Western Retrospective: True Grit Original vs Remake

This is the brain and you're listening to the

geek cast radio network. Yes Hello and welcome

to episode 243 of the cinema geeks I am one of

your cinema geeks optimist solo and joining me

as usual is the comic concierge. Hello, dan Hey,

how's it going? It's going well. We are back

today to cover more of our Western retrospective.

If you have not been keeping up with us, I first

urge you to go back and listen to some previous

episodes. We've been having fun making our way

through some different sections or different

subtopics or subgenres, I guess, of Westerns,

however you want to call it. But we've arranged

it in some different kind of blocks. We have

covered some John Ford and John Wayne films early

on. and then we went and did a block of spaghetti

westerns the man with no name trilogy django

and once upon a time in the west and we're currently

working our way through original slash remake

westerns so last time we you heard us talk about

310 to yuma both the original and the remake

of that that came in more modern times it feels

weird because to me it's like oh that just came

out you know a couple years ago but no it's been

longer than that and the same with what we're

covering today which is going to be the two different

versions of true grit the first one came out

in 1969 and the second one came out in 2010 dan

if you would be so kind to remind everybody about

what your experience was with the two true grit

movies going into today Yeah, it does make you

feel old when you realize a movie came out in

2007 is 20 years old next year. And we'll be

coming out in 2010 is 16 years old. It's just.

Yeah, that doesn't feel real. But yeah, my experience

had seen the original. I saw the original in

theater. No, sorry. Don't flip that. I saw the

remake in theaters. I did not see the original

in theaters. That'd be weird. So I had. This

was my first time seeing the remake of True Grit.

So it was similar to last week where I had seen

the remake. So this was an interesting experience

to go back, watching the original, and seeing

how it was the same, how it differed from my

experience with the 2010 version. Yeah, I had

a very similar situation here where I had seen

the original back in 2010. I believe I only saw

it, though. the first time and if i did see it

a second time it was had to be very close to

that like when it was in the theater and like

maybe when it first came out on dvd or something

like that i don't know but like i know i have

not seen it in quite some time um and i had never

seen the original so it was going to be a first

time watch for the original and i was intrigued

after our experience with 310 to yuma how this

would be watching them both back to back so i'm

very interested to hear your take and to get

into like how that worked but before we do any

of that dan is going to lay some groundwork for

the original 1969 version and once we kind of

have that all set and ready to go we will give

you our thoughts on the original and then we'll

come back and do the same thing for the 2010

version and at the end we'll kind of do some

comparing and contrasting so let's let dan take

it away with the the facts about the 1969 version

of true grit The Duke is back as John Wayne makes

his return to our Western retrospective as we

discuss True Grit, directed by Henry Hathaway,

starring Kim Darby, Glenn Campbell, and of course,

the aforementioned John Wayne. In the film, Maddie

Ross goes to Fort Smith after a drifter named

Tom Chaney kills her father. Maddie discovers

that Chaney has fled into Indian territory where

only a marshal can get him. A marshal has true

grit. Hence the name. In order to vanquish not

only Chaney, but also the group of outlaws he's

now connected with, led by the notorious bandit,

Lucky Ned Pepper, played by Robert Duvall, and

also includes Moon, played by Dennis Hopper.

So Maddie finds the toughest marshal of the West,

the one -eyed Reuben J. Cogburn, played by John

Wayne, who's never known a dry day in his life.

And it's not because it rains a lot. So she hires

him for $100 to go after Chaney and Pepper. Rooster

soon pairs with a young Texan named LaBeef, played

by Glen Campbell, who's also looking for Cheney

as he killed a Texas Senator after a confrontation

over a dog. Maddie and LaBeef are a bit at odds.

LaBeef doesn't want her to join the chase, but

Maddie hangs on and Rooster lets her come with

them. Of course, their venture does lead to a

lot of bickering, but after an ambush where Moon

and Quincy are killed, Maddie falls down a hill

and becomes face -to -face with Chaney and wounds

him before being kidnapped by Ned Pepper. Ned

forces Rooster and Labeef to withdraw and leaves

Maddie with Chaney as a hostage. As Ned and the

rest of his gang leave, Chaney uses that opportunity

to attack Maddie, but luckily, Labeef is there

to save them. And then Maddie and Labeef witness

the last fight between Ned Pepper and the three

of his men, one on one side and Rooster all alone

on the other. They all charge on their horses,

and Rooster kills three men and injures Pepper

before his horse, Bo, is killed under him. He

desperately tries to get his gun as the dying

Ned comes closer. At the very last moment, Labeef

fires from the hill. He stands on with Maddie.

and shoots Ned Pepper and saves Rooster's life.

But then, Chaney is able to escape and hits the

beef on the top of the head with a big stone.

However, Maddie is able to defend herself and

shoots Chaney, but the power of the gun causes

her to fall backwards into a giant pit, and she's

surrounded by deadly snakes. Rooster arrives

at that moment and kills Chaney who was still

trying to hurt Maddie, but is unable to get to

Maddie before she's bitten by a snake. Eventually,

he makes his way down and holds the unconscious

body of Maddie, but with no way of getting up.

Luckily, LePeef wakes up just a little to pull

them out with a horse and a rope before falling

dead. Rooster then takes Maddie on a perilous

journey back to town to find a doctor in order

to save her life. The film is based upon a novel

by Charles Portis, but does change a good amount

of the story. Initially, John Wayne didn't want

to do the film. He felt that Rooster Cogburn

was too similar to roles he already played, but

eventually took it on, and it ended up winning

him his only Academy Award for Best Actor. Director

Henry Hathaway had a reputation for being tough

and old -school, similar to John Ford, and similar

to Ford, he also clashed a bit with Wayne. during

filming. He pushed for a more grounded performance,

while Wayne leaned more into the larger -than

-life qualities of Cogburn. Casting for Maddie

Ross was actually quite tricky. They chose to

go with Kim Darby, who was actually 21 at the

time, despite playing 14 years old, but she was

able to handle a dialogue where more younger

actresses simply could not do it. Another unusual

casting choice was Glen Campbell, who was really

just a country star at the time. This was his

first acting performance. He reportedly relied

heavily on cue cards during filming, and Wayne

helped him through his scenes, mentoring him

to try to ease his nerves, and I guess it worked

well enough because he was nominated for a Golden

Globe. This was one of the biggest box office

hits of 1969, which was a bit of a surprise as

the Western genre was starting to lose popularity,

especially this style of Western. But it was

successful enough to get a sequel called Rooster

Cogburn, where John Wayne reprises his role alongside

Katharine Hepburn. Critically, the response was

generally positive, but not universally glowing.

Many reviewers praised John Wayne's performance

as Cogburn, calling it one of the most entertaining

and charismatic roles of his career. However,

some critics felt the film was a bit too old

-fashioned compared to the grittier, more revisionist

westerns emerging at the time, many of the spaghetti

westerns that we've covered previously. But where

do Kevin and I stand? Back to us to discuss.

All right. Thanks for that, Dan. So that is the

facts about the 1969 version of True Grit. Both

of these films obviously based on a novel of

the, I believe of the same name written by Charles

Portis, I believe is the name. And the novel

came out in 1968. So the 1969 was like almost

an immediate adaptation of a novel. And then

obviously we, we wait some, 41 years if i'm doing

my math right for the remake which also seems

like a long time um so dan what was your uh reaction

to the first time watch of the original true

grit it was interesting like last week of course

doing the 310 to yuma and going into it and like

realizing like in a sense of how drastically

different it was stylistically you know it was

we had the original being like much more of a

psychological thriller, much more dialogue -driven.

With this, the foundations of this, as I was

going into it, it's been a while since I saw

the 2010 version, but everything felt very familiar

that way. It wasn't as drastically different

of an experience, but also realizing this is

coming out. In 1969. It's interesting because

this feels like a movie a bit lost in time. And

we just got through the Spaghetti Westerns, realizing

those are coming out around the same time. Of

course, this is John Wayne as we've done. This

is our fourth John Wayne film, actually. So we've

seen a lot of him. And obviously this is the

latest one we've done thus far. But it's interesting

just seeing. Much of what I liked about True

Grit, the 2010 version, is here. The story itself,

I think, is the foundation. There's not much

different. They didn't drastically change much.

