I guess the main question about the film is whether Bridges plays it straight Wayne or not or will he be a bumbling, mumbling mess. It’s easy to see the Coens turning the film into an anti-western. I hope Sam Elliott is in it too.
I can’t remember the original too well, just some fond yet fractured childhood memories.
Reading No Country for Old Men before seeing the film, I am confident in the Coen’s ability to do right by the source material, so I for one am looking forward to it. Not as much as I am their adaptation of the Yiddish Policemen’s Union, though. That one is high high high on my list of projects I hope manifest themselves as soon as possible.
They are claiming that is will be a re-adaptation of the novel , rather than a faithful remake of the film.
“According to Ethan, this new version will be much closer to the source material. “It’s partly a question of point-of-view,” the writer-director explained. "The book is entirely in the voice of the 14-year-old girl. That sort of tips the feeling of it over a certain way.
“I think it’s much funnier than the movie was so I think, unfortunately, they lost a lot of humour in both the situations and in her voice. It also ends differently than the movie did. You see the main character — the little girl — 25 years later when she’s an adult.”
He continued: “Another way in which it’s a little bit different from the movie — and maybe this is just because of the time the movie was made — is that it’s a lot tougher and more violent than the movie reflects. Which is part of what’s interesting about it.”
Joel then added, “I don’t actually remember the movie too well, but I do remember it as being much more of a standard western, and the book is just an oddity. It’s a very odd book.”
Can’t say I give a shit what the Coens do.
“Can’t say I give a shit what the Coens do.”
I’d be mildly interested in them retiring.
The 2nd trailer for this is honestly one of the finest I’ve ever seen. Scored to Johnny Cash’s “Gods Gonna Cut You Down”, it got fucking theatrewide applause when it was over. Better than most films.
Looks incredibly awesome. I know what I’m going to see this month! Bridges looks so cool, as does the little girl. “That’s a silly question I am only 14.”
Observation: Johnny Cash makes this trailer 0.3 times as awesome.
I run hot and cold on the bras Coen, but I’m quite fond of this very odd novel and from the trailer it would seem as though they’ve caught it rather well. I’m eager to see this.
I don’t know why but I’m eager to see this as well. Not necessarily because I believe the Coens will really do anything wildly creative with it, but more out of curiosity on how different it’ll be from the original (because it will be different). The casting of Jeff Bridges though I find rather odd, maybe I’m the only one on that.
I believe in the Coens. More, please. Nom nom.
I’m almost finished with the novel (which has been entertaining, although it took a while to really get going; it’s short, though, so I recommend it, as it’s not a big time investment), and I’m looking forward to this. The source material seems like a good fit for the Coen Brothers, too. (Lots of funny dialogue, violence, etc.) The casting is going to be huge in this, especially for the Mattie Ross character. They get the casting right—like they did on No Country for Old Men—this could be a lot of fun.
Btw, I’m planning to re-watch the original film as well as this new version, so if any of you want to discuss this later, I would be interested in doing that.
Why the luke-warm reaction to Bridges as Rooster Cogburn? Then again, had I not seen part of the trailer, I might not have been entirely convinced. He looks like he could fit the role fairly well.
I remember seeing TRUE GRIT at a matinee in Texas in 1969 when I was 6 years old.
I just remember Kim Darby—- who was a “hot” actress at at the time—- playing that androgynous boy/girl type. And I remember being surprised seeing Glen Campbell (also hot with a regular variety show on TV) act in a fictional capacity.
What I most remember is being terrified by that climactic scene in which Darby is thrown into a pit of rattlesnakes? When I was a young child I had no emotional “distance” from movies as I do today as a man, so that moment electrified me.
The Coens are so-o-o good, I’m guessing they are bringing out all sorts of quirks and nuances that were not present in the original picture. I personally think A SERIOUS MAN is one of the greatest mainstream movies ever made (Yes, I’ve seen all the same classics you have) and, in time, will become “canon”.
It looks like they are trying to find an acting niche for Jeff Bridges now that he is an old man; every actor needs to think about what types of roles they’ll play when they get old and ugly. Crusty, sotted, country types seems to be what they have chosen for Jeff. A new modern “sensitive man” take on John Wayne’s former niche, (and Jewish to-boot) inhabited currently by Robert Duvall?
