OT- Just got back from seeing "True Grit".

rangerider7 · Post by **rangerider7** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:05 pm

I highly recommend it. I think over all it is better than the original and I admire many of John Wayne's movies. Jeff bridges was great and so was the young girl. The other actors did a good job too. You will thoroughly enjoy it. IMHO

gundownunder · Post by **gundownunder** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:09 pm

It's on my "to see" list, but I still don't know when it opens in Oz, another six months knowing my luck.

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:09 pm

Thanks for the review.

This one is at the top of my list.

RIHMFIRE · Post by **RIHMFIRE** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:30 pm

ok.... thanks
watching the original now

model55 · Post by **model55** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:34 pm

I've been kind of dreading it but now may go. As the kids say I'm stuck in the 70's.Still remember seeing the first one at the Castle Air Force Base Theater when it came out.

wecsoger · Post by **wecsoger** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:40 pm

I originally hated the idea since Hollyweird seems incapable of making anything orignal. But the reviewers who have seen previews of this are absolutely 'gushing' over the story, Bridges and the other actors, almost everything about the film. Even folks in unexpected places like the LA Times.

Don't know about the kids, but the papa and mama bear are going to see it. I might even go to a real movie house for this.

Idiot · Post by **Idiot** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:17 pm

I just got back from watching the new True Grit. It was okay, certainly entertaining, but flat. The movie appeared to more a series of well acted scenes, than an movie with a story holding it together. There were three flaws I couldn't get by, one was this: it is the job of the director to present Rooster as an aging lawman who tipped the bottle a bit much, without turning him into a clown - this movie turned Rooster into a clown: the second was the movie never established a relationship between Rooster and the girl, so the later part of the movie became irrelevant; and third, when Rooster rides double to town with the snake bit girl, he rides right past a fresh mount, something a sage marshall would have never done. The movie could have been much better if directed by someone who had a clue of what a western should be.

All in all, it was entertaining, and John Wayne's legacy is completely intact and unchallanged.

Rube Burrows · Post by **Rube Burrows** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:48 pm

Idiot wrote:I just got back from watching the new True Grit. It was okay, certainly entertaining, but flat. The movie appeared to more a series of well acted scenes, than an movie with a story holding it together. There were three flaws I couldn't get by, one was this: it is the job of the director to present Rooster as an aging lawman who tipped the bottle a bit much, without turning him into a clown - this movie turned Rooster into a clown: the second was the movie never established a relationship between Rooster and the girl, so the later part of the movie became irrelevant; and third, when Rooster rides double to town with the snake bit girl, he rides right past a fresh mount, something a sage marshall would have never done. The movie could have been much better if directed by someone who had a clue of what a western should be.

All in all, it was entertaining, and John Wayne's legacy is completely intact and unchallanged.

I can understand your first part. I felt also that the relationship was not established enough in this movie. I dont agree that Rooster was made into a clown. I thought the Rooster part was pretty good.

While the Cohen brothers stepped outside of their comfort zone, im very thankful they did so. It was nice to have a new western movie to go see.....even if a remake. I hope other Hollywood people follow and make some more good westerns. Maybe some original ones too.

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:09 pm

Looking forward to seeing it!

rangerider7 · Post by **rangerider7** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:43 pm

It will be great to hear all the reviews. I put it in my top ten.

Cimarron · Post by **Cimarron** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:07 am

I thought it was very good and worth seeing, but then I thought the John Wayne version was very good back in 1969 when I saw it in the theater. Westerns are always better on the big screen.

TedH · Post by **TedH** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:11 am

I think we're going to try and go see it Friday night.

Bruce Scott · Post by **Bruce Scott** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 5:29 am

Has anyone ever read the novel by Charles Portis?

Just wondering how close it is to the movies?

RIHMFIRE · Post by **RIHMFIRE** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:29 am

Bruce Scott wrote:Has anyone ever read the novel by Charles Portis?

Just wondering how close it is to the movies?