There are some changes here and there, and we'll

get into that later. But generally, I think they

keep the spirit. I think, if anything, the style

is what is different, like the execution of it.

And I think this is made... Very much like the

classic Western. Like if you told me John Ford

directed this, I would somewhat believe you because

it has that old school style. Or if you told

me this was made in the 1950s, I would believe

you because even though obviously, you know,

John Wayne is much older, but it has that, you

know, that style. The camera work is very straightforward.

It has that type of sense of humor. It's very

simplistic in its approach. It feels very much

of that era, even like the haircuts and the dialogue,

which is somewhat of the classic era. They did

keep some of the dialogue of the original novel,

which I actually didn't read back when I watched

the 2010 version, but I couldn't tell you what

it kept and what it didn't keep. But generally,

it feels like it's just a movie at a time, which

is intriguing. But I do think in a lot of ways,

does also show you as we'll get into the 2010

version just the power how much filmmaking can

enhance a film in the sense of like this just

feels kind of like the basic version of the movie

like it it hits all the beats i think john wayne

is good here but i don't think he is drastically

better here compared to some of his previous

performances we've done thus far like i think

he's just as good if not better in the searchers

like obviously it's a character that's a bit

harsher and with Rooster Cogburn, but I don't

think he really leans into it as much. I think

he's more affable, and not to get ahead of ourselves,

but I think if you look at how they differ, this

film compared to the last, I do think they round

his edges a bit, and I think that was a bit purposeful.

I think John Wayne didn't go all in on that.

I think he still kept his John Wayne -ness in

some ways, but... I generally still enjoyed it.

I still thought it had a lot about what I liked

about True Grit. Although we're not in the revisionist

Western section of our Retro and Retrospective,

it has elements of that. I think Maddie is a

great character. I do think the performances

here are pretty good, but I do think some of

the casting choices are... lessen the impact

of some of the key points of this story, like

Kim Darby, for example. I think she gives a good

performance, but when you think about the fact

that she's playing a 14 -year -old girl, it harkened

back to our Cary Grant retrospective in one of

his films. I can't think of the name of the film,

but he was meant to play... None But a Lonely

Heart. None But a Lonely Heart, when he's meant

to play a teenager. And it just, it didn't work

as well because clearly he wasn't, and it wasn't

as, it wasn't as bad, but I do think it, it was

partially holding it back a bit because she's

clearly not 14. So it's like that, you know,

it's like, you know, but she's, it's not like

I, it's, it's a Hollywood, you know, Hollywood

14, you know, we've, we've seen worse examples

of it. And I do think Glenn Campbell, obviously

John Wayne, he is meant to be like, His counterweight,

I think he gets outclassed in pretty much every

scene. I don't think he's necessarily up for

the challenge, considering he's a first -time

actor. It's pretty evident, I think, for the

most part. But I still, like I said, I think

what works, the dialogue is still sharp. I do

think Kim Darby, even if maybe I don't think

she was the best casting choice, her performance

is still strong. And even if I don't think...

This is John Wayne's best performance. I know

he won the Oscar. I do think it's probably a

career achievement Oscar. I still think he's

good. I still think it's a good John Wayne. So

I overall enjoyed it. I do think it's a good,

enjoyable, classic Western, but it's not one

that I think is anything special or anything

that I feel like is remarkable in how it's constructed

or made. on a craftman standpoint, I feel like

I'm rambling a little bit. So I'll just pass

it over to you and see what you thought about

this one. Yeah. I mean, I think we may have some

differing opinions on some details maybe, or

some like slight differences when it comes to

maybe what worked for us more than what didn't.

But I feel like overall, we're probably going

to be in lockstep on this. I. i don't know i

feel like i'm going to be more positive on a

couple aspects and then more negative on some

but i think in in general i'm going to land probably

close to where you did i do i didn't think about

it before but i think you make a good a great

point actually comparing this to the earlier

john ford john wayne com like collaborations

i didn't really necessarily think of that but

outside of an age difference you could have easily

told me that they were all like within a very

short time period of each other or like consecutive

or different things like that like now that i

think about it it does pretty much fit with a

lot of those films from a feel from a aesthetic

from a execution standpoint and things like that

i probably would say john ford is a slightly

better i don't know overall but like just comparing

the john ford films to this specific film i think

john ford probably is the better director oh

definitely than henry hathaway yeah yeah when

it comes to that and it seems like there was

a lot of uh a lot of angst on the set like it's

weird like a lot of the research i did or the

trivia and stuff that i looked at for henry hathaway

and just for true grit in general it seemed like

there was a lot of people that didn't like each

other on this set like yeah henry hathaway is

just openly like quoted as saying that he hated

kim darby in this role and he hated glenn campbell

I shouldn't say hated. I don't think he says

hate. He didn't like their performances or he

didn't like that they were cast. You're the director.

Maybe things were different back then. If you

had that strong of a distaste for these folks,

were you just forced to use them? I don't know.

Maybe that's how it was back in this time period.

Mostly because of the contracts and things like

that. And then there's a few of the side characters

that say that Hathaway was like... an absolute

jerk to work for so it's like i don't know like

so there's there's some stuff there right and

um there's conflicting reports on john wayne

and kim darby and how they got along some reports

you know from her like mentioned some very like

nice things and kind things that john wayne did

for and then there's other reports that basically

were like he didn't have anything to do with

or didn't talk to her like didn't like that she

was cast in the role i know he wanted his daughter

to be that part so i'm sure that kind of played

into it he very much campaigned to be this role

and then like really wanted his daughter to play

maddie ross and that obviously didn't happen

but getting into the actual actual film i do

think this is very round round edges like you

said i think there's some very clear hollywood

aspects of this uh you know i will get more into

that when we do a little bit more of comparing

and contrasting and you know talking about maybe

the novel a little bit and things of that nature

but you definitely got a sense of like everything

being tied up nicely um you got some like humor

more than i expected i guess in this one and

i'm not saying it's good or bad i one place where

i probably differ from you is i actually kind

of really like john wayne in this role oh yeah

um i don't know why i don't know if i've just

because it's the fourth film i've seen him in

and i'm just more used to his style but i thought

it was a little less melodramatic or over -the

-top than some of the other ones. Maybe it's

just the fact that he doesn't have a line he

says 300 times in this film that I appreciate.

I was surprised at his humor and some of his

timing on his humorous aspects. The scene where

he falls off the horse or whatever, stumbles

and basically gets on the ground. The way he

sells the not being able to stand back up on

his own because he's too drunk. And then like

how he kind of like points to the ground is like,

we're going to camp here, like right here. Like

I, that scene cracked me up. Like I thought that

was funny. And I thought there were some other

aspects along the way that like were humor that

I wasn't expecting from John Wayne. Cause I don't

know if I saw that as much from some of the earlier

roles or maybe I just didn't pick it out. Maybe

it was there and I just missed it. So I, I kind

of liked him in this. My problem is more so with

everybody else. Like Kim Darby. has some good

aspects it's it's you make a good comparison

because carrie grant's a great actor right in

my opinion like he's he's a really good actor

and he brings a lot of things to every role but

you're right in none but the lonely heart that

did not work because of the age difference and

i couldn't get past it kim darby is playing a

14 year old and she is a 21 year old that has

already had a child and is the middle of a divorce

when she's doing this film like i'm sorry not

that you know any of that when you're watching

it but when i read that it all made sense like

i'm like yeah okay that makes a lot of sense

as to why i had not for one second was i buying

her in this specific role at this age and kind

of coming across with like this role demands

it it demands a little bit of pun intended but

it demands a little bit of the grit right I know

they talk about Rooster Cogburn having the grit,

but Kim Darby's character has to have some of

that, right? And I think she gets that part.

