People hate on new movies because they feel that the old one, no matter how good the remake is, has to be the best one. I loved the original and the remake they were both amazing!
The John Wayne version was superior. This remake is just a rip-off of the first movie.. The Coen Bros. stole the script for "No Country For Old Men". Quit worshiping pigs.
The remake was horrible, the Coen Bros, thought they'd make some money by trying to emulate the first movie. They failed. Hollywood is just remakes, ripped off scripts and stolen screenplays. Hollywood is puke.
This is one of my favorite stories in general. Grow'in up the original was a favorite movie of both mine and my Pops , I liked it so much I read the book ! I love John Wayne but lets be honest , he only played ONE character in ANY movie....and that was John Wayne lol..They taylored the films to fit HIM....The Coen brothers did a excellent job on the remake , wherein they followed the book and told the story more from Mattie's point of veiw.....Just wish Pops had still been around to see it!!
The remake was ok but to me it wasn't nearly as impressionable as the John Wayne version when I was a kid. Maybe actors are better now but somehow they seem to be missing something. maybe it's the old film stock or they try so hard to be convincing I don't know but I know that movies used to stay with me for sometimes weeks. Now I hardly remember them right after I've seen them
Jesus all this butt hurt just cuz this is a new movie and some people like jeff more.I think alot of these guys hating on jeff is just old movie lovers and thats fine and yes many movies coming out are shit but this is better then the old true grit.Thats my opinion and if you dont like it fuck off.
Bridges seemed to be just phoning this one in. I was disappointed with this new version...Bridges is usually a better actor than that but he wasn't a patch to the Duke in this movie.
Personally I enjoyed both films, but in different ways. The original is more light hearted, whereas the new one brings home the brutality of the times. In both films there were excellent performances and I liked bothe versions of Rooster. To each his own I guess, but if I were forced to pick I would choose the new one as the photgraphy was better and the dialogue is less modern day.
Doesn't matter who says it, this is still a bad ass scene. Reminded me in a weird way of a shoot out scene in the western Good for Nothing...except everybody misses every shot haha, it's hilarious. Great movie in general too, especially if you liked True Grit. goodfornothingmovie(dot)com
i honestly can't imagine how people can prefer john wayne's delivery to this. wayne sounds almost sounds; bridges sounds like he's prepared to send them straight to hell. no contest
@TheAirsoftking31 I think so too...and do you see all the crap written saying that Wayne sucked? Some people are just crazy I think....I bet these same idiots think the Jonny Depp Willy Wonka was better too.
@expostfactum I bet they do! its bogus when know one can appreciate the classic acting style of old school good actors. I mean the dialog in the new True Grit sounds like they are reading monotone right from the book.
John Wayne was a horrible actor bro. I love old movies but actors back then didn't give a shit, to say the lines are phoned in now is kind of a joke. In my opinion Bridges has emotion in his voice whereas Wayne just sounded... like he was joking the whole time.
@MercurialIris Every actor had or has their own style Waynes just so happened to be his style, and Jeff Bridges is just a washed up old hippie any way he shouldn't have even been looked at for a role like this. I hear very little emotion through this whole movie. The movie was ok, but the whole thing was acted as if they where reading right from the book its self the only attempt at anger or anything else would have to be this scene here
@Beheamouth666 are you kidding me? wrong no serious person can agree with your statement,,john Wayne...the duke!!!!!!!!!......hahahahahahahaha Jeff bridges had no match against him at all,your comment pissed me off, you obviously are lacking the better part of your brain,go listen to some kesha
This film is laughable. Bridges first scene in the movie was in an outhouse. How fitting, he should have stayed there.
The only actor that did as good a job was Lil Blacky crossing the river. The Kim Darby replacement comes out of the river where the water was up and over her hat, emerging with a dry wool coat. The technical quality of everything down to the sound is pitiful.
No Country For Old Men was a triumph, this movie should have them driven out of Hollywood.
i watched both movies today on netflix.. and the old one is so much better. john wayne is a much better actor thats why he won best actor for true grit in 1969.. this guy is good and the movie is allright to. but he just isent the duke and nobody will ever fill his boots!
@fordpride101 That you think wayne is a better actor is laughable, but hey...to each his own. I guess some people like their actors to be believable, and some just want 'the gipper'.
@uhprentis hahahahaha just like the comment above,your such and idiot! i would hate to have you taste of what a good actor truly is,jeff is not a legend nor will he ever be! the duke ll the way,you must live under ground buddy
This was one of the best movies I've seen in years. The Coen brothers are truly brilliant film makers. Though they do muff it sometimes. This movie did quite make up for Oh brother, Where Art Thou. I watched this BECAUSE they made it, just to see what they did w/ it. It is very good, though the Wayne movie was more faithful to the book. I only read the book b/c of this movie, b/c they talked about the author on the disk special features. The ending is better in the new movie.
@davedirector7 john ford, george stevens, henry hathaway, howard hawks , the duke, gary cooper & randolph scott just to name a few are either rolling over in their graves or rolling with laughter or both when they see the junk westerns that has been put out - this one - unforgiven - dances with wolves to name a few are junk & a joke - but everyone has an opinion this is mine & you have yours - happy new year! to all
@realfunny7 none of those actors played Mattie Ross or Rooster Cogburn -_____- and again, for this time in cinema, this film was excellent. Unforgiven, excellent. Dances with wolves, great. I do not see why you dislike these films at all.
@realfunny7 While there are a few that are a joke I think there are a few they would be proud of 3:10 to Yuma, Russel Crow and Christian Bale and a select few others. But over all the genra is long over due for a reboot
This is sad they take such awsome movie of the Duke and try to remake it this sucks and i have no desire watching it or own it there is only one John Wayne and never will be another John Wayne was a true American !!.
Look, The Duke played Rooster Cogburn as John Wayne would. Jeff Bridges played Rooster Cogburn like Jeff Bridges would. Both were good in their own right, and they should not, and can not, be compared. I liked them both. Jeff's version of this scene is just fine. Wayne's version has a bit more of and edge to it. Neither is better than the other, they are just different. Like your Mom's Apple Pie compared to your Grandmother's Apple Pie. Both are tasty and you can enjoy each on it's own.
I just watched the John Wayne one and it sucked, it looks goofy and cheesy, I normally don't like remakes but this one should just replace the first one.
For those who think John Wayne portrayed Cogburn well, I'd say to each their own but it isn't true int his case.
Some might say its comparing apples to oranges considering that acting changes per generation. However, whomever believes that Wayne played the character better must surely be shrooming. I felt no grit coming from JW's performance; Bridges brought Cogburn's character to life on the screen with emotion and GRIT.
I really believe that John Wayne would have given this movie and Jeff Bridges his approval, but DO NOT watch this one for at least 3 months AFTER seeing the original because it absolutely does not hold up.
I actually felt embarrassed for some of the actors in this version when comparing it to the original.
That's not fair I know, but I just couldn't help it. That's the danger when making a "Remake" or different version of a classic like True Grit.
