It's a superior film in every way to Henry Hathaway's original, though that film shouldn't be discounted.
I strongly disagree, the original is a John Wayne classic and Jeff Bridges is no John Wayne.
Feb 15 - 05:50 PM
Bridges gave a masterful performance in which he completely embodied a different character. He nailed everything down to a tee, he even nailed the rough gritty voice and sluggish movements that were idiosyncratic to his character. John Wayne simply did what John Wayne does, the same old masculine tough guy routine.
Apr 4 - 06:53 PM
Really two different films. The Wayne version reflect the escapism of the time while this one revels in its portrayal of realism. Personally I prefer the original.
Feb 20 - 06:08 AM
This movie is clearly superior in every way. Especially in terms of story; rather than be a tired star vehicle like the first one, this one has balance.
Apr 13 - 03:11 PM
The earlier movie is a trite, flat, corny reading of a far more complex and idiosyncratic novel. The Coens have captured much more of the paradoxical certainty and faith of the novel, and Mattie is more accurately seen as the naive idealist turned grim realist. Much better film, the Coens have made. (spoken like Yoda.)
Feb 25 - 11:10 AM
it was ok...don't know where this 95% dick riding is coming from...probably because it is the coen brothers..anyway it was nothing to write home about
Feb 27 - 06:10 AM
I'm sorry, was there too much dialogue and not enough gun play for your taste?
Apr 4 - 06:55 PM
It is a great remake of a great film but it is not superior in every way. The dark nature of the remake is different and a little more believeable though.
Aug 13 - 09:20 PM
Peter De Munnich
Jeff Bridges is no John Wayne?
No , but he is a far superior actor.
Both films are good, but the Coen's movie has much more depth & resonance.
Sep 14 - 07:03 AM