Solid Snake

The Duke vs. The Dude....

So....which one is the better of the two?

I personally believe that The Coen's film kicked the shit out of Wayne's film in soooooo many fucking ways. As a film and as an adaptation. Bridges was better, acting from everyone was better, the look, the feel, etc. I can't think of any aspect that Wayne's film was better.

This:

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tN-j4GDqjv4?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tN-j4GDqjv4?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

or this:

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uco41pOKeJg?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uco41pOKeJg?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Mike86

I'll go with the Jeff Bridges one for a few reasons. I'm admittedly a Coen Bros. fanboy, I never was huge on John Wayne, I like Jeff Bridges as an actor, the Coen version follows the book more according to what I've read, and the new film was humorous but not as campy as the original. Not to say that the original is a terrible film though, I picked up the Blu-ray and watched it before seeing the remake and thought it was fairly enjoyable.

Solid Snake

Those who voted for Wayne's film...why is it better?

Groucho

This should be a blowout (in favor of the 2010 version).

Nickee

I work with a 60 something guy who was horrified that they remade True Grit. He kept going on and on about how great the original was. I was looking forward to the 2010 version and thought it was an excellent film. The same day I saw the 2010 version, I watched the 1969 one that I had recorded off TCM. There was no comparison - I thought the 1969 version was laughable. And I guess you could say it's because I'm too young (I'm 36) but I just sat through the whole thing dumbfounded - this is supposed to be a great film?? The girl's performance is really bad - but maybe that is because I was comparing her to Hailee Steinfeld who I thought gave a remarkable performance. And it just didn't look or feel like a Western to me.

And, I'm sorry, but for me, John Wayne is just a caricature. Again, maybe this is due to my age and having seen more John Wayne impressions by others than actual Wayne performances.

Geofferson

Much preferred the 2010 version -- largely because the plot stuck closer to the source material. The Wayne version was largely a John Wayne movie (loathe the ending).

Dragon Tattoo

This sentence is hilarious.

Dragon Tattoo

Said anything remotely close to me? What does that even mean?

And yes it is hilarious to me that people like you will actually rank this movie as being better that Wayne's because it's more faithful to a book that you haven't even read. But I shouldn't really be surprised, as this entire thread was just created to fellate the Coen Brothers while simultaneously bashing the original, which I bet dollars to donuts few even watched until they heard about the Coen Brothers' remake.

The movie may be more 'faithful' to the original novel, but that doesn't make it half as good as that novel was.

Supermallet

While I know Wayne won the Oscar for the original, I never heard it held up as an especially great movie.

SmackDaddy

Having seen the 2010 version the day after watching the 1969 iteration the night before I have to go with The Dude. Not really even close.

While I enjoyed the Wayne version, Glen Campbell and Kim Darby just didn't do it for my in their crucial roles. And, well, was there ever a movie where Wayne wasn't just playing himself? It was a more "fun" or "lite" take when compared to the new version.

I liked everything about the new version, except maybe the feeling of Brolin being underused, but it fits the flow of the story.

Just started reading the book, so can't really comment on it's relation to either version.

anomynous

Considering John Wayne couldn't act for shit.......The Dude's

Daytripper

You know exactly what I mean. And if you think I'm going to point out examples, think again. Also, I didn't rank the 2010 version higher than the original. I just came to this guy's defense.

You know, I deleted my response to you because after looking at Mike86's post again, I thought maybe you were just goofing on his typo, "to what I've read" instead of "from what I read". But turns out, you weren't.

Mike86

I'm not familiar with the book and plan on reading it but from what I hear this version is more faithful. I like when movies stay somewhat faithful to the source material. What's so funny about that? Get off your high horse dude.

I wasn't rating it only on that basis. I gave plenty of reasons in my post why I enjoyed the Coens' version more. Like I say I am admittedly a fan of their work. I also stated that I didn't hate the John Wayne version I just didn't like it as much compared with the Jeff Bridges version.

I don't recall ever saying that the movie was better than the novel. I was simply stating from reviews I've read and from one of my friends who has read the book that the Coens' version is a more faithful adaptation. Like I say I plan to read it eventually I just haven't had the time yet.