But I think it's the balancing of that with the

age factor that is the meat and potatoes of that

character. And I think it's hard for her to do

that with... kind of the innocence and the age

factor mixing with the grit because it just comes

across as grit from somebody who's already been

through some stuff, right? Like, I didn't get,

like, more of that innocence factor from her.

So, like, I struggled with her, not necessarily

her performance, but just, like, I think it's

more about, like you said, the casting, right?

Like, I don't know if she does a bad job. I just

think it doesn't work for other reasons. Glenn

Campbell is, to me, is terrible in this. Like...

Not very good. Yeah, like, you can definitely

tell that he is not an experienced actor. I tried

to look past that because there's some other

acting things in other films that maybe not be

top notch but like from what they were playing

and like the genre and things like that it's

like okay that's like whatever I obviously we

get a very young supporting role here from both

Robert Duvall and Dennis Hopper and like that's

fun it's fun to see them at this young part you

know in their this younger stage in their career

but I know it's how they're probably written

in the novel and things of that nature, but the

quote -unquote villains or the gang or everybody

that's not the main three characters is not developed

whatsoever. You get so little time with them

and so little development that I'm not saying

they're paper thin, but there's not a lot to

them. Maybe there doesn't have to be, but what

I'm left with when I'm watching the whole thing

is the fact that This film so relies and is dependent

upon Rooster Cogburn and Matty Ross. That has

to work in this film because that is the central

point of all of this film. And to me, if you

take John Wayne out of this and put someone else

in that role, I don't know if any part of this

film would work for me. I enjoyed watching him

in the role. I thought he was doing a good job.

I enjoyed the humor. and i think he was able

to save the plane of like how he interacted with

uh kim darby's character maddie ross and like

it saved that relationship for me but with her

kind of not being the perfect cast i think if

that if he if you didn't have somebody real strong

to like make that connection and that like one

-on -one situation work because that is the that

is the crux of this film like the the gritty

u .s marshall that's a drunkard and whatnot like

getting in touch with a different side of him

through this girl who's trying to you know write

a wrong that was done to her family like everything

relies on that and i think john wayne saves it

enough where it is an it is a enjoyable quote

-unquote classic feel western to me but it is

like one step away from being bad like it's good

and it works for me and i'm gonna probably be

overall just slightly positive on it but like

it's a tightrope walk for me where i was like

this is like two degrees away from being a train

wreck and it doesn't go there it's not a train

wreck but it definitely was a different experience

like watching the first original 310 to yuma

yeah raised a bar for me that was going to be

hard for the the remake to meet I don't know

if this one raised that same bar for me when

it was time to go into the 2010 one, but I don't

know. I like John Wayne in it. I like the story

overall. I do think that there's some good aspects

of the quote -unquote villains. I just don't

know. What are you left with at the end without

John Wayne? Is there anything that you would

remember about this film? I don't know. That's

what I'm kind of wrestling with. Interesting.

Because I do think, yeah, like I mentioned, I

do think the casting, clearly she's not 14, but

I don't think it was, I think in the sense of

her ability to handle what is such a complex

part regarding, like the dialogue here is not

easy. Like it is a challenge. It is hefty dialogue

that requires a very specific cadence. And I

thought in the sense of her ability to hold that

and like have that command, I thought, I thought

she handled many of those scenes quite well,

especially like the scene where she's, you know,

selling the horses and yeah, no, I think she

was good in that. Yeah. So I thought in that

sense, like I, like I thought overall, like her

performance was, you know, it's work. I think

where, like you mentioned where she, where it

could have i think been more effective is that

we don't see her journey this journey having

the impact on her as a person as much as it should

in the sense of she doesn't seem to really develop

or change throughout in the sense like where

she ends up right especially that end sequence

like the the final sequence here where we get

you know rooster cogburn and her like at the

grave site she feels just if anything more wide

-eyed and less aware of the world you know saying

oh this is where you're you know this is your

grave spot and this is where you'll stay and

it seems more almost more kid -like in that moment

compared to like anything else like that came

before which is you know a bit strange so i think

that's where If anything, I think that's more

of the writing than even her performance there,

too. I think there was something slight missing

between the chemistry between her and John Wayne,

too. I felt like they're both trying for it,

and I feel like John Wayne's doing some heavy

lifting there, but it never quite clicked for

me what we're supposed to be getting between

these two characters who are supposed to both

be learning from each other, right? And helping

each other develop. There's supposed to be an

arc here. There's supposed to be John Wayne going

from the gruff... I don't need anybody to like

showing some emotion and, and like some feel

for her. And like, she's supposed to be going

from, you know, this innocent, but like go get

her girl to like getting more in touch with like

a sense of reality. And like maybe the fact that,

you know, needs to do a little bit more, you

know, thinking out of things and not being as

impulsive and, you know, weighing the consequences

of what she's doing. Like, this movie definitely

glosses over any type of yes i know they're going

against the gang and i know there's gunfights

and stuff like that it makes a a journey through

the western frontier seem not very dangerous

in some respects like i know there's a snake

involved and i know there's some shooting there's

not a lot of other stuff they come against right

like so i think it leaves a problem for this

film that I, I probably also have a little bit

with the next one, but probably especially in

this one, like they're traveling in a, a Western

frontier that to me does not feel lived in. Like

it doesn't feel as authentic or real as we've

gotten with some of these other Westerns that

we've seen. like for example we're going through

indian territory and it's very built up that

this is super dangerous the other police will

not go there it's it's not they don't venture

into that it's too dangerous you need like the

the biggest baddest u .s marshal to do this and

the only people they come into contact with is

the gang that they're looking for almost like

i guess there's like maybe one or one other they

come across a doctor or something like that or

i might be getting the two films confused but

like we don't come across any native americans

We don't come across any other, like, just outlaws

that are out in the West, hardly. Like, who is

living in this Indian territory? Because I don't

know if we ever see them. Yeah. Yeah, I guess

I didn't necessarily have as much of an issue

with that, because I think if anything, what

was more so a challenge here is that, going back

to you mentioned, like, with John, John Wayne

and Ken Darby, like, not having that, like, that

connection, that relationship. It's because they

don't really get that much time alone, like,

within this. Like, they don't have that split

up between Labeef and Rooster Cogburn. They're

kind of always together. So then Maddie doesn't,

like, have as much of an active role in, like,

doing things. She's always kind of just, you

know, sitting back and witnessing things or things

just kind of happen. Right. So it's... The one

time she does take action in the sense of shooting

Tom Chaney and wounding him. And then, of course,

falling down. She's really good at falling down

in this version because she does it twice. But

I think that's part of it, too. They don't get

those moments kind of alone to bond because it's

always the three of them. compare and it's it

moves a bit quicker like it does cut the fat

in the sense of like there's like you mentioned

we kind of move from scene to scene to scene

i did enjoy like what you talked about sorry

to interrupt i did enjoy that sequence with her

and the negotiation and like kind of not just

that but you do get like the fact that she's

very able to talk her way into a lot of different

things like in those opening sequences where

she's still dealing with people within the town

um and i think i may appreciate how this movie

handles the opening sequence i do think i felt

a little bit more vested in what was going on

with her character and i like the fact that they

show the the tom chaney and her father and like

that whole situation like i felt like this one

handled the introductory i guess in my opinion

a little better And like, I enjoyed like how

it kind of set up both her role in it, Tom Chaney's

role in it and how we get to exactly where we're

getting. I don't know if I needed the hanging

sequence per se, but like, as far as like the

actual, like her father and Tom Chaney, like

doing what they do, what it leads to with the

death and, and kind of where she's coming from.

And then kind of her interaction with the town.