I notice that the trailer presented above is one of those long—— too long—— trailers which errs possibly in showing us too much of the film’s events ?
It’s a simple tale, richly told by Charles Portis. You feel compelled by your beliefs to go off seeking, demanding, revenge, well, behold the consequences. The Coens are gonna have fun with this.
Yeah, I finally saw this last week. It was better than I expected it to be, but while it’s more faithful to the source material than the ‘60s film, the source material that it’s based on is clunky in parts. It has a very laboured intro and it endings anti-climatically (the film also reflects this). However, there are some wonderful scenes. The cinematography and editing was pretty much right on. The dialogue hit-and-miss.
All the characters tend to speak in this “Homeresque” type of language that kind of jarred with me in this particular film. The Coens had done it before in O Brother, but they pulled it off a little better.
There’s no real sense of danger either. Once we get past the “hanging man” scene, all sense of intensity seems to be lost. The film shifts to more of an adventure than a vigilante hunt. Bridges plays Cogburn pretty consistently, but there are times when he seems hesitant to take the character in a certain direction. It’s a strange performance that might’ve worked better if it was a little more assured.
I didn’t really understand the humour or intention behind certain scenes though. Such as, when Cogburn and Darby stop at this Indian’s house and Cogburn proceeds to kick the Indian kids around repeatedly. It was played as humourous (and the theatre audience certainly laughed), but I’m not sure what the Coens were trying to say by including it. It’s not so much the racial implications that bothers me, but the incongruity of it. What it is commenting on? It doesn’t say anything – and there are several scenes throughout the film that are like this. So, it’s like the Coens are playing it safe and not going so far as to take a stance on something or even be completely existential about it. The setup is confusing and hesitant, being neither about nothing nor anything.
Overall though, it’s an interesting film. There were some things I liked about it and a lot of things I didn’t, but in all fairness, several problems were with the source material which the Coens more-or-less faithfully adapted.
You said, I personally think A SERIOUS MAN is one of the greatest mainstream movies ever made (Yes, I’ve seen all the same classics you have) and, in time, will become “canon”.
I just saw this, and I’m very sympathetic with these remarks. Not sure if it will become canon, but it’s a remarkable film.
The “Homeresque dialogue” is pretty much from the book.
There’s no real sense of danger either. Once we get past the “hanging man” scene, all sense of intensity seems to be lost.
Yes, I agree with this.
Bridges plays Cogburn pretty consistently, but there are times when he seems hesitant to take the character in a certain direction. It’s a strange performance that might’ve worked better if it was a little more assured.
I think this the way the character is in the book. The characters in the novel are not very complex, deep or interesting, imo. The story is the same way. After watching the film, I’ve come to the conclusion that the story (from the novel) is not that great. It’s a decent revenge story with some amusing dialogue and situations (a stubborn young girl who is a match for these men).
_ Such as, when Cogburn and Darby stop at this Indian’s house and Cogburn proceeds to kick the Indian kids around repeatedly._
In the novel, the boys are teasing and being cruel to the horse (or mule). Cogburn kicks them off the porch because he’s pissed off. In the film, the scene of the boys teasing the horse is unclear (it’s too short and the angle doesn’t convey what they’re supposedly doing.
_So, it’s like the Coens are playing it safe and not going so far as to take a stance on something or even be completely existential about it. _
Again, the source material is a pretty simple revenge tale with some funny parts. That’s it. In some ways, I feel like the Coen’s just whipped this one together because there was some potential to make the characters richer and the storyline more complex. For example, in the film (and the story) Chaney/Chelmsford seems like a partially sympathetic character, but the film (or story) has no interest in humanizing him; nor does it have much interest in depicting the psychological complexity of revenge. (Mattie is not ambivalent about it—and if didn’t buy that her character was that hard of a person.)
Gotta get out and see this one now that the snow is melting.
Now that this is making big money, any chance the Coen’s will remake Rooster Cogburn?
