Enjoyed this on blu. But I thought Damon's performance was a little bit distracting from the authenticity feel. Can't quite put my finger on why I didn't like him. I guess he just seemed a bit too "phony".

I wasn't a fan of the ending either but that wasn't exactly the impression I got from it. But the end really disappointed me as well. For me, it somehow seemed not to flow right...

I thought it was a pretty well done film but I don't think it quite captured the essence of an old western like another poster on here said.

I am glad I saw it but I prefer the original and I wouldn't bother to view it again.

Wasn't that the ending from the book?

Yes, it was.

Watched this on my iPad on a flight. It was fantastic. Thinking I need to watch it again on my TV with surround sound. The small screen did not do this movie justice. Hailee Steinfeld was phenomenal.

I finally saw the original version with John Wayne and thought it was pretty good too.

I think the Coen's version would have been even better if they had used the stuff in the original that wasn't used in theirs. It would have "rounded" out the story a whole lot more.

Like what?

I think I know what mickey65 is suggesting. I can't pin down a lot of specifics offhand, but I got the feeling after watching both versions that each explored some different things. For instance, there's the stuff with Mattie and LaBoef at the hotel in the original film. Their introduction is much more perfunctory in the Coens's version. Also absent is the scene where Rooster shares his back story with Mattie. It's one of my favorite scenes in the original version, largely because it's the two of them sharing an intimate moment during what would otherwise be tedious downtime frequently filled by sniping.

These kinds of little things add up and really do make each version different from the other--which is impressive given how little divergence there is on the important stuff. Part of me agrees with mickey65 in that I'd like to see some kind of amalgam of the two to create a more complete, holistic movie. The other part of me prefers it this way, enjoying that each movie has its own personality and makes its own choices about what to explore. It's probably better this way, though. After all, it wasn't until I saw the original version that it occurred to me what wasn't in the Coens's movie. It can't have been too important to my enjoyment because it never crossed my mind that something was missing.

Right. Rooster's backstory was great. I enjoy the Wayne version cuz it's very enjoyable. The Coens' version though is a much superior film (and the one I prefer for this story)..if there was an extended cut of this film...I'd enjoy it more.

I love the original but will admit the remake is great and it's the people in it. It's tough to compete with the Duke but Jeff Bridges kicks ass. Glen Campbell wasn't an actor he was just a hot property back then so he got the role because of the drawl he already had. Kim Darby was the cute girl in the movies but Haley's job as Maddy was amazing