I thought it was handled decently in this one

to where like, I totally understood everything

and kind of, it made me a little more invested

in her journey. At first so I did appreciate

that and I do think she had some good good sequences

in the town with you know the different things

that she's doing to obtain a horse and obtain

a you know, there's more back and forth with

how she gets to Rooster Cogburn. Yeah, and and

all of that. So I did kind of appreciate that

aspect of this film. Sorry to interrupt you I

know that's that's fine. I As interesting we

can talk about that in the second thing. So I

actually I would say the op I like I really like

the design of how they approach it because i

think is it is very i think purposeful and how

anything and it makes certain things make more

sense with the setup but um with this like you

mentioned like with uh just to kind of go a different

direction with uh it's just interesting like

this is obviously mentioning that we have like

such a weird cast here because you know you have

robert duvall and dennis hopper and this is coming

out in like 1969 which is such and like a big

transition year for hollywood because this is

the same year as like easy rider and midnight

cowboy and it's so weird that this movie is coming

out at the same time because they're so like

stylistically like polar opposites you have Kind

of, you know, we're moving into the 70s, like,

you know, with the Godfathers and things like

this. And I think this to me is like much more

of an echo of the John Ford era. Like, obviously,

I don't think it's nearly as well made as a John

Ford film, but clearly trying to harken back

to his style in a lot of ways. But I think it's

interesting that it also does have, you know,

it has Robert Duvall and has Dennis Hopper in

these roles. within the same year that they're

well obviously devolves not in godfather yet

but he's on the way to become one of the greatest

actors hopper is in easy rider which is such

a landmark movie this year so just it's interesting

just like looking from this movie at the outside

considering like it's so weird that this is a

movie that's coming out in 1969 because it's

yeah there's so many reasons why this feels like

this did not come out at that time period yeah

it's it's like the date's wrong on this it's

yeah meant to say 59 or something like that yeah

it's just that's just and and but it was obviously

quite successful i mean the same year too and

we'll get a movie we'll cover later down the

road is like which casted the you know some dance

kid which says i think very different compared

to something like this but it just shows you

how like how like the westerns were going in

very different ways but I could see this is more

like your dad's Western in a lot of ways. And

I think some of those elements, I think I do

like because it does have that, you know, that

it feels very welcoming and classic in some of

those ways. But yeah, I do think, like you mentioned,

you do have to get John Wayne credit because

I'm not saying I didn't dislike his performance,

but he is the linchpin here in the sense of without

him, I don't know if. this is a movie that people

even if this even gets made or if gets it definitely

doesn't get remade i don't think i can't remember

who else they were looking at was it robert mitchum

who was it um i mean i guess i mean i could see

rich mitchum in this i think it would yeah he

certainly would elvis presley was the original

choice for labeef or laboof can you imagine That

would be crazy. He did do a lot of movies. Did

he make any movies with John Wayne? Am I ignorant

to the fact? Did they make a movie together?

I don't think so. I never watched a lot of Elvis

movies. I can't picture them both sharing a screen.

It would be a fever dream of some sort. I do

have to like the voice actor enthusiast in me

does have to mention because I also had just

seen him in Cary Grant's film That Touch of Mink

from 1962. but John Fiedler, the voice of Piglet

from Winnie the Pooh, plays Lawyer Daggett in

this. Okay. He came on screen, and he was talking,

and I'm like, I know that voice. I recognized

him from Trouble with Angry Men, and I know his

voice from something, and I can't spot it, but

now it makes sense. Yeah, definitely. I think

that would be the one you would most recognize

him, would be Piglet from Winnie the Pooh. I

think he does an owl or something in The Rescuers,

but Piglet's the main one. So that was fun to

see him. It's always fun to see some people that

you know just as voices who come across and then

you see the live action version of them and it's

like, oh. Especially when they use the exact

same voice almost. Yeah, it doesn't change much.

No, not at all. So should we get into the 2010

version and then we can do some comparing and

contrasting? Definitely. Alright, so Dan's going

to lay out some groundwork for the 2010 version

and then we will come back with our thoughts

on that one. I thought about doing this in my

Bass Rooster Cogburn impression, but I would

spare everyone the second -hand embarrassment.

The 2010 version of True Grit directed by the

Coen brothers follows a determined young teenage

girl, Maddie Ross, who travels to Fort Smith,

Arkansas, to avenge her father's murder by a

drifter named Tom Chaney. From the start, Maddie's

portrayed as unusually sharp, composed, and relentless.

She negotiates business matters with adults twice

her age, if not three times, and refuses to be

dismissed because of her youth or gender. Dissatisfied

with the local authorities, she hires the notorious,

tough, and hard -drinking U .S. Marshal, Rooster

Cogburn, a man known for his true grit. Hence

the title, meaning both courage and, of course,

stubbornness. Maddie insists on accompanying

Cogburn on this mission. Cogburn's reluctant,

but eventually agrees. But in reality, he was

actually just tricking her and leaves early in

the morning before Maddie is aware, thinking

he can get far ahead of her. But Maddie has some

true grit of her own and catches up with him

and Labeef, who's joined the party as well. They're

across the river, so they think that there's

no chance that she can come along. But she decides

to forge the river herself with her horse, and

anyone who's played Oregon Trail knows how dangerous

that is. But eventually, she catches up with

them, and reluctantly, Cogburn says, you can

come along with. The trio forms a tense and often

humorous partnership, clashing over pretty much

anything they can imagine, including how well

you can chew cornbread. As they track Chaney

through the harsh winter landscapes, the journey

becomes as much about survival and the characters

themselves as it does about revenge. The group

eventually locates Chaney among a gang of outlaws

led by Pepper. After a series of confrontations

that are very similar to the first film, Cogburn

famously charges the gang on horseback in a bold,

reckless attack, embodying the very grit Maddie

sought. Meanwhile, Maddie finally confronts Chaney

herself and shoots him, but the moment of vengeance

comes at a cost as she falls into a pit and is

bitten by a rattlesnake, turning that triumph

into a desperate race against death. In the film's

final stretch, Cogburn carries the injured Maddie

through the night to get her the medical attention

she desperately needs. in hopes of saving her

life. The story concludes with an epilogue years

later. Maddie, now an adult, reflects on the

events. She has lost an arm due to the snake

bite, but gained a hardened sense of identity.

When she returns to find Cogburn, she learns

that he's already died, leaving her with a bittersweet

sense of closure. Unlike the 1969 version starring

John Wayne, the Coen brothers aim to follow the

book much more faithfully, which is why the dialogue

seems so formal and old -fashioned. Many of the

lines are lifted almost directly from the book.

Also, unlike the 1969 version, Haley Steinfeld

was actually 13 years old, but she was unknown

at the time. She was chosen out of roughly 15

,000 auditions, and her performance was so strong,

she was nominated for an Oscar, technically in

the supporting actress category, but really,

she's the lead of this movie. Jeff Bridges intentionally

avoided watching John Wayne's performance again

before filming. His version of Cogburn is gruffier,

less heroic, and much harder to understand at

times. And yes, that's by design. I mean, I get

it. That's what I say too when people can't understand

me. Yeah, that's by design. But anyways, cinematographer

Roger Deakins approached many shots, especially

the interiors and night scenes, as if they were

classical paintings. I mean, he's one of the

best to do it. Some scenes were lit almost entirely

by practical light sources like campfires or

lamps, which made filming slower and more technically

challenging, but gave it a much more distinctive

look. Much of the shot took place during winter

conditions, and the actors have said the cold

naturally affected how they move and spoke. The

stiffness and exhaustion you see of the characters

is not fake that's just how they felt at the

time The film was well -received by critics and

was nominated for 10 Academy Awards, including

Best Picture, however, it didn't win any. The

film was a solid commercial success, earning

over $250 million worldwide, not bad especially

for a Western during that era. It also helped

launch Steinfeld's career, who of course was

just most recently in Sinners last year, and

reaffirmed Bridges' status as a leading character

actor. But what do Kevin and I think? Which film

do we enjoy more, the original or this version?

