The great debate

The great debate

The Coens' is better in every way

any film made before 1990>>>infinity>any film made after 1990

You are wrong

I find the original far more enjoyable. it has character to it, the remake just feels like a generic Western/action movie.

no remake is better when it comes to westerns

especially that shitpile 3:10 to yuma

Original is just a generic wayne-era western.

What's your argument?

The Coens seemed... What's the word... Grittier.

and John Wayne could make a toilet cleaning instructional video with more character than the remake.

I'd agree. Wayne's is still good but largely has a legacy as the one he won a consolation prize Oscar for (not saying he couldn't act).

*has a legacy BECAUSE it's the one

Wayne was a faggot.

Remake > orig

The original is one of Wayne's lesser films, the remake is a better film

ITT: numale faggots that can't appreciate a classic western.

nuTrue Grit has the annoying as fuck Hailey Steinfeld as a 12 year old who talks like a 50 year old Harvard literature professor.

Not even the Coens believe that.

Hailey Steinfeld is a far better actress than Kim Darby

But her character was shittier.

hell no

He's treating objects like women, man!

True grit is a great movie, and the remake beats the original. But it's just a Coen's thing, had it been directed by anyone else it probably would've sucked.

"herr derr I'm some 19th century country girl but I talk like a 20th century feminist Berkeley professor".

>Older films are automatically better
pretty bad meme, although Hollywood has been spewing out shit that I don't even think they imagine is decent.

Personally I preferred the newer version.

WayneRooster>TheDudeRooster

Agree ...

69' had a better Mattie

10' had a better Rooster

*2007 is the cutoff friendo, with some exceptions like 2012 for the master

sad, but true
:(

Which one is more lovecraftian?