Some people only liked the original because it had John Wayne. If any other actor at that time played someone else, I'm sure no one would have said anything. And that is a poor argument. It's like 11 year old kids who go and get MW3, only becasue it has Call of Duty written on the box. I could put CoD 4 on a disk, call it Modern Black Ops 58 and it would sell millions. Same with John Wayne, I could make a disk of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, and replace all of Eastwood's scenes with
He doesn't have to emulate the Duke you DipShTs... i thought this Movie and the characters in it; had genuine temerity.. in laymen's terms BALLS... This movie rocked and i can't hardly wait to see it again.. a true western... Right up there with The Unforgiven...
@EpicTrollBeastMan the duke was the duke, Jeff Bridges was Rooster Cogburn. Bridges portrayal is leaps and bounds above John Wayne in True Grit. He became a character not the character becoming him
the old movie sucked. bad acting, bad filmmaking, and a really crappy adaptation of the book. I don't have anything against John Wayne but he was just John Wayne with an eye-patch. the way he said the "fill your hands" line didn't sound threatening at all. Jeff Bridges was the Cogburn that the book portrayed-a fat, homeless, one-eyed drunk who's messed his life up and gotten himself in trouble with the law a bunch.
@ryanmacdaddy1000 the way Bridges said the line sounded WAY more threatening. also, the book said that a few weeks after the journey, Cogburn was forced to give up his badge after killing Odus Wharton (the dude they were trying in the court room scene earlier) in a duel. thus, the sequel to the old movie would not have happened. like I said, the old movie is a pathetic adaptation of the book. the new movie did far better at adapting it, hands down
I see a lot of brave talk about John Wayne, considering the man is years in his grave. But its always easier to talk shit about a dead man, right? Does Bridges share these views? Doubt it, considering he said he "never wanted to fill the Duke's boots". the hollywood era he happened to live in just did movies differently, hardly Wayne's fault. I recall an interview he did where he said "Your'e going to get some scenes that are cheesy, play them to the hilt not with your tongue in your cheek."
He killed three of them. With one eye. Drunk or at least severely hung-over. With single-action revolvers. God damn, fuck John Wayne. Bridges is king.
@Beheamouth what the fuck are you talking about? i have a bachelors in mechanical engineering. it makes me an engineer it says it right on the diploma. engineers only need bachelors to get jobs, unlike a poli sci with a bachelor that didn't learn shit in 4 years and needs a law degree so he can make more than minimum wage at mc donalds
And another thing....when John Wayne's version was made, Charles Portis was on set and consulting, which probably means a lot more than the Coen brothers just reading his book.
@Beheamouth no the bachelor degree from ohio state makes me an engineer. don't be jealus that i have a real degree from a good university and yours is probably in some jack off major like political science.
@Beheamouth yeah? look at 1:01. he points the revolver streight at his target, who appears to be over 100ft away. there is absolutley no way that he could have hit that guy because that 45cal bullet will drop and hit the ground long before reaching the target. if you can't at least see that then its no longer worth my time arguing with your dumb ass. its basic physics i don't even need to waste my time calculating weather it hits him or not
@Beheamouth I told you to come back when you have shot one and obviosly you haven't done so yet. If you pause the vid at 1:02 when Rooster shoots the first guy, you would realize there is no way in hell that anyone could hit a target with a 5 or 7 inch barrel from that range one handed. You Fucking dumbass my arguement is compleatly valid, you are just unintelligent enough to realize so.
@Beheamouth yeah well im guessing you have never shot a 45 saa so come back when you have and let me know how possible it is to shoot two at the same time
@DrmrGuy1979 shooting two 45 cal single action colts accurately while ridding a horse is equally as impossible, therefore I choose the cooler method. John Wayne wins
I have the DVD and can't believe how muffled the most famous John Wayne lines were muffled by Bridges....I mean 'Fill your hands you son of a bitch' a three year old could say it more convincingly*sigh*
Can't believe the whole scene wasn't uploaded either.
@tdcrane101 That he was an alcoholic was evident from JW Rooster. When has a film ever truly represented the tale of a book? IIMO given that the rest of what Bridges says was wholly intelligible, then so should have been the rest.
It is just a film but I think that in years to come JW version of Rooster and his 'fill your hands...' comment will be the one remembered, true to the book or not. Hollywood rewrites history, we can't expect it to treat a novel any better can we :)
Well, First off I grew up with the John Wayne version and like it better over all. The girl in this one was less annoying however. That said, I expected artistic differences and was open minded to that, and all and all had no real problem with the remake (still like J.W. better) there are some things ya just can't change. This scene was it. The most famous scene in the original was the rifle spinning. That's what made him a bad ass. Anybody can pull 2 pistols. So the movie climax? BIG FAIL!!!!
@wimpylassiter2336 True to the book? yeah, of course. And Bridges did a good job and he made it loud and clear he wasn't tryin to "fill the Duke's boots". It was a good watch. Had I never seen or grown up watching the JW version, it would've been great. Guess deep down personally, I was hoping they might stray just a little to homage the original scene 4 us old farts. 2 pistols are cool, but spinnin the rifle, which i've practiced many times is just too bad ass. Great movie though......
@WeNeedSomeGolfShoes my generation, lol. im your age (25). you butted in on a conversation between me and the 14 year old and got all upset over something you have no idea about. schools today are the opposite, now teachers get prosecuted for teaching subjects about god and jesus, because the school system decided they prefer teaching the unproven concept of macro evolution (not micro evolution, which has proof) rather than teaching people about the bible. lol "your generation" that is true gold
ok if anybody thinks that I am an idiot and guitar butt was refering to the acting role. Go to his page and read the description for a video he has. He clearly called an 8 year old girl a cunt and he was not referring to the role. This man is a disgrace and a loser. He uses the acting role thing as an excuse.
@WeNeedSomeGolfShoes thank you very much this old geezer thinks that he is right just because he was there to see the movie. lol. 30 years from now our movies will be boring to our kids.
@WeNeedSomeGolfShoes thats also why the average young person of today see's no problem with dumb women shaking their half naked ass on television while some rich guy flashes money in her face. they see no problems at all with that, most even emulate it. people back in the old days would have been disgusted by it. thats why over time more and more bad influences were accepted by the general public to be viewed on tv. they can please people today like its nothing
@WeNeedSomeGolfShoes thats exactly what it means. its incredibly presumptuous (especially for a 14-15 year old) to assume you can generalize the way people think even today, the day you live in, let alone trying to generalize the way people thought 30+ years before you were even born. but then again im talkin to a 14 year old... the epitomy of a person who thinks they know everything there is to know. now THATS a generalization for ya, but at least its a pretty truthful one.
@EliCross i think he meant originally (as in before he was offered the part). its obvious he saw the film before he did his role in this one since he is almost doing duvals ned pepper impression of sorts.
@lonnie727 the role isnt making her a cunt you obviously dont understand the movie. And you are calling a 14 year old girl a duragatory name. You are pathetic stop making excuses to cover over what you said. Even if the role did make her resemble a cunt your comment made the girl look like you were calling her personally a cunt. i am not stupid for bieng civilized im sorry you werent raised to respect women especially 14 year old girls.
oh and the crazy chicken guy in the original was 100x funnier than the one in the remake. when he was making sheep noises as he left tom chaney behind with the girl is one of the funniest scenes in the movie other than john waynes facial expression after being called a one eyed fat man.