Back to us to discuss. All right. Thank you for

that, Dan. We are now in the 2010. So we've traveled

in time. We're talking a lot about time, I guess,

in today's episode. And we've also changed directors

from Hathaway to the Coen brothers. So it's just

a slight upgrade in director skill, I think,

here. But not trying to trash on Hathaway too

much. But the Coens are pretty good, right? And,

of course, we have a different cast and we have

some. some key differences that we'll get into

but before we're really comparing it to the original

i know we had both seen this one one you know

when it came out i know we were both fairly positive

on it how did your rewatch did it grow and become

even better than you remember did it fit the

same way that you thought it did originally or

kind of like how was the take now watching these

back to back and you know with some more experience

with westerns under your belt yeah it's a good

question so i really liked it when it came out

like that year uh i actually looked back to see

like you know because i was doing top tens there

it was in my top 10 that year it's like in number

three and so it was it was pretty high up there

after like social network and and mother and

going back to it i still really enjoyed it i

don't think i enjoyed it anymore or any less

it's still pretty highly ranked uh regarding

my overall i feel like Pretty even regarding

where I found it. If anything, I maybe appreciated

it a bit more in the sense of just noticing how

well and how impressive, especially the cinematography

in this, like Roger Deakins, of course, being

the cinematographer in so many of the Conan Brothers

films. He's done so many great things, and he's,

I think, a big star of what makes this work as

well as it does. And I think that's part of just

looking at the difference between this True Grit

and the one we talked about. It's an upgrade

in pretty much every area in the sense of cast

and crew. I do think the Coen brothers are better

directors. Well, although their recent output

hasn't been great. When they're together and

they're working, they seem to give us some great

films, especially in this era. And then the cast

itself, of course, Jeff Bridges. John Wayne's

probably the bigger icon. I would argue Jeff

Bridges is the better actor. Haley Steinfeld,

although this was her debut film, has proven

to be a better actress. And of course, Matt Damon

and Josh Brolin. Although I would say Barry Pepper

isn't as good as Robert Duvall, so maybe not

an upgrade in every performance in every area,

but in most eras. And I still think it is...

really just so well made. And you mentioned like

how it's structured differently. Cause like,

like you mentioned in this, we don't get that

opening sequence of seeing Maddie's dad and seeing

him go through to town and like getting an opportunity

to at least see the relationship here. Only thing

we see is him lying on the ground, snow falling

and getting that, you know, voiceover in the

beginning. But what I like about this, and I

think what, what works about it is that this

is all through Maddie's perspective. Like this

is her kind of looking back and kind of telling

the story herself. And I think that helps the

sense of inform nearly like every major decision

and kind of why it's made the way it is and why

it's a bit odd. And it's kind of, it's. structured

in a way where it doesn't necessarily flow seamlessly

from point A to point B, especially once we get

into the actual journey. We go from scene to

scene. We don't know exactly where we are in

the territory. We don't get a map and it's like,

oh, we're going here, we're going there. We're

just kind of going. She's thinking back at the

time when she was just a child. She didn't know.

She was just following along. And also just the

awkwardness of it. And just it's almost has like

a fairy tale quality to it in some ways. And

I think you see that just like, again, like how

well this is shot. There's so many great shots,

but also in how specifically it's anti -Western

in a lot of the ways that it's approached. Like

you don't get a lot of those hero shots. And

we just we did the spaghetti Westerns. And of

course, you know, we got all those great like.

closeups of the faces with the amazing score

and the tension here. We don't get that. Like

when we have a lot of those showdowns, we're

really far away. Like we're, we're often like

in the distance, you know, viewing it from afar.

You know, I think it's intriguing. It's almost

like, again, like going back and trying to do

that revisionist style in some ways. And again,

just the performances here, I think are great.

And the use of language is intriguing. How many

people would be frustrated with this? Because

it's almost like Shakespearean in how you don't

necessarily understand everything that's being

said. Like the dialogue, especially Jeff Bridges,

who mumbling and talking, you don't always understand

it. But I think his performance is fantastic.

And where John Wayne, the edges are rounded off,

you don't get that here. Hey, the first time

we see him, he's. literally in the outhouse and

like, just to kind of give an idea of like, okay,

this is, this is who he is. And then Haley Seinfeld,

this being her first actual performance. Amazing.

Like her before is, I still think it's probably

her best performance that she's done. Her ability,

like we, this is the same script. It's not a

harder script than the original because it keeps

to the, to the book even more. And wow. like

kudos to the direction kudos to like whatever

whatever was done but like i remember watching

this the first time and i'm like wow who i thought

at the time like oh she must be like you know

a child star she must be coming from some disney

channel thing nope this was like her first her

first performance and then matt damon if anything

you could argue maybe matt damon's the weaker

link because he he doesn't and he doesn't get

much to do but like you know he's just it's not

like This isn't like a Matt Damon performance

I first think of. He's good in this, but he's

more of the butt of the joke. But anyways, still,

I love this movie. I wouldn't say it's the strongest

film we've done thus far. It's up there, but

I quite enjoy it on so many different levels.

It's well made. It's well put together. And yeah,

so I guess you can say I liked it. How about

yourself? I liked it originally. It was in my

top 10 of that year as well, just like you. I

don't think it was maybe quite all the way up

at number 3, but it was definitely in my top

10, which is always good as far as that goes.