I hear this new movie is supposed to follow the book story line
much closer that the original true grit...
I understand the book was written with John Wayne in mind...
and when Wayne ask for the rights for the book he was beaten to it
by a fellow production company.....So Wayne gave them a call
to see if he could get the rights from them....and they said no....
but....your gonna play the lead anyway...
and the rest is history

Buffboy · Post by **Buffboy** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:49 am

Saw the original and I've read the book. It's been a long time since I read the book(probably at least 30 years) but my recollection is: they weren't very close. One of the few times I thought the movie better than the book IMO but I read the book after seeing the movie.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:59 am

I've read the book and there is quite a bit of variation between it and Wayne movie. From memory, it's been a while since I read the whole book, most of the variation was at the ending.

Joe

dgslyr · Post by **dgslyr** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:36 pm

I've read the book.I've seen the John Wayne version so many times I almost know the lines.
Saw the new movie yesterday morning.The new one is a darker movie than the original.It is closer to the book.The scene where Mattie deals with the sleazy used horse dealer is great. So is the court room scene.Much of the dialogue is the same but not quite the same.It's a great movie.How many ever noticed the one of the men being hanged at the begining of the original is played by Jay Sliverheels/Tonto?I'll probably see it again next week.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:51 pm

J Miller wrote:I've read the book and there is quite a bit of variation between it and Wayne movie. From memory, it's been a while since I read the whole book, most of the variation was at the ending.

Joe

When Joe read it as a younger man, it was in Aramaic..... Luke helped him with the big words.....

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:54 pm

BlaineG wrote:
J Miller wrote:I've read the book and there is quite a bit of variation between it and Wayne movie. From memory, it's been a while since I read the whole book, most of the variation was at the ending.

Joe
When Joe read it as a younger man, it was in Aramaic..... Luke helped him with the big words.....

Yep, but you read it in hieroglyphics with King Nefertiti helping you

Joe

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:00 pm

I can just picture that......

.45colt · Post by **.45colt** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 8:48 am

Saw it last night. I have been a JW fan all My life but for Me this is better than the original. I will see it again on the big screen before it goes dvd.

gak · Post by **gak** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 9:36 am

One of the TV Hollywood rags had Matt Damon on the other night waxing about the new movie. He thinks it's a great movie and, to paraphrase, "will stack it up against...anything." I know, what else is he going to say, but nice to know that a pretty decent--and from what I've been able to tell, sincere--actor feels that enthusiastic about his and his compadres' effort. Sure looking forward to it.

Eli Chaps · Post by **Eli Chaps** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 11:06 am

I swallowed down my absolute disgust and fervent dislike of Matt Damon and drug my backside to a theater and forked over my cash to see this one. Second time in ten years that I've gone to a theater, Grand Torino being the last time.

I'm a dyed in the wool Duke fan but I too enjoyed this remake very much. I like that it is different, we can see the same story told in two different ways. The original being more fanciful if you will and this one being a bit more real.

It did not hurt my feelings at all that I didn't have to listen to Glen Campbell sing through the whole movie.

gak · Post by **gak** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 12:22 pm

Eli Chaps wrote: It did not hurt my feelings at all that I didn't have to listen to Glen Campbell sing through the whole movie.

Aw, I was hoping they'd at least have that iconic theme as orchestrated underlying music

. but sure won't miss Campbell's "acting." Even Glen acknowledged such!

Lastmohecken · Post by **Lastmohecken** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:53 pm

I read the book a few times, many years ago, and of course I have seen the original with John Wayne, at least 20 times, with the first being on the big screen when it came out.

I was very excited about seeing this new movie, and I went and seen it, yesterday.

IMHO the second movie was not as good as the John Wayne version, but I still liked it on it's own merit. I liked the fact that they used black powder blanks in the new movie, and the reports of the guns were more realistic for the times. And I liked the new movie's version of the girl swimming the horse across the river, better. That was great footage. I wonder if she actually did that, or they used a double, or some kind of trickery.

And the ending was closer to the book, but the part with Cole Younger and Frank James was not in the book, I believe. Also, did anyone get it, but me, that the ending, where she told Frank James to "keep his seat, white trash" was nothing more then a slap in the face to Jessie James of motorcycle builder fame, who cheated on Sandra Bullock. I really believe that it was on purpose.

Also, while Wayne and Campbell argrued through out the original, they did not do all of this splitting up, and going seperate ways in the orginal movie, or the book, and IMHO the original was closer to the book then the new movie, except for the ending.