John Wayne was not better. His acting was hacky and terrible compared to Jeff bridges. And by the way. The corn brothers only used the book for inspiration, not John waynes version.
@HPF4240 if you think bridges did this scene better than wayne, you are fucked up and biased. waynes version of this scene (along with robert duval being the opposition) is LEGENDARY. his reaction was absolutely perfect and hilarious, and he fit the role much better. thats why john wayne won the oscar for his role in this movie and bridges didnt. get a clue.
@nashnwo1234 honestly, I like john wayne and I am a fan. But with barry pepper and bridges, even damon, this movie is perfect. Im not saying the wayne one was no good i am just say this one is better, and BTW Fuck weed, jeff bridges already has an oscar, for and original movie last year. do you know how hard it would be to take home the oscar two years in a row.
@HPF4240 this movie may very well be better, its made like 50 years later, it SHOULD be better. im saying wayne did this role better, this scene in particular, and thats why he won the oscar for THIS role. bridges won an oscar for crazy heart, which is one of my favorite movies of his. i love bridges.. its just that you're fucked up to think john wayne didnt deliver the "fill your hand line" better. notice how i wasnt phased by being called "fuck weed" too, cause only goons use terms like that.
@HPF4240 and on a side note, i think duvall was better as ned pepper if you take the whole movie into account, though i think barry pepper outshined bridges AND duval's performance in this particular scene
@HPF4240 i see now that your entire rage out started over one guy a few comments back that said they shouldnt have casted jeff bridges in the movie. you obviously have a hell of a hard on for the guy. i wont blame you though, bridges is a fantastic actor. im not about to get angry and start calling him hacky and terrible, or some other absurd bullshit like you did to john wayne, destroying your credibility as an overly opinionated person.
@nashnwo1234 I am not overly opinionated i just find that people with nothing better to do cling on to hold movie starring crappy actors, specifically the gay, fat cowboy JW. On a side note I though Robert duvall was really good, and that pepper was emulating him in his performance. Jeff on the other hand could not do so because he wanted to perform the scene well so he could not imitate john wayne who couldn't out act William shatner
@HPF4240 see thats what im talking about. your absurd, meaningless, rage infested insults obscure your ability to make a convincing point. the only thing you have right is that ive (obviously) got nothing better to do right now than sit here and dig deeper into what kind of immature, small minded person you are. maybe deep down i hope to insult your types so much that you kill yourselves and rid the planet of another half breed freak of the modern era who acts out of emotion instead of reason.
@HPF4240 Pardon my interjection, but I think Pepper put a shade more depth into the role of Lucky Ned. Robert Duvall just pushed through the lines, while Pepper brought some dramatic pauses and emotion into his few short lines. I do think Jeff Bridges brought a lot more dimension to Rooster Cogburn, a lot more personality. John Wayne had a limited number of personalities that he could act with, while Jeff Bridges is a little more versatile.
@cracklingvoice in this scene id agree with you for sure that pepper did add more depth, but its hard to compare. the scene where ned kidnapped the girl was done incredibly accurately by duvall. thats the beauty of these 2 movies to me, they are both incredible, some scenes from this one outshine scenes from the original, and vice versa. i love both of these movies a LOT, and i cant really choose 1 actor over the other for ANY of the characters except for POSSIBLY the new maddy ross, shes good.
@nashnwo1234 100%! A lot of the comments I've read regarding these films seem to be of the "JW's great; Bridges is shit" variety or vice versa, which I find really silly. I prefer the new one to the original, but that's just my preference; they're both great films to be seen and enjoyed.
@cracklingvoice yeah pepper kicks ass in every role ive seen him do. especially this scene here. thats why i think he out shined bridges in this scene by far. i like the way he takes a hard gulp after rooster says he aims to kill him in 1 minute, you can see he knew he meant it.
This scene does not even compare to the John Wayne version. They should have never made this movie. It just reinforces the fact that the movie makers of today cannot compare to the classics. They need to get their own ideas and not try to "steal" from movies of the past.
@texsportpub the reason they re-did this movie is because there were plenty of things in the old movie that didn't stick to what the author of the book had intended, and they were trying to do that. they didn't look to the movie for inspiration, they looked to the book. i'm glad they did too. and besides that, i didn't think the old one was that impressive.
@redcorpse I spent my entire life around old cowpokes and wranglers too, I live in Oklahoma and you're right, he could be anyone of them, and so could John Wayne. And I will give you that, John Wayne was drunk about 95% of the time. It was my personal opinion that John Wayne's version is better, and you have to admit, either way, either version this movie is amazing.
@survivorman250 you're right. he could be, but he chose not to, and the way he portrayed Cogburn was not what the author of the book had intended. Bridges did much better at doing that. also, you say Bridges had no business filling his shoes, he said he didn't even want to fill his shoes FYI. he too was concerned about them filming this movie at first
They did am amazing job casting people for this movie. Except casting Jeff Bridges, he is an old hippy who had no business trying to fill John Wayne's shoes. Seriously watch the original John Wayne version of this part of the movie with the same line, it's 10 times more epic. Bridges sounds like his mouth is full of marbles.
@survivorman250 What, you mean the same John Wayne who looks like a cuddly care bare when drunk? Who provides us with the happy fluffy rainbows everything is now kittens ending? That sad sack somehow outshines Bridges performance? Let me tell you I spent every summer of my life when I was a child with old wranglers, hands and cowboys and Bridges could be any one of them. It was scary how good he was at pulling it off. If you want your Hollywood endings though I guess Wayne would be your choice.
@redcorpse none of what your saying is based on fact or even opinion. youre just angry because someone said something about this version of the movie and it somehow insulted YOU, and turned your vision red, so you decided to make absurd statements and disrespect a version of the movie that won the awards. sickening generation of young people, thats all i know, and im young.
@nashnwo1234 well back then people were easily pleased and without jw and rd that movie would have been crap probably I beleive this movie was more in depth, more realistic, and a better acted by all the actors. Its a lot tougher to win an acadamey award now then it was in 69. Thats just my oppinion though.
@lonnie727 back then people were more easily pleased? how would you know anything about what people were like "back then" when you're 15 years old. "back then" to you is when britney spears was still popular.
@nashnwo1234 They must have been easily pleased cause the old true girt was pretty bad without john wayne and in general movies just werent as good. You dont have to be old to know that. 30 years from now movies will be even better thats just how the world works. Is a walkman better then an ipod? no. And Im almost 17 now and I am at least honest enough to admit the world evolves and better things are created. Im not trying to insult you in anyway if I have I do apologize.
@lonnie727 thats just your opinion though, it means absolutely nothing to me. i already pointed out like 3 weeks ago on here that the new film SHOULD be better than the original, it was made 30 years later and with better technology. but no i dont feel that john wayne was the only reason that the original was good. the story from the book is incredible, the movie was based on that. john wayne just happened to play rooster incredibly well, making the movie great. robert duvall was incredible too.