I do remember enjoying it quite a bit. I don't

know if it was just because I didn't set the

bar as high with the original one as we did with

310 to Yuma, but this one was much more able

to live up to my memories than the modern 310

to Yuma was. I still like that film, but this

one was... far better in almost every respect

like it's just a better made film you get better

scenery you get better uh acting slash performances

of the characters i think it does benefit from

being from maddie's point of view i still somewhat

think that i understand why and because of being

maddie's view it was almost though to me like

we don't want to show Tom Chaney in the early

scenes. Cause we just want to hold back the fact

that we have Josh Brolin playing that character

and like surprise you with it later. Like that's

probably not what they were doing, but like part

of me was like, I, I would have, it was like

a faceless character that I wasn't really invested

in by the way they did it. But I do under, I

do understand. Cause Maddie wouldn't have necessarily

seen that. It would have been stories that she

was told or whatever, a different secondhand

account, things of that nature. So that is what

it is. But the other thing is like, being from

maddie's perspective it's almost like i would

have expected more of those opening sequences

with her doing some of the stuff in the town

we do get quite a bit of that but hayley steinfeld's

like by far better like in almost every way like

it's a revelation and you talk about you know

the script and things like that i did read something

that like she was basically among 15 000 applicants

for this role and the reason she got the job

was because out of the people that they actually

They might not have actually auditioned 15 ,000

or whatever, but whatever number that they actually

auditioned, I know a couple people had mentioned

or somebody had mentioned in the process that

she was one of the only ones at that age that

could handle the script and was able to digest

it and put it out where it sounded like somebody

who could actually handle it. I guess she was

just talented from go. definitely works i think

for me that which in turn makes the chemistry

between her and rooster cogburn better her and

jeff bridges like it just works better for me

we also get due to the writing and the direction

of or the screenplay or whatever we do get more

time with those two alone which was an interesting

choice at first i was like oh they're like we

get matt damon and then he's instantly like taken

out of the some of the scenes that we would have

expected you know based on the original but i

do think it benefited the relationship between

ross and cogburn for sure in this film i think

the villains are equally well cast like you know

hopper and and uh devol you know and then here

we get brolin barry pepper domino gleason like

pretty good right like it's not it's not too

much of a of a drastic change I think Josh Brolin's

pretty good in it even though he comes across

almost like more comedic than the original Tom

Chaney in a weird way not comedic but just more

awkward or odd or something the the other Tom

Chaney seems like a more of a combination of

drunk and dangerous whereas this this one was

just kind of like a weird combination of something

but it worked for me I'm also a big Josh Brolin

fan and I was really thrown off by the ending

of this film because In the ending of this film,

Haley Steinfeld's character, who's being played

at that point by somebody else, Elizabeth Marvel,

I think is the name, walks into a setting where

she's trying to basically look up Rooster Cogburn

at a later time and see him. And she interacts

with two guys that are part of this, what is

it, like a circus or something? Yeah, like an

old wildlife show. Yeah, yeah. And she runs into

two of the guys, and I'm looking at... my wife

and I said did they really just throw Josh Brolin

in as a dual role here like Josh Brolin is clearly

the other guy sitting down there yet he's not

alive but they have him doubling as a different

person and then she makes some type of comment

about like sit down you piece of trash or whatever

and I'm like even she knows it's Josh Brolin

but it can't be Josh Brolin because he's not

alive anymore and then I'm like looking at the

cast and nobody like shows who it is but then

I found it on imdb or something that it's josh

brolin's brother and i was just like so thrown

off because i'm like i saw the brolin like i

can see the family resemblance i'm like what

is going on here it was a very minor part that

had nothing to do with my overall liking or not

of the film but i it was like a what moment where

i was like i got to do like some instant research

to figure out who is playing that person um because

i was convinced that they just like dressed up

josh brolin a little bit differently and had

him play like a second part but um Yeah, I do

like the way that the structure goes with taking

Matt Damon out of it a little while, giving you

that one -on -one connection. They throw some

more bits in here with the shooting of the biscuits

or whatever those things are called, like throwing

up and shooting those in a way, which is obviously

a whole comedic sequence. But this film is much

less focused on any type of humor, whereas I

think we get a little bit more of that in the

original. This one is much more of a realistic

look at the Wild West for me, or the Old West,

or however you want to say it. Like you said,

the corners are not rounded. Things are much

more kind of dark and realistic and authentic

to me. It still feels a little less lived in

than I wanted. I think both films suffer from

that. And I still have a problem with LeBouf

or LeBeef's character overall. I know it's Matt

Damon. I'm a humongous Matt Damon fan. I don't

think I'm a fan of this role of Matt Damon's.

Like, I don't know if it's how the character

is written or just something that just never

clicks with either situation, both in the original

film and this film. But I just feel like that

character left something to be wanted in both

versions. Maybe not any fault of the actors.

Maybe it's part of the writing or the screenplay.

But both times I was like, this doesn't 100 %

work on me. It's like one of the minor complaints

I have about this film. But like the scenic.

aspect we get is so much more beautiful the way

it's shot obviously we have roger deacons doing

the cinematography which is fantastic um so i

think there's a lot more from a filmmaking standpoint

that works and that there is to like here where

it's not all hinged on jeff bridges because we

have a very competent josh brolin and barry pepper

and donald gleason we have a much better fit

for this role with hayley steinfeld we get a

movie that's made more effectively that's not

as hollywood rounded corners so i think there's

a lot to cling to and like like about this one

regardless of how jeff bridges works it's just

a cherry on top that he doesn't work very well

in this as well yeah i think i think certainly

and i didn't realize watching that was domino

pleasing as well like it's completely it's when

apparently it's just Moon is one of those characters

that whoever plays it is destined to go on to

have a bigger career, I guess. And I can see

what you're saying about when it comes to the

villains here. You really don't get much, but

I also don't think that's what's interesting.

You don't necessarily need it as much in this

one either. To me, that's what's interesting

about True Grit is that it's not necessarily

about the villains as much. Obviously, they're

the goal. but it's really about the in this where

it's certainly much more effective and let me

mention with the original where i don't feel

like maddie has much of change or development

like she is who she is from the beginning to

end here i think we do see her like where if

she certainly comes in and she similar to the

first film she has that command a great another

great scene although i do think we do get some

comedy um not as maybe as much some classic coen

brothers comedy um the the trading scene of you

know when she's going through getting getting

what she needs and then uh i do like the the

one line where he has he's like wait are we are

we trading again and then it tells you but but

then i think what's interesting is then you see

here in a situation where she loses that power

and one of the issues i had or one of the things

i always wondered like at the end of the film

is we get that that scene where she falls in

the snake pit and then suddenly like i've always

thought the movie kind of drastically changed

because now suddenly it's a movie about rooster

saving maddie and like i was like well like like

i thought the movie was about you know getting

tom chaney but then like going back and watching

it and seeing it again, you realize, okay, that's,

like, that, maybe wasn't really the goal here,

or, like, that wasn't necessarily the story.

It was seeing Rooster go through this progression

of actually, you know, being able to take that

responsibility and able to, like, have that selfless

act. And also, but Maddie, like, being in a situation

where she becomes a bit more aware of the world

and maybe becomes, doesn't know because i think

she's a bit headstrong and thinks she can kind

of take on everything and i think in that sense

in that situation she realizes that maybe she

isn't as uh controlled she thinks she is so i

think and then we get that like that bookend

which i think is a bit more somber in that tone

like we don't it's it's very anti -romantic compared

to a lot of classic western where the the first

true grit is very romantic. It has that classic

feel like it's much more upbeat. It ends with

John Wayne jumping over a fence with the horse.

This is ends with a one -on -one armed woman

in the snow at a funeral. So it's like, and not

that being depressing makes something better,

but I think it's better fitting for the story

here being told because it's much true. more

true to the story that we have so i think it

does at least bring it together in a more like

satisfying way uh seeing maddie like go through

that progression and the fact that like you know

we don't know what happens with the beef although

it is it is interesting like and here the beef

getting into some of the differences like one

of the biggest of course is with this the beef

stays alive and in the in the first one he's

killed you know he has that coming back to life

moment where he saves them and then he falls

to his death which that was actually i thought

quite surprising like oh wow like they they actually

went a bit bit darker there than i was expecting

did any other differences like or anything else

stick out to you compared to like looking at

like what what stayed the same what was different

compared to looking at these yeah i mean I think

one thing that's handled, it's the same sequence,

but it's handled in a much different way, and

you kind of jogged my memory on it when you brought

up the snake pit sequence, I guess, where we

have Maddie falling into this chasm that has

a snake involved and has to be rescued or whatever.

I will say, and you may disagree with me, but

I do think that that sequence is handled better

in the original. I think that the way that she

falls into it is more believable and less...

dramatic in the first one in the second one she

falls down in here there's a body that of course

has snakes inside it and it's not just one snake

there's like 700 snakes coming out of this thing

and i just felt like that like i was like it

was this 100 necessary like the first one's a

little more subtle she falls down there there's

a snake on a rock that you know like we see she's

trying to avoid it she gets bit whatever this

one it's like something out of indiana jones

and the temple of doom or something like that

like there there it's like you you see a dead

body and then you turn it and then there's like

six vipers coming out of it or something like

that and like the way that they were shot like

kind of both climbing as she was climbing i was

like this is a kind of an extreme and i wasn't

expecting it because i didn't feel like we got

that as much we get that kind of a little bit

zaniness and craziness like amped up a little

bit a tiny bit with josh brolin a couple times

but like other than that i didn't feel like the

film had done that and then all of a sudden with

that sequence it wasn't that it was bad necessarily

but having had seen the first one i was like

i kind of like how they did it in the first one

a little bit better um granted the first one

does have the coming back to life of the beef

right after that so you could say that that's

kind of a little bit extreme as well but i just

thought like the the snake sequence was better

in the first one i guess i think i think that's

that's a valid point also the the cgi snakes

didn't look no all that great they didn't they

certainly don't hold up very well no it was like

the mummy or indiana jones or something like

i was like what what where did we just go we've

jumped the shark um but i do appreciate the ending

i do appreciate like there's a i think what this

one does even though i still feel like if i was

remaking this film i would have them come across

some like obstacles along the way or something.

I'm not saying they have to come in contact with

a Native American tribe or something, but come

across maybe some coyotes or something. Come

across something. Have something happen besides

this journey be completely unimpeded and there's

no problems with anything. I would probably do

something like that, but I do like the fact that

in this one, they show that there is a consequence

to her being on this journey. She loses her arm.