All in all, though, I enjoyed the new movie, but maybe not as much as I would have if it had been a little closer to the Wayne movie, not to mention, I missed seeing Cogburn jump that rail fence, like the original movie, and as one of the other posters said, no one facing a hard fast ride, would have left Ned Pepper's horse standing there, when he knew he was probably going to ride that little Mustang to his death, trying to get her to a doctor. So that part, while pretty neat, riding by the dead bodies and all, was still kinda stupid, because the horse got left.

Also that body hanging in the tree was not in the book or the original movie, either that or my memory is getting really bad.

At least they are still making an occasional western, which I dearly appreciate.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 6:48 pm

Lastmohecken wrote:I read the book a few times, many years ago, and of course I have seen the original with John Wayne, at least 20 times, with the first being on the big screen when it came out.

I was very excited about seeing this new movie, and I went and seen it, yesterday.

IMHO the second movie was not as good as the John Wayne version, but I still liked it on it's own merit. I liked the fact that they used black powder blanks in the new movie, and the reports of the guns were more realistic for the times. And I liked the new movie's version of the girl swimming the horse across the river, better. That was great footage. I wonder if she actually did that, or they used a double, or some kind of trickery.

And the ending was closer to the book, but the part with Cole Younger and Frank James was not in the book, I believe. Also, did anyone get it, but me, that the ending, where she told Frank James to "keep his seat, white trash" was nothing more then a slap in the face to Jessie James of motorcycle builder fame, who cheated on Sandra Bullock. I really believe that it was on purpose.

Also, while Wayne and Campbell argrued through out the original, they did not do all of this splitting up, and going seperate ways in the orginal movie, or the book, and IMHO the original was closer to the book then the new movie, except for the ending.

All in all, though, I enjoyed the new movie, but maybe not as much as I would have if it had been a little closer to the Wayne movie, not to mention, I missed seeing Cogburn jump that rail fence, like the original movie, and as one of the other posters said, no one facing a hard fast ride, would have left Ned Pepper's horse standing there, when he knew he was probably going to ride that little Mustang to his death, trying to get her to a doctor. So that part, while pretty neat, riding by the dead bodies and all, was still kinda stupid, because the horse got left.

Also that body hanging in the tree was not in the book or the original movie, either that or my memory is getting really bad.

At least they are still making an occasional western, which I dearly appreciate.

Lastmohecken,
The part where Matte Ross told Frank James to keep his seat was in the book. I read the ending over again a month or so ago. I don't know about any body hanging in a tree, that I don't remember, but it's been a very long while since I read the entire book.
I doubt seriously her comments were any reflection on the J.J. that cheated on Sandra Bullock.

I haven't seen the new version yet, possibly tomorrow or next Monday.

Joe

Triggernosis · Post by **Triggernosis** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 8:52 pm

I've never seen the John Wayne version, but all I can say is the cinematography of this one is great! I felt like I could "smell" the actors it was so good. Felt like they were practically spitting in my face on occasion. Good acting all around in my opinion.

vancelw · Post by **vancelw** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 9:26 pm

Lastmohecken wrote:
IMHO the second movie was not as good as the John Wayne version, but I still liked it on it's own merit. I liked the fact that they used black powder blanks in the new movie, and the reports of the guns were more realistic for the times. And I liked the new movie's version of the girl swimming the horse across the river, better. That was great footage. I wonder if she actually did that, or they used a double, or some kind of trickery.

At least they are still making an occasional western, which I dearly appreciate.

They used a combination of real horses, CGI, and mechanical horses to film the river crossing. Couldn't put the 13-year old actor in real peril in the swift water. I saw Damon and the Coens on PBS a few nights ago discussing the movie.

I like a good Western as I do any well thought out movie. I guess I'm in the minority when it comes to the remake of "3:10 to Yuma" or "Appalosa." I just didn't get those movies at all. I would rather rewatch (100 times) either version of "True Grit" or "Dances with Wolves" or "Outlaw Josey Wales".

jjames · Post by **jjames** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 11:41 pm

Saw it today. I think I liked most of this version better than the original. I preferred the ending of the original though. I found it interesting that someone noted the ending of the original deviated from the book.

Triggernosis · Post by **Triggernosis** » Sat Dec 25, 2010 7:59 am

Who was the guy at the very end that she told to "keep your seat, trash!"? He must've been someone from earlier in the movie, but why did she call him trash?

