Unlike others here, I really wasn’t in the least bit apprehensive about seeing this one. Probably because I trust the Coens to make a good movie. And my friends, I must say, they certainly have with this highly enjoyable, well made, funny, violent, and extremely satisfying readaptation of the book. On the subject of its being another adaptation of a film already made, it doesn’t bare too much resemblance to the original. The tone is completely different. This version has a much more nastalgic feel. Almost melancholy. But Jeff Bridges wonderful rendition of a role previous played by John Wayne, full of humor, keeps that feeling from being to outright. In fact, there is a great abundance of humor here. As is in all Coen films. Hailee Steinfeld is wonderful and much less annoying than Kim Darbee’s portrayal. And much more believeable. Matt Damon is also much better in his role as LaBeouf than Glenn Cambell could ever wish to be. His pride in being a Texas Ranger is often the source of much humor. The relationship between him and Cogburn is also quite different in this film. Much less mutual respect and more bickering which is done to greatly humorous effect in the hands of the Coens. Josh Brolin and Barry Pepper turn in very small roles as the main villains. Pepper’s being a bit less evil. They each have about 5 mins of screen time between them and this is probably my only complaint. They both have great characters but too little screen time. The violence is also pretty graphic. In fact, surprisingly so for a PG-13 film.
There are a number of small differences between films that I won’t go into but know that you won’t go into this film and simply see a rehash or scene for scene remake of the original. And while we’re on the subject, I must say that the rush of early dismisals of this film seem to come from the presently popular assumption that all remakes of old films must be shit. But we must look back in film history to uncover some holes in that line of thinking. John Huston’s The Maltese Falcon was in fact a remake of an earlier adaptation. Yet it is Huston’s version that is talked about. The Spilers is also a popular film to remake.
Anyway, I definitley recommend this film. Very Very good. Extremely satisfying. But don’t go into it expecting to see a large scale and lively movie. It is decidedly minor in scope but in a self aware fashion. It’s a nice little film.
I’m anxious to see True Grit. I’m really glad they made their film based entirely off the book… they did not rewatch the film when making their version
By the way: I don’t think there’s anything wrong with watching an earlier adaptation in case you’re adapting a novel, I would rather call it unwise not to do so. But, as said, I find this hard to believe. Artists don’t always speak the truth when talking about their work, and I don’t think the Coens are an exception. I always thought they’re the kind of guys who like to pull reporters’ legs. A Dutch author, Gerard Reve, once said: first I write the novel, then I make up a story for the press. I have known quite a few authors, and Reve was by far the one with the best ‘stories’ about his work.
I still think there is a difference between a remake and a new adaptation of a book. Korano’s example of The Maltese Falcon is a good example. I don’t consider it as a remake of the earlier film, cause both films are much too different.
I would never call Bondartchuk’s War and Peace a remake of the King Vidor adaptation.
But the 90s The Getaway is a remake of the Peckinpah film by being based on the old screenplay and not on the novel by Jim Thompson.
When the Coen’s film is a new “fílmization” of the novel, than it is not a remake of the film.
Well, the Coens say so, but funnily the trailer looks indeed like it is a remake. I’m agog.
The trailer looks so much like the original because the studios put it together. Obviously, trying to milk all they can from the popularity of the original. But take my word for it. This version is a lot better. In fact, a lot of what happens in the trailer doesn’t happen in the movie. Jeff Bridges never kills the wounded man as he apparently does in the trailer. Thats not a spoiler btw.
I watch it anyway for being a Coen film and being a western. And I have 2 friends who will watch it either.
When it is as good as the Hathaway film I’m more than satisfied, if it is even better I’m thrilled. If it is nearly as good it won’t be spoiled money (at least).
I saw the new Harry Potter film not too long ago. Criticism is irrelevant in face of this juggernaut, so suffice to say it had good photography. The rest is exactly what you expect.
How Do You Know written and Directed by James L. Brooks
Typical chick film. Went and saw this with my girl. It had a few funny parts but all in all it is crap. I get to pick the next movie, gonna go see True Grit.
Saw Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 tonight - awesome movie. I have not read the book but I really loved how dark the atmosphere was in the movie.
Expect more of the same basically. There’s no real jump in how good good it is from the last one, but the quality didn’t drop either. I’d probably give it 7/10. Which is more than I would give the book.
[quote=“Paco Roman, post:475, topic:2027”]You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger
Woody Allen’s new movie. It’s a good comedy again but I enjoyed Whatever Works more.[/quote]
Woody Allen these days seems to be more prolific than ever; one new movie a year!
Not more prolific, but as prolific as ever. If you check his filmography you see that with a few exceptions he always made one film per year since he started directing.
The one for 2011 is already announced, and maybe ready or in post production.
A few days ago I wrote that some of the directors I usually like (the Coens, Woody, Marty, Loach and yes, Leigh) had not reached their peak (yet) in the new millennium. Well, Mike Leigh has with this very fine piece of filmmaking, his best film since Secrets and Lies, a wonderful personal statement about getting old and getting lonesome, flawlessly written and directed. It doesn’t happen very often but I felt sorry when the film was over. It runs 2 hours and 9 minutes, which is at least one hour too short. The last movie I saw in this decade, was one of the best.
