TrueGritRemake Tagged Articles at Cinematical
Josh Brolin and Matt Damon to Star in Coen's 'True Grit' Remake
Filed under: Action », Classics », Drama », Casting », Newsstand », Remakes and Sequels », Western »
It's impossible to top an icon like John Wayne, but the Coen Bros' True Grit is shaping up to have a better supporting cast than the original did. (Hey, Wayne supposedly didn't like Kim Darby either.) Variety has just announced that Matt Damon and Josh Brolin are in talks to join Jeff Bridges in the Coens' remake. Bridges will play Rooster Cogburn, while Damon is in talks to play La Boeuf, the Texas Ranger who pairs up with Cogburn and Mattie. I'll probably anger the Glen Campbell fans out there, but I think this is a vast improvement over the original casting. I can actually buy Damon as a Texas Ranger.
Brolin will be taking a walk on the nasty side, as he'll be playing Tom Chaney, the man who gunned Mattie's father down for the gold he had in his saddlebag. While Chaney wasn't the most pleasant fellow in the original, there's no doubt that Brolin will increase the menace and nastiness. I think we can all agree Brolin has done no wrong since his No Country For Old Men comeback, and this is the kind of role that'll be delicious to watch him tear into. The film is set to go into production in March 2010, and the Coens won't waste any time in the editing room as it's slated to be released in late 2010.
Jeff Bridges May Have 'True Grit' For the Coen Bros
Filed under: Action », Classics », Drama », Casting », Paramount », RumorMonger », Scripts », Newsstand », Remakes and Sequels », Western »
Rooster Cogburn will abide, if the Coen Bros, Jeff Bridges, and Paramount come to terms. Variety reports that Bridges and the Coens are in talks for Bridges to play the iconic Rooster Cogburn in the Coen Bros' remake of True Grit. It would be their first collaboration since The Big Lebowski. When the True Grit remake was first announced, the Coens were said to be making a more faithful adaptation of Charles Portis' novel, and it seemed like it might head into darker No Country for Old Men territory. But the book features a lot of deadpan humor mixed with Old Testament lessons, and if they stick to it for the script, it'll play to their talents extremely well.
At first glance, Bridges seems a pretty offbeat choice for Rooster Cogburn. But having just rewatched the John Wayne original last week, I think it might just be casting heaven. Rooster is a killer, but he's also a fall down drunk, full of sarcastic quips, and surprisingly tender-hearted. He's far from the typical stoic John Wayne character, and it was a bigger departure for Wayne than I had remembered. Bridges would be a perfect choice for blending the rugged charm, the humor, and the "true grit" of Rooster, and he's talented enough to not just play it as an imitation, but make it iconic on its own. If this comes together, it's one remake that could actually equal or outdo the original.
Sometimes a Remake Isn't a Remake
Filed under: Newsstand », Remakes and Sequels », Fan Rant »
This just in! Hollywood is remaking a lot of movies! Everything is fair game!
It's easy to get really pissed off and frustrated about this trend -- in fact, it's right to do so. (There's a few exceptions -- Darren Aronofsky's Robocop is still a pretty exciting prospect.) But we need to save our rage for the eye-rolling remakes (The Karate/Kung Fu Kid, Footloose) and shrug off The NeverEnding Story for the simple fact that the latter is based on a book.
It's not a remake if it's based on a book. It's a new interpretation. That's something everyone forgot (even Gene Wilder) when Tim Burton decided to "remake" Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. People were furious and I can understand, as the Wilder version is beloved by a lot of people. But it strayed pretty far from the Roald Dahl original, which left a lot of leeway for a new version. (Frankly, the Burton one leaves just as much critical room for a third attempt.)
I may be dying for original ideas as much as anyone else, but I'm just fine with Hollywood going back to the bookshelves a second try -- even if it's for something as iconic as True Grit. (It definitely skirts the line though -- The African Queen was a book too, but I don't know that anyone should ever try it again.) To me, it just isn't a remake if you're returning to the original source material. No one blinks an eye when a new version of Pride and Prejudice or Hamlet gets the green light, even if you do consider one particular version rather definitive. Each adaptation of Charles Dickens offers something new, each actor and actress puts their own spin on a legendary character, each version inspires someone to discover the novel. You may love the new version, you may hate it, but each adds something to the cultural dialogue -- which is something no remake of Footloose or Romancing the Stone is ever going to do.
It's easy to get really pissed off and frustrated about this trend -- in fact, it's right to do so. (There's a few exceptions -- Darren Aronofsky's Robocop is still a pretty exciting prospect.) But we need to save our rage for the eye-rolling remakes (The Karate/Kung Fu Kid, Footloose) and shrug off The NeverEnding Story for the simple fact that the latter is based on a book.
It's not a remake if it's based on a book. It's a new interpretation. That's something everyone forgot (even Gene Wilder) when Tim Burton decided to "remake" Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. People were furious and I can understand, as the Wilder version is beloved by a lot of people. But it strayed pretty far from the Roald Dahl original, which left a lot of leeway for a new version. (Frankly, the Burton one leaves just as much critical room for a third attempt.)
I may be dying for original ideas as much as anyone else, but I'm just fine with Hollywood going back to the bookshelves a second try -- even if it's for something as iconic as True Grit. (It definitely skirts the line though -- The African Queen was a book too, but I don't know that anyone should ever try it again.) To me, it just isn't a remake if you're returning to the original source material. No one blinks an eye when a new version of Pride and Prejudice or Hamlet gets the green light, even if you do consider one particular version rather definitive. Each adaptation of Charles Dickens offers something new, each actor and actress puts their own spin on a legendary character, each version inspires someone to discover the novel. You may love the new version, you may hate it, but each adds something to the cultural dialogue -- which is something no remake of Footloose or Romancing the Stone is ever going to do.
Jeremy Renner Wants To Be An Avenger
Directors We Love: Jim Jarmusch
Indie Roundup: 'Sweetgrass,' 'Clarkworld,' 'Broken Embraces'
Shelf Life: Fight Club_thumbnail.jpg)
Watch: Famous 'Matrix' Scene Re-Created with LEGOs
_thumbnail.jpg)