There is no equal to Hepburn (or Wayne for that matter) but perhaps Bridges could star alongside Catherine Deneuve or Meryl Streep
Have you seen the film, Den? I think Bridges’ performance is on par with Wayne’s (although it’s been a long time since I’ve seen the first version). I think pairing Bridges with Streep is a good call if they do a remake.
have not seen the film yet Jazz
almost picked it up at flea market today but other things caught my interest.
I love Wayne’s performance and would likely not be fair to Bridges, the same way I could not remotely get into Star Trek because outside of Quinto none of those actors seemed remotely like the originals.
Not sure if Streep is the equvilent to Hepburn these days but would love to see Cogburn gets its due; it has a certain charm to it and is perfect for remake because there is room for improvement.
After having seen the film yesterday morning and not having many major gripes besides the few instances of cgi and green screen effects(I have a firm belief that computer effects should not be used in westerns), I began to think about the Cohen’s career in the past decade. My favorite aspect of the Cohens is not only are they great directors but they are also great writers. I would even go as far as saying that they are some of the best writers in American cinema, but I’ve realized that there have been four adapted screenplays in their career starting with Intolerable Cruelty in 2003. I find it a bit off putting that in a 25 year career of original screenplays, there have been four unoriginal and all in the past decade.
I think with these adaptations, the Cohen’s lose their voice entirely. I always look forward to a Cohen film because of the stylistic impressions of the writing, but I don’t get anything from films like True Grit, No Country, The Ladykillers, and Intolerable Cruelty. I’m not saying that I really don’t like these films(maybe with the exception of The Ladykillers), but are we to expect many more unoriginal works by them?
Just saw the film. Nothing technically wrong, very enjoyable, but lacks that OOMPH that seems to be missing from every odd Coen film. That little girl was astounding, though, she should win an Oscar for it. Bridges obviously was exceptional, and while its nice that we can expect nothing less from him, I find it leaves me without much to say. “Great again!”
Are you kidding me Miasma???? The girl was the worst part of the film. Either it was a terrible bit of casting or horrible coaching. It seemed like they were having her do Kim Darby, but it was totally forced.
“The girl was the worst part of the film.”
The girl is the only worthwhile asset of the film, it raises it a whole star truth be told! Strip the brisk nature of her and you have yet another pathetic Coen feature like some of the past decade, much like Intolerable Cruelty.
Was David kidding on the first page that the Coens were making Rooster Jewish? No mention of it in the film at all.
I guess for people who don’t like the Coens for being facetious, this film might be an odd litmus test considering how seriously and straightforwardly they take the material. Ends up being passable but not very exciting.
Odd that this ends up being their biggest hit ever and first film to break $100 million in the US box office.
The girl is the only worthwhile asset of the film, it raises it a whole star truth be told!
Are you for real? What is everyone seeing that I am not? She looked like every word and gesture were put on. You could see behind her face her mind wasn’t in the scene or the character at all, and she was just trying to do and act how she was told to. That’s how I read it at lest. She constantly took me out of the world of the film.
This is probably my least favorite Coen film, and the only one they’ve ever made to this point that I considering not giving five stars on Mubi.
Risselada – My initial reaction to her was similar to yours, but after a while I got used to her (and the dialogue), and eventually I found her completely convincing. I’d like to see it again to know if my reaction will change.
“and the only one they’ve ever made to this point that I considering not giving five stars on Mubi.”
Really, Risselada? You give The Ladykillers, Intolerable Cruelty, Burn After Reading all 5*?
I thought her performance was just fine. Just wait until she gets her best supporting actress nomination…
On the other hand, a big problem with the film is that I hate children who are wiser and more adult-like than adults trope in film and this one suffered big time from that.
“This is probably my least favorite Coen film, and the only one they’ve ever made to this point that I considering not giving five stars on Mubi.”
Holy crap, did you actually give 5 stars to Ladykillers?? Now this is a pure piece of shit of a film!!! And then you mock Yoshida, Nikolaidis AND Ruiz??
I don’t really see the big deal about the girl either. I mean, I don’t think she was horrible she simply lacked any conceivable form of subtlety. Perhaps this should’ve been a given, nevertheless …
It’s a ho-hum Coen film.