But here's the thing. John Wayne movies are from a different time, and to a lot of kids he is just some old dead guy that it is hard to believe in. I am from that time, but kids today need the immediacy of NOW. Something about the way it is filmed and the acting will read true to them, just as that movie reached right into my imagination back then.

People still eat souffles, same recipe as yesterday. They just don't want to eat yesterday's souffle.

There's also the fact that Jeff Bridges is a better actor than John Wayne.

*ducks, runs*

Any stupid over the top special effects in the movie? Like an empty wagon turning over and exploding in a ball of flames?

Too funny Jake. I won't take the bait, but Bridges has truly grown into a great actor. His portrayal of a washed up country singer in Crazy Heart was over the top good!

I will definitely see the remake.

Well I saw both movies back to back. The orginal one was pretty damn good as is the Coen Brothers version. The new one falls short of the Coen's best though. The computer graphics of a train arriving in Ft Smith with the town in the background was pretty lame as were the pauses in the story when Jeff and Matt got into a shooting match. I think the orginal is the better. John Wayne and Glen Cambell were superb. Dennis Hopper and Robert Duvall were in the old one too. I was amazed at the similarities in the movies. Costumes, dialouges, plot - I guess right from the book. The beginning and endings were different. I sort of liked the Coen versions but overall have to go with the orginal. Going to read the book next

Remakes are okay, IF they are done by the right people. The Coen brothers have a great reputation. Also, remakes spark interest in (younger) people in the originals, which is great for everybody.

Sorry to hear about the computer graphics though, CGI ruins a lot of things...

Never said the movie wasn't humorous. When they tried to throw the ashes into the ocean and they blew back in his face, that was funny.

But let's break the dude down and analyze:

he was a drug addict and drunk who's highlight was hanging out at a bowling alley with other losers. He had no job and didn't want one, so logically we can assume he was in section 8 housing receiving food stamps and welfare.
All he wanted to do was smoke dope, drink beer, hang out at a bowling alley, and spend other people's money.

The character made absolutely no contribution to society but took and took and took, and has no problem with that. He didn't care and he did not try and had no conscience.

But what really fries me is this: there people people in this country who actually think being a total bum, a total loser, a complete worthless parasite, is actually cool. You figure that one out.

The dude is now the duke!

oh...ok. I guess I never saw the flick was an endorsement of The Dude's lifestyle. I thought it was stricktly entertainment (plus the Gypsy Kings rocked Hotel California)....well, that and a warning to never fork with anyone who tongues their bowling ball...ever.SmileWavy

I agree with you on the ashes scene...Jeebus that was funny.

true grit, the new version was a tad on the slow side. the girl was awesome playing the part. but the movie had about 10 minutes of excitement.

i will rent the original version later.

Saw the new one last night; haven't seen the original in decades. I would recommend this new version: great acting and shot beautifully up around Bishop, CA.

It does not compare to other Coen films such as No Country for Old Men etc. IMHO of course.

of the 175 movies JW did, True Grit was not my favorite, Hellfighters & McKlintock were better.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx7T1jYymCI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifRKu1W1fXQ&feature=related

We saw it Christmas Eve and I agree with the comment on the girl, she was good, other than that I thought it was OK. Dudley Dooright as the Texas Ranger played his part good, but I kept thinking he should have a red Mountie suit on.