Like, I know it's not necessarily like doing

a whole lot more in her, like the older version,

we just see brief moments of, so we don't get

to see like from a kind of mental aspect, like

how her journey weighed on her necessarily. But

one thing that we didn't see at all in the original

was like Maddie's character sees a bunch of bad

stuff, right? Like she witnesses a hanging. She

has her father killed. She sees somebody's hand

get. her fingers get cut off she sees multiple

people get shot in front of her she gets bit

by a snake like there is some of that stuff happening

but like i don't know if i ever felt like there

was any repercussions on her character like there

was no effects like it seemed like she was just

stone cold to all of that and like like a bulletproof

and i feel like this one helped not do that with

the fact that there was this consequence that

she did lose her arm and she did have the you

know kind of some sadness as far as not being

able to meet back up with rooster cogburn and

she doesn't get to like there's no like there's

no necessarily like hallmark moment right in

this film uh when it comes to the ending so i

kind of appreciated that aspect more in here

in the 2010 version yeah like like i mentioned

like the the bookend piece like it felt like

if anything she regressed compared you know we're

here i think we we see that uh the opposite and

we we also do get some you mentioned that They

do run into some things, but they're not really

obstacles. They run into the individual that's

hung high into the tree, and we don't really

know the reason behind it. Then the person that

they give the body to, and then the dentist,

I guess, the bear dentist scene, which... That

is, to me, perhaps the most Coen Brothers scene,

if anything. I couldn't remember if that was

in the book or not, because it's been such a

long time, but that felt like that was very much

the Coen Brothers being the Coen Brothers, at

least in how that was executed, especially in

the way that guy was talking. It did state that,

I know it said that this second film, this 2010

film, was much more true to the novel. I haven't

read it. You have. Is that what your kind of

take was as well? Definitely, especially in the

use of the language. A lot of the scenes were

almost word for word, especially the courtroom

scene, from what I can remember, that was very

similar. That is a humorous scene both times.

Yeah, and even that was a little bit different.

One, I think that if you want to just see the

impact of film, how much a cinematographer can

impact a scene, the first one is shot kind of

just plainly. the second film we first see rooster

kong burn and like shadow and it's like we kind

of build it up a little bit and also it's interesting

that it first starts with the prosecution no

or sorry yeah the prosecution and then the defense

where in the first one it's only the defense

i just just to kind of get both sides of it and

i thought i think that was a little bit more

impactful so you can see like just how how different

they approach things but but yeah i just overall

like The comparisons, like I mentioned, these

to me are far more similar compared to the ones

we did last week. It's like you got to see some

more details. One showed more of this part and

one showed more of that part. But outside of

changing Labeef dying in one and not dying in

the other one, or him being more absent at a

point in this movie versus the original one,

they don't change much of the actual narrative.

they give us more aspects like we see the the

aftermath a little bit more in the one and some

stuff like that but they don't like drastically

change components of of either thing which i

think leaves you a one like one question i was

going to ask you and i i feel like i have a certain

opinion on it but like do you feel like the 1969

version is rooster cogburn's film and the 2010

version is maddie ross's film yeah i i think

that's a good way of approaching it because even

even like though the story isn't much different

i think just the way it's approached like in

the way that performance -wise in the way it

ends and everything like that like the movie

ends on john wayne jumping over a fence like

he's the one he's the center of it yeah where

like baddie's the one controlling the story in

in the 2010 version yeah i think even though

this one feels more like an ensemble one versus

like a strictly led by john wayne version i still

think it comes across even in the ensemble that

like the most important character like this is

maddie ross's film yeah like i feel like you

get that Even though Haley Steinfeld was nominated

for Supporting Actress, which is kind of crazy

because, like, she's just, you know, one of those

things. But also, like, I mentioned how 1969

was, you know, a transition year. And I don't

think 2010 necessarily was a transition year,

but it also was a great year for film. You know,

that year, of course, Social Network came out

that year. The Town, Black, you know, The King's

Speech, which I know people love. Inception.

Inception, The Fighter. uh mother which is a

movie well technically 20 2009 and put 2010 in

america so um toy story i think speech came out

in 2010 i don't know some people have divided

opinions on that but yeah um so it's it's um

black swan like even just looking at like the

movie scott pilgrim um so there's a lot of i

mean you're missing the beginning of a dynasty

dan from 2010 oh how to trade new dragon and

despicable me just oh really oh geez i mean those

came out that year hey i mean there is another

despicable me coming out well i guess minions

coming out this year yeah yeah which i i did

have another question for you um because you

mentioned a couple different times in in the

310 to yuma discussion especially when we came

to the modern one that they added this aspect

of the main antagonist having Quoting some Bible

scripture and having a little bit more of a religious

backdrop or tone or just some flourishes of that.

Did you notice that this remake does some of

the same stuff through music? I did not, no.

So the entire last sequence of the film is being

shown while a classic Christian hymn is being

played in the background? um and i wouldn't have

noticed had you not brought it up about 310 to

yuma and then i like i was like oh they're like

adding a religious overtone here at the end of

this one too like i don't know why or what the

purpose was or if other westerns of this time

period felt the need to do that but it i don't

know what to make of it i just noticed that it

existed and it was like oh they did this in both

310 to yuma and in true grit in a way i don't

know what it means or or any like i don't have

any interesting like revelation to share from

it i just noticed that both of them have that

like slight religious aspect that they throw

in whether it be quoting or musical or whatever

the case and i was like well that's kind of interesting

i should dig more into that but i have not it

is interesting yeah i did not notice that at

all but clearly i i don't we don't obviously

see it as much with the dialogue but i wonder

if that was And you also, I don't know if that

was speaking at all to Rooster Cogburn's character.

Cause I do think we get like small bits of like

his history. Like we don't get any things verbatim.

We get like small things like where you have

the beef, like spanking her, which is, which

is a very awkward scene. Yeah. I was going to

say exactly the same thing. And you know, she's

like, are you going to let this happen? He's

like, no, I'm not going to. And the way he, like

he reacts to it, he gets like, is that kind of,

was there something more there? And then we get

that other scene where you're at like the trading

post and there's people, there's those kids that

are like, kind of like tormenting that donkey

or horse or whatever it was. And he lets it,

let it go. And he kind of like kicks the kids.

Oh, that part was hilarious. Even though it was

probably like super wrong and would never happen

again. When he did it like two different times,

I was like, Oh yeah. When he walks up the stairs

and you think like, he's going to let the one

kid go, but then he just like, like backward

punch the kid yeah yeah that's again some there

is some humor here uh but it just it made me

think like there is like there is elements where

it's like it hints that maybe there is like a

darker part of his like what led him to be who

he is and maybe there was like abuse it's never

obviously verbatim it's never ever ever said

specifically but i think you get You get the

spanking scene in the first film, but I do think

that additional piece gives you more context

to give you a little bit more insight to maybe

who and why Cogburn is the way he is, where I

don't necessarily think you get that with the

original. I think it's another reason why that

Labeef character doesn't work for me. number

one that spanking sequence is awkward but like

he also has a line before that in a sequence

that he's like oh I was staring at you last night

and I was trying to decide if I should kiss you

or like whatever and I'm just like this is weird

like yeah was this like should we have cast somebody

much younger in this role or like what like would

it have worked if it was like just some young

gun that was trying to prove himself versus like

this Texas Ranger I don't know like that that

character was awkward from go I think that's

the thing with this character is like, are you,

is he supposed to be like, I think you're supposed

to wonder if, if he is kind of a tool, you know,

is he actually, is he just all talk? Is he just,

you know, is, you know, maybe I'm not Lisa and

should have played that role instead. But, but

then you do get like, you know, the sequence

where he gets, they, they get to drop on him.

And like, obviously he gets like tortured basically.

