacing Wayne is like worrying about Meryl Streep replacing Katie Holmes in the Helen Keller Story.

 :mob:


From what I've heard it's mostly lighthearted, it's just the trailer that makes it look otherwise.

luve me some Dude.  But I still have not seen the film for which he won the Oscar.

I am looking forward to this. Along with the latest Swedish version of the Girl Who....  Should be a good Dec.

I can't think of a movie Jeff Bridges was in where he didn't do a great job. He should have won an award for Starman.

Edit: Of course I have no idea who his competition was that year.... :awesome_for_real:

Fair enough, more one-dimensional might have been an exaggeration. However, fact remains that Eastwood is popular for the roughly three faces of cured leather he excels at - the glare, the smirk and the threatening sneer. The Bridges of Madison County wasn't what made Eastwood famous. It was the three faces he had made in a dozen movies up till that point. It's also pretty much the only role someone else has ever cast him in. He only really steps away from that mold in his own productions and not even in all of those (Unforgiven and Gran Torino have pretty much the same character as the spaghettis, only older and more bitter.)

My point is that there are roles that are suited for an certain actor regardless of the actor's technical acting chops. Wayne is fantastic fun to watch as Cogburn. His otherwise one-note performances do not make that individual one a lesser one.

As to The Searchers, it happens to be the only Wayne movie I own on DVD. I'm not going to argue that it's not pretty dreadful. The Indians are like ripped from a school play. :facepalm:

Finally, I don't think Bridges is going to do a bad job. It's just that his predecessor did such a great one.

Wayne is the same as Schwarzenegger. You might not call either of them a "good actor" precisely, but there are parts that fit their one persona.

John Wayne was a fag....

(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y222/Abagadro/RepoMan6.jpg)

Have you seen Jeff Bridges website? http://jeffbridges.com

The site's an absolute mess, but it fits him perfectly. I like it.

Heh, he's got an image from Tron 2.0 for Tron Legacy.

I will acknowledge the awesomeness of this.

I will also try to remember to put a christmas tree air freshener in my new car.

The hell he was.

Awesome movie.  One of the best, if not the best I've seen this year; though to be honest, this year has been a little disappointing.

Superb cast, and dialog that really grabs your attention while not being overly catchy.  A friend told me that it was a very un-Coen-like film, but I disagree.  Their fingerprints are subtle, but definitely there.  I wouldn't say that it is lighthearted, but it kept me laughing at all the right moments.

The original movie was balls.  It had nothing to do with John Wayne.  It was just bad.

I thought it was great as well, and surprisingly hysterical in parts.   Never saw the original, don't see the need to.  Just a good, straightforward movie with memorable characters and great dialogue (though some may require additional viewings to decipher the mumblings).  Also probably a good family movie, if your family is accustomed to a bit of blood & violence.   :grin:

Magnificent.

Period dialogue and environment were supremely well-realized, and the particulars of the plot are crafted well enough to allow a fun and complex set of characters space to show their chops. The Coens give even their bit parts a lot of room to shine, and the audience gets a charming (if occasionally brutal) vacation in the 1870's. I'll be recommending it to everyone.

The film does not dwell on gore, but there are a few shocks, some corpses, and some blood. I'd say it's about as kid friendly as Indiana Jones.

That's a very good point, and I think that the movie isn't well served by its trailers, which depict it as a dark and gritty western.  In reality it's a PG-13 movie that I could easily see some maturer kids enjoying.  Even mature kids are going to have trouble deciphering the dialogue, however.  Actually, my fiancee is holding off on seeing it because she isn't a native English speaker and without subtitles she'd be pretty lost; not only due to the accents, but the antiquated words and phrases.

Caught a matinee showing today, and I thought it was an excellent film, one of the Coen brothers best.

And anyone who tries to tell me that the John Wayne version was better deserves a Rodney King style beating. I saw it when I was a kid (on TV a few years after its theater release) and re-watched the other evening when it was on TCM. Have not read the original novel, but the John Wayne flick was just a vehicle for him to play a sappy ham.

Good review which I concur with here (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-12-25/true-grit-the-coen-brothers-great-adaptation/):

Simply superb. The best movie I have seen in a long long time.
Amazing acting and an outstanding script.

Two thumbs up.

What if my wife hates Westerns?

She will like this. Two women attended with me. They both loved it. The girl is the star of the movie and is portrayed ala the book as an incredibly intelligent and strong young lady.
And its got lots of laughs with just enough shooting to make guys like me go "ooooooh".

Saw it. Loved it. Good flick.

Not a chance. She didn't say cocksucker ONCE!

Saw it yesterday. Really enjoyed it. Had a strange pace to it though- felt hurried in some places (especially the denouement), but almost glacial in others. There were a couple of scenes where I almost missed John Wayne (mostly when Rooster was bragging about himself, which was something at which Wayne seemed a natural), but overall Bridges was awesome, as was the rest of the cast. Would have liked to see a more fleshed out relationship between Chaney and the rest of the gang, and perhaps some exposition regarding Rooster's previous run-ins with the rest of the gang.

I really want to see this but am hesitant for fear of constant comparisons to the classic.  I'm not a John Wayne fan, but find myself making comparisons while just watching the trailers. 

Have any of you seen this that managed to avoid this?

After seeing the remake, I was surprised by how unnecessary of a movie it is. Yes, it's a very well done film. Yes, the acting is quite good. But overall, it didn't need to be remade. I think I would've been happier with an original story.

Eh, totally disagree.

Yes. Saw original John Wayne version but its been a decade or more. Only comparison I made was that this one wasnt a John Wayne film.

This movie is a billion times better than the original.  In fact, you can just about forget the first one was ever made.

I like both films.  They are both very different films trying to achieve different things, entertain in different ways.   

Agreed. There is not a single thing in the new one that is not 10x better than the original.

Great film this, who's John Wayne?

2010 True Grit: Trying to tell a good story with good acting.
Old True Grit: Trying to give John Wayne another movie to play himself in.

Sorry, the old one just doesn't compare.

Great movie. Hailee Steinfeld especially, because she's such a focus of the film, it's her first major role and she pulls it off near flawlessly.

Saw this last night. I would recommend it, the leads are great, and I'd echo UnSub, Hailee Steinfield is superb.