JSngry Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 Take an iPod to a movie? Hmmm...that's kinda like wearing shoulder pads to a baseball game.... Quote
Larry Kart Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 Take an iPod to a movie? Hmmm...that's kinda like wearing shoulder pads to a baseball game.... Or a condom to a...? Quote
Joe Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 Take an iPod to a movie? Hmmm...that's kinda like wearing shoulder pads to a baseball game.... Or a condom to a...? Bris. Quote
Larry Kart Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 Take an iPod to a movie? Hmmm...that's kinda like wearing shoulder pads to a baseball game.... Or a condom to a...? Bris. I wince at the vulgarity, but I would have said "a blow job." Quote
Joe Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 Take an iPod to a movie? Hmmm...that's kinda like wearing shoulder pads to a baseball game.... Or a condom to a...? Bris. I wince at the vulgarity, but I would have said "a blow job." Better to match Richard Dawson than Brett Somers (9 times out of 10, anyway.) (And thanks for the reminder re: Laughton's use of "Leaning on the Everlasting Arms" in NOTH... this recent Slate article by Elbert Ventura on that film might be of some interest... http://www.slate.com/id/2273576/) Quote
JSngry Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 I would have said "card game", but these days I'm all about rhythm. Quote
Larry Kart Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 I would have said "card game", but these days I'm all about rhythm. That's certainly a winner on the basis of rhythm, sound, and sense. Quote
MartyJazz Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 ...there were periodic scenes of wanton cruelty (Cogburn kicking the Indian natives off their seats on the fence two too many times)... Geez -- it's a period Western, and Cogburn was not only of his time but also was far from a nice guy (and at that point in the film I think we needed to be reminded of that by those acts of casual inhumanity, in case we were beginning to sentimentalize him). He should have patted them on the head/chucked them under the chin? Also IIRC, the household those kids were part of was under the aegis of a bad guy who probably had aided the very bad guys Cogburn and Mattie were in pursuit of. As far as the other wantonly cruel scenes you're probably thinking of, to me they all seemed very much of a piece with the rest of what was going on. In fact, the movie as a whole seemed a lot less cruel and violent than I expected it might be, certainly less so IIRC than Eastwood's "The Unforgiven" (which admittedly was a movie that set out to be much darker in tone). "The Unforgiven", that's a great western, easily the best of that genre in the past 20 years. Quote
BillF Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 Haven't seen it yet, but its release here must be imminent, as here's a review today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/jan/04/true-grit-review?INTCMP=SRCH Quote
Tim McG Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 OK. So how does the remake compare to the original? Quote
jlhoots Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 OK. So how does the remake compare to the original? The new True Grit is much better (IMHO),& yes I did see the original. Quote
BruceH Posted January 6, 2011 Report Posted January 6, 2011 I liked the new "True Grit" quite a lot. Quote
Jazzmoose Posted January 7, 2011 Report Posted January 7, 2011 OK. So how does the remake compare to the original? It's better than the original. But the original stunk to high heaven in my opinion, so it's not exactly praise. Quote
Tim McG Posted January 7, 2011 Report Posted January 7, 2011 OK. So how does the remake compare to the original? It's better than the original. But the original stunk to high heaven in my opinion, so it's not exactly praise. Better how, though? Has the plot or storyline been changed? Better acting? BTW, I think John Wayne and company did a marvelous job in the original...but that's just me. Rooster Cogburn [w/Katheryn Hepburn] is better, IMHO. Quote
kinuta Posted January 8, 2011 Report Posted January 8, 2011 OK. So how does the remake compare to the original? It's better than the original. But the original stunk to high heaven in my opinion, so it's not exactly praise. Better how, though? Has the plot or storyline been changed? Better acting? BTW, I think John Wayne and company did a marvelous job in the original...but that's just me. Rooster Cogburn [w/Katheryn Hepburn] is better, IMHO. Better photography, better script, better cast,better direction. Quote
BruceH Posted January 8, 2011 Report Posted January 8, 2011 OK. So how does the remake compare to the original? It's better than the original. But the original stunk to high heaven in my opinion, so it's not exactly praise. Better how, though? Has the plot or storyline been changed? Better acting? BTW, I think John Wayne and company did a marvelous job in the original...but that's just me. Rooster Cogburn [w/Katheryn Hepburn] is better, IMHO. Better photography, better script, better cast,better direction. ....better score. Quote
Free For All Posted January 8, 2011 Report Posted January 8, 2011 OK. So how does the remake compare to the original? It's better than the original. But the original stunk to high heaven in my opinion, so it's not exactly praise. Better how, though? Has the plot or storyline been changed? Better acting? BTW, I think John Wayne and company did a marvelous job in the original...but that's just me. Rooster Cogburn [w/Katheryn Hepburn] is better, IMHO. Better photography, better script, better cast,better direction. ....better score. Truly grittier. Quote
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.