@nashnwo1234 Point taken. You are entitled to your oppinion but it is not an oppinion that the new movie stays more loyal to the incredible story of true grit. It is a fact. But it is an oppinion that Kim darby was mediocre at best, and Glen Cambell was just terrible. Its the popular oppinion but not a fact. And Jeff Bridges played Rooster as the book potrayed him. The only actor i beleive perforemed better then the new film was robert Duvall. But the fact that Jeff bridges potrayed rooster
@redcorpse John Wayne was no typical cowboy. That's the point but there was something very manly and yest comfortable about John Wayne that other men like Bridges has to work at in this movie and its obvious. I like the Bridges one too, don't get me wrong. I just don't feel attached to it because it seemed more like acting and I think great acting doesn't always have to be so much work. Hence why a natural like John is more appreciated.
You should've show the whole scene, as it's full of an awful lot of action and emotion and shows us all just what Rooster Cogburn's made of...and the music os good too :-)
People hate on new movies because they feel that the old one, no matter how good the remake is, has to be the best one. I loved the original and the remake they were both amazing!
mgoblue5617 6 days ago
The John Wayne version was superior. This remake is just a rip-off of the first movie.. The Coen Bros. stole the script for "No Country For Old Men". Quit worshiping pigs.
gallantrycross 6 days ago
The remake was horrible, the Coen Bros, thought they'd make some money by trying to emulate the first movie. They failed. Hollywood is just remakes, ripped off scripts and stolen screenplays. Hollywood is puke.
gallantrycross 6 days ago
Remake are you joking noone will ever do it llike john wayne ..never.. There will never be another like him
Fsalyer 1 week ago
This is one of my favorite stories in general. Grow'in up the original was a favorite movie of both mine and my Pops , I liked it so much I read the book ! I love John Wayne but lets be honest , he only played ONE character in ANY movie....and that was John Wayne lol..They taylored the films to fit HIM....The Coen brothers did a excellent job on the remake , wherein they followed the book and told the story more from Mattie's point of veiw.....Just wish Pops had still been around to see it!!
BigMike46076 1 week ago
Comment removed
ryanmacdaddy1000 1 week ago
The remake was ok but to me it wasn't nearly as impressionable as the John Wayne version when I was a kid. Maybe actors are better now but somehow they seem to be missing something. maybe it's the old film stock or they try so hard to be convincing I don't know but I know that movies used to stay with me for sometimes weeks. Now I hardly remember them right after I've seen them
pdxeddie1111 1 week ago
This is like a homemade movie done with a webcam
zebratangozebra 2 weeks ago
Jesus all this butt hurt just cuz this is a new movie and some people like jeff more.I think alot of these guys hating on jeff is just old movie lovers and thats fine and yes many movies coming out are shit but this is better then the old true grit.Thats my opinion and if you dont like it fuck off.
Paladonian13 2 weeks ago
Bridges seemed to be just phoning this one in. I was disappointed with this new version...Bridges is usually a better actor than that but he wasn't a patch to the Duke in this movie.
356butch 2 weeks ago
Personally I enjoyed both films, but in different ways. The original is more light hearted, whereas the new one brings home the brutality of the times. In both films there were excellent performances and I liked bothe versions of Rooster. To each his own I guess, but if I were forced to pick I would choose the new one as the photgraphy was better and the dialogue is less modern day.
sonofcy 2 weeks ago
They should have never made this remake...it is no way as good as John Wayne's
xfiles6728 2 weeks ago
@xfiles6728
Oh boo hoo.
MercurialIris 2 weeks ago
Doesn't matter who says it, this is still a bad ass scene. Reminded me in a weird way of a shoot out scene in the western Good for Nothing...except everybody misses every shot haha, it's hilarious. Great movie in general too, especially if you liked True Grit. goodfornothingmovie(dot)com
JackDaniels224 2 weeks ago
i honestly can't imagine how people can prefer john wayne's delivery to this. wayne sounds almost sounds; bridges sounds like he's prepared to send them straight to hell. no contest
DukeMcManhands 1 month ago
he butchered my favorite movie line
TheAirsoftking31 1 month ago
@TheAirsoftking31 I think so too...and do you see all the crap written saying that Wayne sucked? Some people are just crazy I think....I bet these same idiots think the Jonny Depp Willy Wonka was better too.
expostfactum 1 month ago
@expostfactum I bet they do! its bogus when know one can appreciate the classic acting style of old school good actors. I mean the dialog in the new True Grit sounds like they are reading monotone right from the book.
TheAirsoftking31 3 weeks ago
@TheAirsoftking31
John Wayne was a horrible actor bro. I love old movies but actors back then didn't give a shit, to say the lines are phoned in now is kind of a joke. In my opinion Bridges has emotion in his voice whereas Wayne just sounded... like he was joking the whole time.
MercurialIris 2 weeks ago
@MercurialIris Every actor had or has their own style Waynes just so happened to be his style, and Jeff Bridges is just a washed up old hippie any way he shouldn't have even been looked at for a role like this. I hear very little emotion through this whole movie. The movie was ok, but the whole thing was acted as if they where reading right from the book its self the only attempt at anger or anything else would have to be this scene here
TheAirsoftking31 2 weeks ago
No contest, John Wayne beats this poor imitation cowpoke hands down. God Bless the Duke!
Ponderosasteve 1 month ago
the john wayne version was too "howdy pilgrim," they might as well have cast lee marvin as rooster and made it a musical comedy.
FatGuyWithAKatana 1 month ago
Jeff just MURDERED the best line in movie history!! The Duke can do better while taking his dirt nap!!!
InuLee213 1 month ago
And then after rooster shot the 3 other guys, him and Ned danced the jig. Good times were had by all. Roll credits.
ricochet188 1 month ago 2
Fill your hand you sonofabitch!
oneleggedspider 1 month ago
@Beheamouth666 are you kidding me? wrong no serious person can agree with your statement,,john Wayne...the duke!!!!!!!!!......hahahahahahahaha Jeff bridges had no match against him at all,your comment pissed me off, you obviously are lacking the better part of your brain,go listen to some kesha
fordsrevive 1 month ago
This film is laughable. Bridges first scene in the movie was in an outhouse. How fitting, he should have stayed there.
The only actor that did as good a job was Lil Blacky crossing the river. The Kim Darby replacement comes out of the river where the water was up and over her hat, emerging with a dry wool coat. The technical quality of everything down to the sound is pitiful.
No Country For Old Men was a triumph, this movie should have them driven out of Hollywood.
Complete FAIL
Garymayo 1 month ago
I thought Jeff Bridges was awesome in this, then I saw True Grit with John Wayne.