Wayne Miller · Post by **Wayne Miller** » Sat Dec 25, 2010 10:06 am

That was Frank James, older brother of Jesse James. Needless to say, they were not generally well thought of outside of Missouri.....especially before Hollywood glorified them.

Eli Chaps · Post by **Eli Chaps** » Sat Dec 25, 2010 10:39 am

Lastmohecken wrote:...

And the ending was closer to the book, but the part with Cole Younger and Frank James was not in the book, I believe. Also, did anyone get it, but me, that the ending, where she told Frank James to "keep his seat, white trash" was nothing more then a slap in the face to Jessie James of motorcycle builder fame, who cheated on Sandra Bullock. I really believe that it was on purpose.

...

I think you're reading way too much into that.

The James gang was only celebrated by some folks in Missouri and of course their Robin Hood like reputation was largely the creation of dime store novelists which continues to this day. Very few bank robbers were well thought of.

Also, there was the fact that he was decidedly ungentlemanly by remaining in his seat and not so much as a tip of the hat.

marlinman93 · Post by **marlinman93** » Sat Dec 25, 2010 4:47 pm

I went last Sunday to a sneak preview of the new movie with my son in law at the Navy base. Since I'm a big John Wayne fan I was skeptical if I'd enjoy the movie, or be able to not compare every person in it to the original and be disappointed.
Well I couldn't help doing all of the above, but I wasn't disappointed in the new version either. I found Jeff Bridges portrayal of Rooster to be very believeable, and enjoyed his performance as much as the Duke's. I will say I'd have rather Bridges spoke a little clearer, as his garbled version of Rooster was often hard to even understand.
As for Matt Damon's part, I enjoyed his acting much more than Glen Campbell's, and his character seemed to have a little larger part than the original Ranger id in the first version.
I too wasn't a big Kim Darby fan, but I thought both actresses played the role well, and enjoyed them equally. I like the fact that the later version was a younger girl, as it seemed more believeable than Darby's character.
Overall I'd call it a wash, even though I wanted the original to be better, they were both great!

Cimarron · Post by **Cimarron** » Sat Dec 25, 2010 5:59 pm

...[/quote]

The James gang was only celebrated by some folks in Missouri and of course their Robin Hood like reputation was largely the creation of dime store novelists which continues to this day. Very few bank robbers were well thought of.

Also, there was the fact that he was decidedly ungentlemanly by remaining in his seat and not so much as a tip of the hat.[/quote]

I am originally from a small county seat town in Missouri. The James gang robbed the bank there and were not generally thought of as Robin Hoods by the people whose money they stole. Back in the days before the FDIC and the FBI when the bank got robbed you were just out of luck. The Dalton gang found out how much they were appreciated in Coffyville, Kansas on their last bank robbery. They were gunned down by the local citizens.

Lastmohecken · Post by **Lastmohecken** » Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:02 am

I seen the movie again today. My son and his wife, wanted to see it, so I went with them.

I think I enjoyed it the second time around, better then the first time. Maybe I wasn't comparing it to the Duke's version, as much and just enjoying it for what it was this time. I love that river crossing footage, where she swims the river on Little Blackie. I think that is my favorite part of the movie.

Lastmohecken · Post by **Lastmohecken** » Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:07 am

J Miller wrote:
Lastmohecken wrote:I read the book a few times, many years ago, and of course I have seen the original with John Wayne, at least 20 times, with the first being on the big screen when it came out.

I was very excited about seeing this new movie, and I went and seen it, yesterday.

IMHO the second movie was not as good as the John Wayne version, but I still liked it on it's own merit. I liked the fact that they used black powder blanks in the new movie, and the reports of the guns were more realistic for the times. And I liked the new movie's version of the girl swimming the horse across the river, better. That was great footage. I wonder if she actually did that, or they used a double, or some kind of trickery.

And the ending was closer to the book, but the part with Cole Younger and Frank James was not in the book, I believe. Also, did anyone get it, but me, that the ending, where she told Frank James to "keep his seat, white trash" was nothing more then a slap in the face to Jessie James of motorcycle builder fame, who cheated on Sandra Bullock. I really believe that it was on purpose.

