Man I am so pumped about this movie! Defintely a "big screen" type of movie. I might just see it on post - military posts still have the "old school" giant screens. I might have to wait a few weeks, but that's okay.
The original was on TCM tonight and for the first time in a long time i watched it - actually WATCHED it instead of just having it on. And I have to agree with you here and disagree with the "it doesn't NEED remaking" crowd. Frankly, outside of the location and the music, John Wayne is about the only truely good thing about this version. Darby is passable, given the type of character she's supposed to play (a child pretending the whole time to be a competent adult who knows what she's doing) a lot of what would otherwise have been very bad acting actually works (i.e. the actress does well playing a kid who can't act the part she's trying to pull off) But Campbell is just hopelessly bad. and much of the dialogue just doesn't ring true. The script sounds more like a stage play at some points than a movie. This is best illustrated by the first encounter between Campbell and Darcy, and again by her negotiations with the livery stable guy. Some interesting interplay in each except that people don't actually talk like that. The girl i can see - again, she's faking it. but not the men. On top of all that, the movie has a lot of filler in it. The whole business with the girl in the snake pit, and the struggle to get her back, and all that was very anti-climatic. Whatever is in the novel, the "action" climax should have been the shootout with Pepper. I can see an argument why the character story needs Rooster to be a bit "redeemed" as a person by going to great lengths to save the girls life after the snakebite (plus, you need the payoff of actually seeing "Lawyer Daggett" - but even so, it wasn't well done. If your actual story is the relationship between Rooster and the girl and the gunfight is a pretense to tell that story, then have the gunfight maybe 2/3 in and spend a good 40 minutes or more watching Rooster struggle to save the girl (doesn't have to be a snakebite except in that you want to follow the book when possible). All in all, while I enjoyed most of Wayne's performance - and the whole moveie is worth the "fill your hands" line....if you can see past his gian shadow, it's really not that great a movie. But the new one sure seems promising.
Meeting Lawyer Daggett was a great, funny part of the old movie, but you never really met him in the book. There were references to him, but that was all.
Initially my response to this flick was a combination of oh crap and how in the hell do you redo a movie The Duke made famous, and one that gained him an oscar to boot. While not his best work by a long shot it seemed pretty untouchable for the most part. I suppose I'll have to go see it now. I figure it would be best seen in the theater and so I shall.
That was my initial reaction until I thought about it. Everything I'm seeing and hearing is so far saying it's the tits. It would be pretty cool if Cogburn landed Bridges another Oscar. We're planning on going to see it Sunday.
Ready for this? Fuck the doesn't-need-remaking crowd. Better that a mildly entertaining movie get an excellent remake than an excellent movie get a shitty one. Think of all the good movies that had really crappy remakes, and then tell me you still want to bitch that a film was retold in an excellent way for a new generation. Everyone hated on Nu Trek, but you know what? A lot of you actually liked it. So fuck the nay-saying for the sake of nay-saying.
I'm not above the idea that even reasonably well done movies CAN be re-done well...I'm just skeptical of most of the folks who would try. The Cohn Brothers being behind this one makes a difference. if I was to hear that, for instance, christopher Nolan were remaking a well regarded film i wouldn't be worried. but tell me Jim Carrey is going to be in such a remake and that's different (unless...) One thing I have wanted to see for a decade was a remake of "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" - set in the same period, not modernized to the present day. Dick Van Dyke is about the only old-timer left to play the Durante part...maybe Bob Newhart in a pinch. But you could flesh out the rest of the cast with a lot of the modern comic actors. Just please don't turn it into a vehicle for any one guy (Looking at you Jack Black and Will Farrell) but a true ensemble effort. But I digress. Point is, there is a right way to do a remake - it's just so seldom the right way which is chosen.
Just got back. Except for the last five minutes (a little rushed), let me just say: This movie kicked wholesale ass! Pure Coen gold. While not a comedy, I laughed harder in this movie than I did 'Little Fockers.'
I really enjoyed this move, and Marso is right, it's funny as hell. On a technical note the settings and scenery were spot on, this movie actually looked like it took place in eastern Oklahoma. Nothing annoys me more than watching a movie set here, or a place like Kansas or Iowa, and then seeing the snow capped Rocky Mountains scroll by in the background. That's usually when I check out to some degree. Bridges is great, but I hope Damon gets some kudos for LaBeouf.
