The great debate
The Coens' is better in every way
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?