HesterDW 1 month ago
i watched both movies today on netflix.. and the old one is so much better. john wayne is a much better actor thats why he won best actor for true grit in 1969.. this guy is good and the movie is allright to. but he just isent the duke and nobody will ever fill his boots!
fordpride101 1 month ago
@fordpride101 That you think wayne is a better actor is laughable, but hey...to each his own. I guess some people like their actors to be believable, and some just want 'the gipper'.
uhprentis 1 month ago
@uhprentis ugh...i fail at names... I meant 'the duke'
uhprentis 1 month ago
@uhprentis hahahahaha just like the comment above,your such and idiot! i would hate to have you taste of what a good actor truly is,jeff is not a legend nor will he ever be! the duke ll the way,you must live under ground buddy
fordsrevive 1 month ago
@uhprentis laughable my freaking ass, you rcomment is laughable
fordsrevive 1 month ago
@fordpride101 can you believe these morons saying jeff is better than Wayne? what idiots
fordsrevive 1 month ago
The score here is excellent. This is also better than the original in my eyes.
gizmo507 1 month ago
This was one of the best movies I've seen in years. The Coen brothers are truly brilliant film makers. Though they do muff it sometimes. This movie did quite make up for Oh brother, Where Art Thou. I watched this BECAUSE they made it, just to see what they did w/ it. It is very good, though the Wayne movie was more faithful to the book. I only read the book b/c of this movie, b/c they talked about the author on the disk special features. The ending is better in the new movie.
VictorLepanto 1 month ago
this movie stunk - jeff bridges is one sorry actor - the whole movie was trash - the duke is the king - a real actor
realfunny7 1 month ago
@realfunny7 this movie was awesome. Wtf? Get a better Mattie Ross and Rooster Cogburn.
davedirector7 1 month ago
@davedirector7 john ford, george stevens, henry hathaway, howard hawks , the duke, gary cooper & randolph scott just to name a few are either rolling over in their graves or rolling with laughter or both when they see the junk westerns that has been put out - this one - unforgiven - dances with wolves to name a few are junk & a joke - but everyone has an opinion this is mine & you have yours - happy new year! to all
realfunny7 1 month ago
@realfunny7 none of those actors played Mattie Ross or Rooster Cogburn -_____- and again, for this time in cinema, this film was excellent. Unforgiven, excellent. Dances with wolves, great. I do not see why you dislike these films at all.
davedirector7 1 month ago
@realfunny7 While there are a few that are a joke I think there are a few they would be proud of 3:10 to Yuma, Russel Crow and Christian Bale and a select few others. But over all the genra is long over due for a reboot
zikasad1 1 month ago
John Wayne sucks. Get mad. Jeff Bridges is an actor, unlike Wayne.
InkRaven 1 month ago
This is sad they take such awsome movie of the Duke and try to remake it this sucks and i have no desire watching it or own it there is only one John Wayne and never will be another John Wayne was a true American !!.
BOMAN203 2 months ago
Look, The Duke played Rooster Cogburn as John Wayne would. Jeff Bridges played Rooster Cogburn like Jeff Bridges would. Both were good in their own right, and they should not, and can not, be compared. I liked them both. Jeff's version of this scene is just fine. Wayne's version has a bit more of and edge to it. Neither is better than the other, they are just different. Like your Mom's Apple Pie compared to your Grandmother's Apple Pie. Both are tasty and you can enjoy each on it's own.
ArizonaKnightWolf 2 months ago
Jeff Bridges is NO JOHN WAYNE!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quite frankly,he sucks!!
mlizrn 2 months ago
Yet John Wayne still won the Academy Award for his portrayal of Rooster. Not Bridges. The Duke is Rooster Cogburn.
OleSmithy 2 months ago
I just watched the John Wayne one and it sucked, it looks goofy and cheesy, I normally don't like remakes but this one should just replace the first one.
SturmKorps 2 months ago
For those who think John Wayne portrayed Cogburn well, I'd say to each their own but it isn't true int his case.
Some might say its comparing apples to oranges considering that acting changes per generation. However, whomever believes that Wayne played the character better must surely be shrooming. I felt no grit coming from JW's performance; Bridges brought Cogburn's character to life on the screen with emotion and GRIT.
Atomicus123 2 months ago
I really believe that John Wayne would have given this movie and Jeff Bridges his approval, but DO NOT watch this one for at least 3 months AFTER seeing the original because it absolutely does not hold up.
I actually felt embarrassed for some of the actors in this version when comparing it to the original.
That's not fair I know, but I just couldn't help it. That's the danger when making a "Remake" or different version of a classic like True Grit.
Especially this scene.
31243417 2 months ago
John Wayne, and many people would think it is the best thing ever. No, Jeff Bridges played Rooster Cogburn, John Wayne played himself.
1Morey 2 months ago
Some people only liked the original because it had John Wayne. If any other actor at that time played someone else, I'm sure no one would have said anything. And that is a poor argument. It's like 11 year old kids who go and get MW3, only becasue it has Call of Duty written on the box. I could put CoD 4 on a disk, call it Modern Black Ops 58 and it would sell millions. Same with John Wayne, I could make a disk of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, and replace all of Eastwood's scenes with
1Morey 2 months ago
He doesn't have to emulate the Duke you DipShTs... i thought this Movie and the characters in it; had genuine temerity.. in laymen's terms BALLS... This movie rocked and i can't hardly wait to see it again.. a true western... Right up there with The Unforgiven...
younwhosarmy 2 months ago
WHAT A JOKE! Bridges SUCKS!
GCL777 2 months ago
The Duke > this tub of shit
EpicTrollBeastMan 2 months ago
@EpicTrollBeastMan the duke was the duke, Jeff Bridges was Rooster Cogburn. Bridges portrayal is leaps and bounds above John Wayne in True Grit. He became a character not the character becoming him
ajonz9213 2 months ago
Worst remake of a movie ever bridges is terrible
ztenberge 3 months ago
@ztenberge Man you suck.
randomusernamemygod 3 months ago
Jeff is the fucking man. Much better job than the orginal.
235RB 3 months ago 2
that makes me want to throw up.....
gcso122 3 months ago
Remakes for the majority of the time just don' work. Jeff Bridges is a good actor, but he can't emulate The Duke.
RayNDeere 3 months ago
This is awful! They destroyed this scene. You can't touch John Wayne.
Blackcats1952 3 months ago
the old movie sucked. bad acting, bad filmmaking, and a really crappy adaptation of the book. I don't have anything against John Wayne but he was just John Wayne with an eye-patch. the way he said the "fill your hands" line didn't sound threatening at all. Jeff Bridges was the Cogburn that the book portrayed-a fat, homeless, one-eyed drunk who's messed his life up and gotten himself in trouble with the law a bunch.
ryanmacdaddy1000 3 months ago
@ryanmacdaddy1000 the way Bridges said the line sounded WAY more threatening. also, the book said that a few weeks after the journey, Cogburn was forced to give up his badge after killing Odus Wharton (the dude they were trying in the court room scene earlier) in a duel. thus, the sequel to the old movie would not have happened. like I said, the old movie is a pathetic adaptation of the book. the new movie did far better at adapting it, hands down
ryanmacdaddy1000 3 months ago
@ryanmacdaddy1000 Well, that's just your opinion, maaaan.
Agent1W 3 months ago
@Agent1W the line and my disliking the old movie, maybe. but the adaptation and the way Bridges and Wayne both portrayed Cogburn, no.
ryanmacdaddy1000 3 months ago
@ryanmacdaddy1000 Heh, famous quote of Jeff Bridges from 'The Big Lebowski'. I do agree.