Also, while Wayne and Campbell argrued through out the original, they did not do all of this splitting up, and going seperate ways in the orginal movie, or the book, and IMHO the original was closer to the book then the new movie, except for the ending.

All in all, though, I enjoyed the new movie, but maybe not as much as I would have if it had been a little closer to the Wayne movie, not to mention, I missed seeing Cogburn jump that rail fence, like the original movie, and as one of the other posters said, no one facing a hard fast ride, would have left Ned Pepper's horse standing there, when he knew he was probably going to ride that little Mustang to his death, trying to get her to a doctor. So that part, while pretty neat, riding by the dead bodies and all, was still kinda stupid, because the horse got left.

Also that body hanging in the tree was not in the book or the original movie, either that or my memory is getting really bad.

At least they are still making an occasional western, which I dearly appreciate.
Lastmohecken,
The part where Matte Ross told Frank James to keep his seat was in the book. I read the ending over again a month or so ago. I don't know about any body hanging in a tree, that I don't remember, but it's been a very long while since I read the entire book.
I doubt seriously her comments were any reflection on the J.J. that cheated on Sandra Bullock.

I haven't seen the new version yet, possibly tomorrow or next Monday.

Joe

Joe,
I believe you are right, It's been a long time since I read the book, and come to think of it, I believe I do remember it now. I think I am going to buy that book and read it again, just for the heck of it.

2X22 · Post by **2X22** » Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:29 pm

Eli Chaps wrote: Also, there was the fact that he was decidedly ungentlemanly by remaining in his seat and not so much as a tip of the hat.

That is how both my wife and I saw it.

Absolutely loved it.

2x22

olyinaz · Post by **olyinaz** » Tue Dec 28, 2010 1:29 am

Saw it today with the whole family - theater was packed with all ages but a lot of older folks there to boot which is nice for a change. We all thought it was excellent. LOVED it in fact.

The girl stole the show, the other actors all did well, the cinematography was leagues better than the 1960s version, no stupid singing or other Hollywood hoo haa in it, real guns that they got right (when the girl splashed water on her Colt dragoon in the river I snorted "Ha! That'd be the end of that fight..." and two seconds later she dropped the hammer and...it misfired - PERFECT), great dialogue with many laughs and very little cursing. Sheesh, what's not to like about such a good Western coming out today?

There was a lot of realism in the film and some guts n' gore, but all told it was MUCH easier to watch than No Country for Old Men in my opinion. That movie was just flat out disturbing to me despite being a fantastic movie.

These guys are on a roll as perhaps Hollywood's best film makers today in my view. Spielberg has lost his touch in my view, James Cameron always needs a gimmick of some sort, Jerry Bruckheimer makes silly stuff that's entertaining but no one takes seriously, and while Scorsese and Ridley Scott are first rate in my mind they seem to miss as often as they hit and the same goes for Ron Howard.

I remember the dragoon but forget what generation is was (it wasn't a Whitneyville - that much I did catch), saw a Remington 1875, a Colt 1873, a Henry rifle, a Spencer carbine, a Winchester 1873. Correct me if I'm wrong and tell me what you saw!

Cheers,
Oly

olyinaz · Post by **olyinaz** » Tue Dec 28, 2010 1:41 am

If you look through this Wiki of quotes from the 1969 film you might be amazed as I was at how many lines are in both films.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/True_Grit

Some great quotes there!

Cheers,
Oly

Jeff Quinn · Post by **Jeff Quinn** » Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:15 am

Is it fit to take my six-year-old grandson?
We watch westerns together, and enjoy the shooting and such, but don't want him hearing mother $#%@^&! and such as that.

Jeff

Idiot · Post by **Idiot** » Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:31 am

Jeff Quinn wrote:Is it fit to take my six-year-old grandson?
We watch westerns together, and enjoy the shooting and such, but don't want him hearing mother $#%@^&! and such as that.

Jeff

Not a lot of cussing - I can't remember any. However, it is dark and a bit bloody and graphic in parts. I took my 13 year old granddaughter, but wouldn't have if she were six.

RIHMFIRE · Post by **RIHMFIRE** » Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:39 am

Triggernosis wrote:I've never seen the John Wayne version, but all I can say is the cinematography of this one is great! I felt like I could "smell" the actors it was so good. Felt like they were practically spitting in my face on occasion. Good acting all around in my opinion.