Same here. I saw something on teevee the other day that was supposed to be set in Beaumont, Texas and there were hills and mountains in the background. Same with that made-for-teevee movie about the Branch Davidians that NBC did many years ago. The Coens filmed the movie around Austin and San Antonio, btw.
In the book, the story takes place in Arkansas. Maybe we should ask Dayton. The trailers look more like what I imagined in the book: snow, etc. In the old movie, it only took Mattie about a day to get the money for Rooster and to buy Little Blackie. In the book, it took about a week and Mattie spent the time sick. I still haven't gotten out to the theater thanks to this damn snowstorm.
The mountains in Arkansas, Missouri and Oklahoma are the Ozarks. I don't know if they're snow-capped year round, but certainly in the winter.
Was there any Indian territory in Arkansas? Or was the venture into injun nation a movie thing? The weather was perfect too, pissy wet snows, mixed with rain. Just miserable cold wet crap, again spot on.
Negative on the year-round. The Ozarks don't have tthe height of The Rockies or Cascades (for example). Back in Arizona (Humphries Peak is one example) at 12,000 or so feet the snow is there about 10 months out of the year....just a little taller and there would be glaciation, but 10 months is still plenty long. I went up there once on Memorial Day and the snow was still 3 feet deep where we were....and we weren't even all the way to the top! :santa_shocked: Bit we were right at the timberline......the last tree holdouts were severely stunted conifers permanently bent over from constant cold winds.
Back in 2002 or 2003, when it was rumored that Ron Howard, John Sayles and Russel Crowe were going to make a new Alamo movie (the one that was eventually released in 2004), Texas Monthly magazine ran an "open letter" to them begging them to get the details right, including the scenery and climate. The seige and battle took place in late February and early March and John Wayne's Alamo movie appears to take place in the late spring or summer, with lots of green vegetation and apparent warmer temperatures. As the letter stated, South Texas in the winter looks like "unvarnished Hell". The Disney movie mostly got that right.
The Indian Territory was Oklahoma IIRC. I'm also thinking that the Trail of Tears ended in Oklahoma and Arkansas.
I just researched why they didn't film in Arkansas...it made sense. And my wife (who doesn't go on movie websites) totally nailed that much of it was filmed in New Mexico (the snow parts anyway.) Then again she lived only in The West up until I married her + took her away to see the rest of the world. We saw it last night...great movie. Much more humor than you would think. Works as a family movie too. No sex or bad language, but of course some realistic violence, which you pretty much need in a modern Western to seem authentic. Matt Damon starts out as creepy, but ends up being a good egg. That newby actress is pretty damn good - hopefully she won't burn out in a few years! Does Jeff Bridges speak that "famous, iconic line" in the final gunfight? I'm not telling.....you'll have to go to the movie. The film score was the only flaw IMO. The same old church hymn repeated throughout in different textures basically. :santa_angry:
We saw it last night and I liked it. I wasn't quite as blown away as I expected to be, but it was good.
"If those men wanted a decent burial they should have had the sense to get killed in the summertime." :santa_grin:
Just got back from seeing it (I love holidays!) Bridges is no John Wayne here but he does a pretty darned good job. Mattie and LaBoeuf, however, are better. Much better. The Ranger's dialog is pretty stiff but I think that's just his character. The growth in relationship among them is nicely paced. The bad guys? There's not really a lot to judge them on but the movie's not really about them anyway and there's plenty of story there without trying to gin up something new. The score? All in all, I'll be surprised if there aren't some nominations for serious awards for this movie. Go see it on the big screen. My recommendation? Easy matinee with popcorn and drink.
I like the piano arrangements of Leaning. It kind of gave it a feel like the Ken Burns CW documentary for me. There are parts of that documentary that I detest, but it was perfectly scored.
I get the feeling they were going to go with Mattie as a more religious character and went with the score based on that. But, her character in this movie is certainly not primarily motivated by religion. There is some of it but it's almost an afterthought here. By the time they got to the final cut it was too late to re-score the soundtrack. What do you think?
Not really. They portrayed Mattie fairly faithfully to the book and she wasn't overly religious there either. If anything, I got the feeling that she was a bit of an elitest snob who thought of those beneath her as "trash".