CloverClover

The new one was a masterpiece of the cones and their eye for detail and dialogue. They took the story and made it their own. While the old one looks like it has the quality of a sitcom

arminius

ken_572002

Geez, what a idiotic statement. The Duke was one of America's greatest actors, along with Fonda, Cagney, Stewart, and Bogart. When you have a chance to stop spewing such nonsense, try delving into Red River, The Searchers, Liberty Valance, They Were Expendable, and just about a dozen other films which make him to be one of the greatest actors to have ever graced the screen.

Supermallet

One of the greatest icons. He didn't have much range. Neither did Bogey. But that's okay, they were consistently fantastic doing their own thing.

Ginwen

I think the new one was better, but I like both of them. I'm not even really sure which I'll end up watching more as I still find the old one to be a very entertaining movie (even after watching that cheesy preview), and one I watch fairly regularly. It has plenty of flaws, but none of them are enough to ruin the movie for me.

arminius

Even though I saw him in more war movies than westerns I have to agree. He did his stuff in every movie, and sometimes it was perfect.

Roybq

I liked both, but I had a soft spot for the original due to the fact that it was the first movie that I remember seeing in the theater. The snake pit scene gave me nightmares, although upon rewatching it yesterday, I have no freaking idea why now. I think there was only one snake in the pit, but just shot from different angles.

I hated the idea of the remake, but there was a lot to improve upon the original. Kim Darby and Glen Campbell were dreadful in their roles compared to the latest version. John Wayne mentioned once that Kim Darby was the worst actress he's ever worked with and that's saying a lot coming from John Wayne. I do agree though, when he did his cowboy stuff, he was fantastic to watch.

Although I like the Duke, I'll have to give the edge to the Dude on this one.

Solid Snake

Look...I love Wayne. He had the romanticized legend of what a Cowboy was down. BUT....he was the same guy in every damn movie. He was limited as an actor...but he was good at it. He is an icon and the face of a genre essentially. He wasn't amazing of an actor. His Oscar was pretty much a recognition for his work in cinema..which we all know is pretty fucking huge and respectable as hell too. True Grit had nothing amazing in it...his acting...surely wasn't it. Nor was anything else about it. Saying that...I still enjoy that film and will get the BD when it goes cheap.

The Coen's film....was better in every aspect. It wasn't a remake of Wayne's film and that's awesome cuz there are a lot of flaws in Wayne's film...as an adaption and as a stand alone film. Casting was great. Cinematography was solid. Set design was greatly detailed. Story and direction of it was great too. My only issue is that....I wish it was just a bit longer to insert more of the book in it. Even the additions to the story were appreciated. I've no qualms at all. Being a Texan, I loved and totally understood visual nuances towards the little mannerisms that encompassed La Boeuf. Bridges was Cogburn in all his visual glory and attitude. Mattie Ross owns the story and that's the way it should be. There's humor but no camp. It felt "real"

Strevlac

I love John Wayne and I love lots of the old Westerns but True Grit isn't one of them. In fact out of the 30 or so films I've seen starring John Wayne I'd put it in the bottom 5 somewhere. It just isn't a very good movie for reasons I find plainly evident (Kim Darby and Glen Cambell for starters) but for some reason there are legions of people out there who disagree.

Haven't seen the Coens version yet but it wouldn't have to do much to improve on the original.

Solid Snake

that's the best damn reason to explain it. I'd give you a gold star but I'm not some bitch teacher...so I'll just call you a "reasonable motherfucker" and that means you're cool.

anomynous

If John Wayne was a "great" actor, so are Nicolas Cage, Michael Cera, and Adam Sandler.

Solid Snake

....no offense to ken_572002 but Henry Fonda beat the shit out of Wayne alone in Once Upon A Time In The West and pretty much in every other film he did. Wayne was more iconic regardless of his quality...we know that. He was the cowboy. BUT....he wasn't anywhere near Daniel Day-Lewis quality to even be called a great actor. NOBODY in their right mind decides to use Wayne as an influence or as a study for great acting. MAYBE as a genre actor, influence, or as an icon, but not for his quality in acting. Wayne's greatest strength as an actor is that he had fucking screen presence and charisma out the ass. He wasn't a great actor. He's legendary and iconic...but he's not amazing. I can say that and still like the man.