Agent1W 3 months ago
FILL YOUR HANDS YOU SON OF A BITCH!!!!!
mrspigeon1 3 months ago
Barry Pepper does a pretty mean vocal impression of Robert Duvall
Grober7 4 months ago
john wayne says it better
jamahama12 4 months ago
@jamahama12 true....Jeff Bridges sounds like his mouth is full of cake when he says it
FabioCrow07770 4 months ago
the new 1 sucks bring back john wayne!!!!!!
jamahama12 4 months ago
So dumb. The old true grit is way better!!
lexilulu102 4 months ago
Bad quality!
KyodaiKen1979 5 months ago
The Duke is the man! Never understood why they needed to remake such an iconic film. God, please don't let them remake the Quiet Man too.
rugbymom75 5 months ago
I reckon John Wayne plays this scene better, but I love how well Jeff Bridges portrays the drunk ole Rooster haha
bigwatto95 5 months ago
I think they both did a great job with the role, I love both The Duke and The Dude equally.
Theburn77 5 months ago
Rooster wasnt mad at Ned, he was offended by Harold Parmalee clucking at him.
1Morey 5 months ago
At :42.Now why'd he have to go and say something like that?
doughesson 5 months ago
Hmmmm definitely no where near the classic or perhaps I just am very nostalgic.
POLChelseaFC 5 months ago
I see a lot of brave talk about John Wayne, considering the man is years in his grave. But its always easier to talk shit about a dead man, right? Does Bridges share these views? Doubt it, considering he said he "never wanted to fill the Duke's boots". the hollywood era he happened to live in just did movies differently, hardly Wayne's fault. I recall an interview he did where he said "Your'e going to get some scenes that are cheesy, play them to the hilt not with your tongue in your cheek."
Blain1971 6 months ago
He killed three of them. With one eye. Drunk or at least severely hung-over. With single-action revolvers. God damn, fuck John Wayne. Bridges is king.
IITallikaII 6 months ago
@Beheamouth what the fuck are you talking about? i have a bachelors in mechanical engineering. it makes me an engineer it says it right on the diploma. engineers only need bachelors to get jobs, unlike a poli sci with a bachelor that didn't learn shit in 4 years and needs a law degree so he can make more than minimum wage at mc donalds
1BigTroll 6 months ago
I prefer Waynes version of this scene but the rest of the movie i prefer Bridges
Photosfromboots 6 months ago
Liked the old one better, must be how fast he said it.
baron8107 6 months ago
And another thing....when John Wayne's version was made, Charles Portis was on set and consulting, which probably means a lot more than the Coen brothers just reading his book.
chammar85 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You guys are retarded, and for the record a bachelors degree of engineering does make you an engineer...
chammar85 6 months ago
Comment removed
chammar85 6 months ago
@Beheamouth no the bachelor degree from ohio state makes me an engineer. don't be jealus that i have a real degree from a good university and yours is probably in some jack off major like political science.
1BigTroll 6 months ago
@Beheamouth dont talk to me about physics im an engineer meaning i was required to take a full year of calculus based physics. shut the fuck up
1BigTroll 6 months ago
@Beheamouth yeah? look at 1:01. he points the revolver streight at his target, who appears to be over 100ft away. there is absolutley no way that he could have hit that guy because that 45cal bullet will drop and hit the ground long before reaching the target. if you can't at least see that then its no longer worth my time arguing with your dumb ass. its basic physics i don't even need to waste my time calculating weather it hits him or not
1BigTroll 6 months ago
@Beheamouth I told you to come back when you have shot one and obviosly you haven't done so yet. If you pause the vid at 1:02 when Rooster shoots the first guy, you would realize there is no way in hell that anyone could hit a target with a 5 or 7 inch barrel from that range one handed. You Fucking dumbass my arguement is compleatly valid, you are just unintelligent enough to realize so.
1BigTroll 6 months ago
@Beheamouth yeah well im guessing you have never shot a 45 saa so come back when you have and let me know how possible it is to shoot two at the same time
1BigTroll 6 months ago
@DrmrGuy1979 spin cocking a lever action is cooler than pulling the hammer back on the colt. who would disagree?
1BigTroll 6 months ago
@DrmrGuy1979 shooting two 45 cal single action colts accurately while ridding a horse is equally as impossible, therefore I choose the cooler method. John Wayne wins
1BigTroll 6 months ago
I have the DVD and can't believe how muffled the most famous John Wayne lines were muffled by Bridges....I mean 'Fill your hands you son of a bitch' a three year old could say it more convincingly*sigh*
Can't believe the whole scene wasn't uploaded either.
ReligionSux 7 months ago
@ReligionSux Rooster was an alcoholic who was old as hell. If anything John Wayne's performance was too clean
tdcrane101 6 months ago
@tdcrane101 That he was an alcoholic was evident from JW Rooster. When has a film ever truly represented the tale of a book? IIMO given that the rest of what Bridges says was wholly intelligible, then so should have been the rest.
It is just a film but I think that in years to come JW version of Rooster and his 'fill your hands...' comment will be the one remembered, true to the book or not. Hollywood rewrites history, we can't expect it to treat a novel any better can we :)
ReligionSux 6 months ago
Well, First off I grew up with the John Wayne version and like it better over all. The girl in this one was less annoying however. That said, I expected artistic differences and was open minded to that, and all and all had no real problem with the remake (still like J.W. better) there are some things ya just can't change. This scene was it. The most famous scene in the original was the rifle spinning. That's what made him a bad ass. Anybody can pull 2 pistols. So the movie climax? BIG FAIL!!!!
stareuph 7 months ago
@stareuph "big fail" was called being accurate and staying close to the book. two revolvers in the book.
wimpylassiter2336 7 months ago
@wimpylassiter2336 True to the book? yeah, of course. And Bridges did a good job and he made it loud and clear he wasn't tryin to "fill the Duke's boots". It was a good watch. Had I never seen or grown up watching the JW version, it would've been great. Guess deep down personally, I was hoping they might stray just a little to homage the original scene 4 us old farts. 2 pistols are cool, but spinnin the rifle, which i've practiced many times is just too bad ass. Great movie though......
stareuph 6 months ago
wow look at generation "time out". grown men barely past the big boy potty stage. the worlds a much safer place.