What!....are you kidding me!...
Ya gotta see it

Triggernosis · Post by **Triggernosis** » Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:41 am

Idiot wrote:... I took my 13 year old granddaughter, but wouldn't have if she were six.

I agree. An 8-10 yr. old little boy could probably handle the blood and guts, but most little girls can be kinda touchy.
In retrospect, it WAS kinda nice not to hear a bunch of cussing watch sexual stuff. Now I like the movie even more....

lthardman · Post by **lthardman** » Tue Dec 28, 2010 12:32 pm

In the original movie, the pistol that Maddie Ross was toting around was a Colt Walker revolver. That is what it was, even though John Wayne (Rooster Cogburn) referred to it as one of Colonel Colt's Dragoons.

In this movie they got it right. The revolver that Maddie shows Rooster is a Colt Third Model Dragoon. And, Rooster refers to it as a Colt's Dragoon.

The new movie got off on the right foot with me due to that correction. I like it when they get things like that right!

olyinaz · Post by **olyinaz** » Tue Dec 28, 2010 1:29 pm

Jeff Quinn wrote:Is it fit to take my six-year-old grandson? We watch westerns together, and enjoy the shooting and such, but don't want him hearing mother $#%@^&! and such as that. Jeff

No, I don't think so Jeff. There's some pretty gruesome violence in it and I think a few GDs got tossed (??). By modern standards it's amazingly light on bad language due to their efforts to have the dialogue run true to 19th Century norms, but I still don't think it's a movie for a 6 year old.

When it hits TNT or some other station for its broadcast premier you'll be set, and of course the boy will be a year or more older by then too.

Just me talkin'!

Best,
Oly

vancelw · Post by **vancelw** » Tue Dec 28, 2010 2:49 pm

I agree with olyinaz.

The film is very clean for Coen brothers standard fare, but still a bit coarse for the Christian family. My mom would love a movie like "O Brother Where Art Thou?", but there's no way I can recommend it to her with all the language. Coen brothers movies are usually laced with foul language and often bloody gore. I didn't feel the gore was too bad in this, but I'm a bit jaded since the time way back when I remember the first red blood I ever saw in a movie - a scene in "Heartbreak Pass" where the fellow was shot in the head and a single rivulet of blood ran down his face, more a trickle actually. Was terrible gross to me at that time. Now it's almost comical since we are inundated with it on TV.

On that note, this movie is no rougher than most things on primetime TV (during the time that used to be "Family Hour") You won't have to explain any sexual innuendos (as you would in a so-called kids movie) or hide the youngsters eyes in a sex scene.

Go see it by yourself

Then you can go back with the youngster. I saw it on release day and the wife wants me to take her to see it tonight. Poor me

dr walker · Post by **dr walker** » Tue Dec 28, 2010 3:52 pm

Jeff,
I use this website (kids in mind) when questioning new or dvd movies and their use of language. They give a complete and thorough break down of the most movies.
here is a link
http://www.kids-in-mind.com/t/truegrit.htm

C. Cash · Post by **C. Cash** » Tue Dec 28, 2010 10:08 pm

Wonderful movie, and first time I've sat through a Western with my wife ever. She loved it. Jeff Bridges did a great job and the movie overall was very well done. Rooster was one bad hombre in that one.

Jeff Quinn · Post by **Jeff Quinn** » Tue Dec 28, 2010 10:23 pm

Thanks Gentlemen.

Jeff

mouthpiece · Post by **mouthpiece** » Thu Dec 30, 2010 9:19 pm

Hard not to compare to the 'real' True Grit.

Le Boeuf's tobbacco pipe was a nice touch.

Mattie & Stohnehill exchanges vastly inferior to original.

Mattie should have said, "Stand up & prepare to meet thy maker" when she had the Sharp's.

Doubt tv presentation will require much 'language' editing --Dialog coarse & rough but same stuff as what I hear on TV every night. May not be as 'upright' a movie as "Shane" or "High Noon" but nothing a kid is gonna get ruined by hearing. NO SEXUAL CONTENT -- worth seeing for that fact alone.

Compelled me to carry a levergun when deer hunting next 2 days.