And then they, he gets that. a bit of redemption

where he has you know he saves kogburn's life

so i do like so i i didn't have that much of

an issue with him as you did because i do feel

like you at least you know there was a setup

there to like make you question and wonder like

you know you you get little more remarks about

like how he talks about how great shoddy is and

like there's no way you could do that so there

is like a little bit of similar situation where

there's hints that maybe there's more to him

but there is you know he kind of is like the

butt of a lot of jokes like you know he kind

of is kind of he's he's got the spurs he feels

like he's playing cowboy so i just think there

was other people like i don't know maybe it was

hard for me to swallow matt damon as that character

specifically well like i don't know like young

riders was a thing like i know this comes this

was way after that but like there was like 16

people from that tv series that could have played

this role more convincingly like it's steven

not steven baldwin one of the bald ones could

have done this like i don't know like um i think

maybe it was steven i don't know like one of

those guys was in because josh brolin was in

young writers that's why it made me think of

that but like okay i don't know like there was

other people that i just buy more as this like

texas ranger or this like western you know persona

and i'm like matt damon like really like i don't

think i would have bought ben affleck or matt

damon in this role that's fair would you have

ever spent the night in with a amongst the caskets

and like a funeral home or whatever Not a million

years. Yeah. Not, not even a Christmas. No, that

was, that was the creepiest part of the whole

movie actually. Yeah. That's creepy. Yeah. Could

not do that. But anything else you wanted to

say? Um, I don't think so. I did ask, um, chat

GBT, um, which one, like what movie did what

better? Um, they had some, some interesting takes

on it, but most of it, I feel like we shared,

they, they said that like, the 1969 version had

a little bit more charisma for rooster's character

was a little bit more crowd -pleasing entertainment

had that mythic western feeling had a little

bit more emotional warmth than like the cultural

icon status where they gave the 2010 version

better ensemble acting more faithfulness to the

novel better cinematography more psychological

realism better atmosphere and more literary depth

i think that we kind of agree with most of that

um so i was just curious like and that's more

like a consensus of like people online so i guess

we're We're lining up with most people that critique

these two movies. I understand why both of them

have decent ratings. I think the original version

is like an 88 % on Rotten Tomatoes, and the 2010

version is like a 95%. That doesn't surprise

me at all. I feel like that kind of lines up

with where I would have them. I think they're

both worth a watch. I think in this one, they've

done a flip -flop. 310 to Yuma, I definitely

probably prefer the original. And in this one,

I definitely prefer the remake. Same. Yeah. I

think it's clearly the, the remake is far superior.

I think the original is still worth watching

still for that. It's worth watching for John

Wayne. I think like whether you like the performance

or not, it's like one of his kind of like culminating

goals, I guess. And I'm interested actually to,

cause you know, that does have a sequel, the

rooster Cogburn, which I've never seen. So I'm

interested to see, I'm also intrigued cause that

has Catherine Hepburn in it too. So like, I'm

just, I'm wondering if that, like if she's playing

what character she is or like what exactly the

story is there. So I might check that out. So

yeah. Absolutely. So which one are we watching

next then? For next week, we're going to be finishing

up our remake first, the original. And it's interesting

because they're both kind of remakes in a way

because we're going to be going to the Magnificent

Seven, the 1960 version, and then, of course,

actually the most recent film I think we've done

thus far, the 2016 version. What is your experience

with these? Have you seen either of these films?

So not only have I not seen Seven Samurai, which

I know is a crime against humanity for anybody

that's doing a film podcast probably, but I have

not seen the 1960 Magnificent Seven either. So

I don't know much at all about it besides a few

people that are in it. Like I know Steve McQueen

and Charles Bronson and Eli Wallach, who we've

seen in another film, Yul Brynner. Like I know

the people that are involved, but I don't really

know much about it. I know for a fact, and I'm

anticipating that this will probably be a letdown

for me, but I know for a fact in 2016 when I

watched Magnificent Seven, I enjoyed it way more

than most people did. So I know it caught some

hate from some critics and different things.

This is like the Antoine Fuqua, and it's got

freaking Denzel Washington. I'll watch anything

with Denzel Washington in it, so I'm a sucker

for him. But I remember really liking this one

and getting... hate tweets and stuff for like

probably saying nice things about it so i'm interested

to see now after all this time and watching all

these other westerns how it will either live

up because i really enjoyed the modern 310 yuma

i really enjoyed the modern true grit and i really

enjoyed this one on first watch so so far each

one's kind of fallen a little bit differently

on the on the rewatch so i'm interested to see

that and i'm definitely very interested to see

the the 1960 version so what's your experience

with both of them Well, I am the opposite of

you. I have seen the original, but I have not

seen the remake. So I'm intrigued because I do

like, you know, honestly, I tend to like Antoine

Fuqua's movies more than most. Like he did the

he did the Equalizer films, right? Yeah, I enjoy

those movies. They're like watching Denzel Washington

beat people up. I've never, you know, that can

be a fun time. And just looking at the cast,

it's kind of crazy. You have Ethan Hawke, Vincent

D 'Onofrio, and Peter Skarsgård. Like, so many

people in this. It's kind of crazy. Chris Pratt,

I think, is in it, right? Chris Pratt is too,

yeah. This is around the time he was starting

to be in everything. So, but yeah, I saw the

original. It's been a real long time, I think,

about, again, it's been about a decade since

I've seen it. Again. another film that has a

crazy cast for its era as well. With your brother

McQueen, Charles Bronson, who will be in the

second, the second time we saw him in a film

here. So intrigued to go back and watch that

again. And from, from a rotten tomatoes standpoint,

like the original has like a 93 or whatever.

And the 2016 version has like a 64. yeah and

then also i know the i know also know the magnificent

seven the original has sequels as well and i

might try to catch up some of those too how many

sequels does it have do you know it has a bunch

if i'm not mistaken so i i don't know for i just

know that it has uh three sequels so we have

the magnificent seven we have the return of the

seven the guns of the magnificent seven and then

the magnificent seven ride with an exclamation

point yeah i just i just know that because like

i put it in my queue to watch and then like it's

like oh you may also like like wait what i honestly

didn't before that didn't even know it had sequels

and apparently there's a tv series of course

there is from 1998 to 2000 i did not know it

was that late that's crazy i don't know ron perlman's

in it i don't know what that tells you michael

bayne and and and ron perlman i don't know or

michael bean yeah uh like b -i -e -h -n yeah

michael bean from uh he's an alien and terminator

yes i mean i don't know there's only 22 episodes

it feels like it could be easy to get through

yeah interesting but so that's next week that'll

be the last uh part of our remake first the original

and then we will be getting into our overlooked

westerns which i'm really excited for because

i have not seen any of those so i have overlooked

them myself and if you're interested in seeing

like what movies we are covering if you go to

my letterbox um i am movie revolt on letterbox

i have list on there of all the films we have

covered and we'll be covering as of right now

we may add more who knows that's what we did

with the Hitchcock retrospective but as of right

now we have planned out all the different blocks

and then because after Overlook Westerns we will

finish it off with Revisionist Westerns which

will bring us to the end of this which will take

us probably into the next couple months so yeah

and also you can go to letterbox and dan has

our box office draft picks uh on a list there

as well so you can kind of keep track of we're

getting to the point where a bunch of them are

about to drop right like uh yes into those summer

months so we're about to see some uh some Some

of mine dropped, but no one went to see them,

so that's not great. That animal farm pic is

really... That was bad. Michael did not get good

reception. I don't know what it's doing box office

-wise. It did not get good reception, but it's

killing us. It's making some money. I know we're

about to see a bunch of other stuff that's hitting

theaters. I can't remember if they were amongst

our pics, but each time I see a... trailer recently

it's like it releases the last week of may or

the first week of june or the second week of

june i'm like oh we're about to hit all these

films that i can't go see that i'm gonna miss

yeah but definitely check out check us out on

letterbox uh whether you follow dan's page or

follow my page mine's uh kevin 1981 so you can

see that um as well and then you can keep touch

with all of us on social media the comic concierge

for dan or optimus solo for myself Or you can

search out the Cinema Geeks or the Cinema Geek

Cast. And then you can also check out the Geek

Cast Radio Network for all the other stuff. The

main website that all of our stuff is hosted

on does as well. So that does it for this episode.

Tune in next time for another chance to listen

to more of the Cinema Geek.