Tarten46 7 months ago
The remake pales in comparison to the original John wayn movie,
The best acting in this movie came from the young girl.
usarmycaptainamerica 7 months ago
@WeNeedSomeGolfShoes my generation, lol. im your age (25). you butted in on a conversation between me and the 14 year old and got all upset over something you have no idea about. schools today are the opposite, now teachers get prosecuted for teaching subjects about god and jesus, because the school system decided they prefer teaching the unproven concept of macro evolution (not micro evolution, which has proof) rather than teaching people about the bible. lol "your generation" that is true gold
nashnwo1234 8 months ago
@WeNeedSomeGolfShoes i was talking about the 14 year old on here, not you, lol.
nashnwo1234 8 months ago
ok if anybody thinks that I am an idiot and guitar butt was refering to the acting role. Go to his page and read the description for a video he has. He clearly called an 8 year old girl a cunt and he was not referring to the role. This man is a disgrace and a loser. He uses the acting role thing as an excuse.
lonnie727 8 months ago
@guitarbutt go read the book and watch the movie again and maybe you will use this thing we call a brain and realize that mattie ross is not a cunt.
lonnie727 8 months ago
@WeNeedSomeGolfShoes thank you very much this old geezer thinks that he is right just because he was there to see the movie. lol. 30 years from now our movies will be boring to our kids.
lonnie727 8 months ago
@WeNeedSomeGolfShoes thats also why the average young person of today see's no problem with dumb women shaking their half naked ass on television while some rich guy flashes money in her face. they see no problems at all with that, most even emulate it. people back in the old days would have been disgusted by it. thats why over time more and more bad influences were accepted by the general public to be viewed on tv. they can please people today like its nothing
nashnwo1234 8 months ago
@WeNeedSomeGolfShoes thats exactly what it means. its incredibly presumptuous (especially for a 14-15 year old) to assume you can generalize the way people think even today, the day you live in, let alone trying to generalize the way people thought 30+ years before you were even born. but then again im talkin to a 14 year old... the epitomy of a person who thinks they know everything there is to know. now THATS a generalization for ya, but at least its a pretty truthful one.
nashnwo1234 8 months ago
I think Bridges has a stronger voice than John Wayne. Wayne was a good actor, but Rooster Coughburn just wasn't a good role for him.
lordxeras 8 months ago
Pepper claimed he never even saw the original film, but his Duvall-impersonation is too spot-on to be an accident. The voice alone is eerily similar.
EliCross 8 months ago
@EliCross i think he meant originally (as in before he was offered the part). its obvious he saw the film before he did his role in this one since he is almost doing duvals ned pepper impression of sorts.
nashnwo1234 8 months ago
Someone needs to pull this full scene.
thetowerhill1 8 months ago
@guitarbutt CUNT really? you dont even know either one and to call a 14 year old girl a cunt is just pathetic. You have no life.
lonnie727 8 months ago
@lonnie727 the role isnt making her a cunt you obviously dont understand the movie. And you are calling a 14 year old girl a duragatory name. You are pathetic stop making excuses to cover over what you said. Even if the role did make her resemble a cunt your comment made the girl look like you were calling her personally a cunt. i am not stupid for bieng civilized im sorry you werent raised to respect women especially 14 year old girls.
lonnie727 8 months ago
oh and the crazy chicken guy in the original was 100x funnier than the one in the remake. when he was making sheep noises as he left tom chaney behind with the girl is one of the funniest scenes in the movie other than john waynes facial expression after being called a one eyed fat man.
nashnwo1234 8 months ago
The sniper from Saving Pvt. Ryan gets sniped.... by Ryan!
mitsarugi5 8 months ago 42
@mitsarugi5 that's irony if i ever saw it.
bamarine247 6 months ago
@mitsarugi5 omg its barry pepper i didnt even know
KoopaFromSteam 6 months ago
@mitsarugi5 Lucky Ned Pepper being played by Barry Pepper.....I guess Texas Rangers don't like pepper.
Blain1971 5 months ago
@mitsarugi5 rofl, I never thought of that
ThriceDog 5 months ago
@mitsarugi5 I didn't think of that until I saw your post. Totally forgot about that. Weird huh?
mondo78 4 months ago
haters gon hate
xKainxcainx 8 months ago
@xKainxcainx FUCK YOU
123afish 7 months ago
u wish ;) hater
xKainxcainx 7 months ago
ooo some lil kid just discovered his first swear word ;) go troll somewhere else haterrrrrrrrr
xKainxcainx 7 months ago
^^
xKainxcainx 7 months ago
i think mr peppers acting was better in this scene than bridges was.
nashnwo1234 8 months ago
John Wayne was not better. His acting was hacky and terrible compared to Jeff bridges. And by the way. The corn brothers only used the book for inspiration, not John waynes version.
HPF4240 8 months ago
@HPF4240 if you think bridges did this scene better than wayne, you are fucked up and biased. waynes version of this scene (along with robert duval being the opposition) is LEGENDARY. his reaction was absolutely perfect and hilarious, and he fit the role much better. thats why john wayne won the oscar for his role in this movie and bridges didnt. get a clue.
nashnwo1234 8 months ago
@nashnwo1234 honestly, I like john wayne and I am a fan. But with barry pepper and bridges, even damon, this movie is perfect. Im not saying the wayne one was no good i am just say this one is better, and BTW Fuck weed, jeff bridges already has an oscar, for and original movie last year. do you know how hard it would be to take home the oscar two years in a row.
HPF4240 8 months ago
@HPF4240 this movie may very well be better, its made like 50 years later, it SHOULD be better. im saying wayne did this role better, this scene in particular, and thats why he won the oscar for THIS role. bridges won an oscar for crazy heart, which is one of my favorite movies of his. i love bridges.. its just that you're fucked up to think john wayne didnt deliver the "fill your hand line" better. notice how i wasnt phased by being called "fuck weed" too, cause only goons use terms like that.
nashnwo1234 8 months ago
@HPF4240 and on a side note, i think duvall was better as ned pepper if you take the whole movie into account, though i think barry pepper outshined bridges AND duval's performance in this particular scene
nashnwo1234 8 months ago
@HPF4240 i see now that your entire rage out started over one guy a few comments back that said they shouldnt have casted jeff bridges in the movie. you obviously have a hell of a hard on for the guy. i wont blame you though, bridges is a fantastic actor. im not about to get angry and start calling him hacky and terrible, or some other absurd bullshit like you did to john wayne, destroying your credibility as an overly opinionated person.
nashnwo1234 8 months ago
@nashnwo1234 I am not overly opinionated i just find that people with nothing better to do cling on to hold movie starring crappy actors, specifically the gay, fat cowboy JW. On a side note I though Robert duvall was really good, and that pepper was emulating him in his performance. Jeff on the other hand could not do so because he wanted to perform the scene well so he could not imitate john wayne who couldn't out act William shatner
HPF4240 8 months ago
@HPF4240 see thats what im talking about. your absurd, meaningless, rage infested insults obscure your ability to make a convincing point. the only thing you have right is that ive (obviously) got nothing better to do right now than sit here and dig deeper into what kind of immature, small minded person you are. maybe deep down i hope to insult your types so much that you kill yourselves and rid the planet of another half breed freak of the modern era who acts out of emotion instead of reason.
nashnwo1234 8 months ago
@HPF4240 Pardon my interjection, but I think Pepper put a shade more depth into the role of Lucky Ned. Robert Duvall just pushed through the lines, while Pepper brought some dramatic pauses and emotion into his few short lines. I do think Jeff Bridges brought a lot more dimension to Rooster Cogburn, a lot more personality. John Wayne had a limited number of personalities that he could act with, while Jeff Bridges is a little more versatile.
cracklingvoice 8 months ago
@cracklingvoice in this scene id agree with you for sure that pepper did add more depth, but its hard to compare. the scene where ned kidnapped the girl was done incredibly accurately by duvall. thats the beauty of these 2 movies to me, they are both incredible, some scenes from this one outshine scenes from the original, and vice versa. i love both of these movies a LOT, and i cant really choose 1 actor over the other for ANY of the characters except for POSSIBLY the new maddy ross, shes good.
nashnwo1234 8 months ago
@nashnwo1234 100%! A lot of the comments I've read regarding these films seem to be of the "JW's great; Bridges is shit" variety or vice versa, which I find really silly. I prefer the new one to the original, but that's just my preference; they're both great films to be seen and enjoyed.
galti111 8 months ago
@cracklingvoice also you cant forget that a lot of barry peppers acting as ned was an emulation of duvalls performance.
nashnwo1234 8 months ago
@nashnwo1234 Yes, but I'm probably biased. I like a lot of the work Barry Pepper has done (not to denigrate Robert Duvall in any way).
cracklingvoice 8 months ago
@cracklingvoice yeah pepper kicks ass in every role ive seen him do. especially this scene here. thats why i think he out shined bridges in this scene by far. i like the way he takes a hard gulp after rooster says he aims to kill him in 1 minute, you can see he knew he meant it.
nashnwo1234 8 months ago
@nashnwo1234
More like he knew Cogburn was very capable of carrying out that threat
patch5129 8 months ago
This scene does not even compare to the John Wayne version. They should have never made this movie. It just reinforces the fact that the movie makers of today cannot compare to the classics. They need to get their own ideas and not try to "steal" from movies of the past.
texsportpub 8 months ago
@texsportpub the reason they re-did this movie is because there were plenty of things in the old movie that didn't stick to what the author of the book had intended, and they were trying to do that. they didn't look to the movie for inspiration, they looked to the book. i'm glad they did too. and besides that, i didn't think the old one was that impressive.
ryanmacdaddy1000 7 months ago
@redcorpse I spent my entire life around old cowpokes and wranglers too, I live in Oklahoma and you're right, he could be anyone of them, and so could John Wayne. And I will give you that, John Wayne was drunk about 95% of the time. It was my personal opinion that John Wayne's version is better, and you have to admit, either way, either version this movie is amazing.
survivorman250 8 months ago
@survivorman250 you're right. he could be, but he chose not to, and the way he portrayed Cogburn was not what the author of the book had intended. Bridges did much better at doing that. also, you say Bridges had no business filling his shoes, he said he didn't even want to fill his shoes FYI. he too was concerned about them filming this movie at first
ryanmacdaddy1000 7 months ago
They did am amazing job casting people for this movie. Except casting Jeff Bridges, he is an old hippy who had no business trying to fill John Wayne's shoes. Seriously watch the original John Wayne version of this part of the movie with the same line, it's 10 times more epic. Bridges sounds like his mouth is full of marbles.
survivorman250 8 months ago
@survivorman250 What, you mean the same John Wayne who looks like a cuddly care bare when drunk? Who provides us with the happy fluffy rainbows everything is now kittens ending? That sad sack somehow outshines Bridges performance? Let me tell you I spent every summer of my life when I was a child with old wranglers, hands and cowboys and Bridges could be any one of them. It was scary how good he was at pulling it off. If you want your Hollywood endings though I guess Wayne would be your choice.
redcorpse 8 months ago 4
@redcorpse none of what your saying is based on fact or even opinion. youre just angry because someone said something about this version of the movie and it somehow insulted YOU, and turned your vision red, so you decided to make absurd statements and disrespect a version of the movie that won the awards. sickening generation of young people, thats all i know, and im young.
nashnwo1234 8 months ago
@nashnwo1234 well back then people were easily pleased and without jw and rd that movie would have been crap probably I beleive this movie was more in depth, more realistic, and a better acted by all the actors. Its a lot tougher to win an acadamey award now then it was in 69. Thats just my oppinion though.
lonnie727 8 months ago
@lonnie727 back then people were more easily pleased? how would you know anything about what people were like "back then" when you're 15 years old. "back then" to you is when britney spears was still popular.
nashnwo1234 8 months ago
@nashnwo1234 They must have been easily pleased cause the old true girt was pretty bad without john wayne and in general movies just werent as good. You dont have to be old to know that. 30 years from now movies will be even better thats just how the world works. Is a walkman better then an ipod? no. And Im almost 17 now and I am at least honest enough to admit the world evolves and better things are created. Im not trying to insult you in anyway if I have I do apologize.
lonnie727 8 months ago
@lonnie727 thats just your opinion though, it means absolutely nothing to me. i already pointed out like 3 weeks ago on here that the new film SHOULD be better than the original, it was made 30 years later and with better technology. but no i dont feel that john wayne was the only reason that the original was good. the story from the book is incredible, the movie was based on that. john wayne just happened to play rooster incredibly well, making the movie great. robert duvall was incredible too.
nashnwo1234 8 months ago
@nashnwo1234 Point taken. You are entitled to your oppinion but it is not an oppinion that the new movie stays more loyal to the incredible story of true grit. It is a fact. But it is an oppinion that Kim darby was mediocre at best, and Glen Cambell was just terrible. Its the popular oppinion but not a fact. And Jeff Bridges played Rooster as the book potrayed him. The only actor i beleive perforemed better then the new film was robert Duvall. But the fact that Jeff bridges potrayed rooster
lonnie727 8 months ago
@nashnwo1234from the book (which was better then both movies) is self evident.
lonnie727 8 months ago
@redcorpse John Wayne was no typical cowboy. That's the point but there was something very manly and yest comfortable about John Wayne that other men like Bridges has to work at in this movie and its obvious. I like the Bridges one too, don't get me wrong. I just don't feel attached to it because it seemed more like acting and I think great acting doesn't always have to be so much work. Hence why a natural like John is more appreciated.
burgrman 5 months ago
@burgrman Seems to me that Bridges is much more natural than Wayne. Wayne is just an icon. They are both excellent though.
CountryMichael 5 months ago
I think Barry Pepper is extremely under appreciated in his role. He was awesome as Lucky Ned (even if he didn't get much screen time.)
MaxCovington543 8 months ago
Jeff Bridges gave a better line...like a slightly crazy man about to rush four armed men, most of whom are firing 45 calibre rounds.
BuckMuscles 8 months ago
any man that wears an eye patch is badass
bigmanoooo1 9 months ago
You should've show the whole scene, as it's full of an awful lot of action and emotion and shows us all just what Rooster Cogburn's made of...and the music os good too :-)
81Northman 9 months ago
The chicken guy reminds me of zach galifinakis lol...
fatsomamacheese 9 months ago
where is the full shootout??
paulheron2 9 months ago
thats fine with me
Topher7527 10 months ago
Tell me the chicken guy wouldnt make a good seth if they made a red dead redemption movie lol that guys creepy
MustacheStashCash 11 months ago
why the fuck did you not put the full scene?
cruffrider5 11 months ago 32
@cruffrider5 probably because the usher arrested him
TheMrPwnster 10 months ago