This is the story of a young lady (Mattie) who is bent on seeing justice for her murdered father. So, despite her age, she hires a drunk Marshall (Rooster Cogburn) to find the criminal and bring him to justice.

I saw this movie when I was five. Then, I saw it about 10 years later. Now, over 30 years later, I barely remember the film. So, when I went to see the Coen Brothers' recent remake, I really could not compare the two versions of "True Grit". I loved the Coen version and heard what made it so great was that t was so much closed to the original story. Imagine my surprise, then when I saw that the original film was, in many places, practically the same film! So, if you like one you are bound to like the other! However, the films are not exactly alike and each has advantages over the others. So, in an unusual move, I'll list the pluses of each.

For the first film, the 1969 version, I think it is better because:

1. The story is original not a remake. It took a lot of work to bring Charles Portis' novel to the screen and Marguerite Roberts did a fine job. In fact, her screenplay was so good that many times the Coens took her exact lines and used them in the remake.

2. John Wayne was good. His version of Rooster Cogburn was a lot more like John Wayne than anything else, but he was bigger than life and fun to watch.

3. The film took a risk by killing off Glen Campbell at the end instead of sparing his character (like the remake). You might like this. As I did NOT like Campbell's performance at all, this was a serious plus for me!

With the remake (2010),I liked it because:

1. It really got the look of the west right. It was much more historically accurate--with more muted colors, guns that were accurate to the time in the film and the costumes were more correct. Now, more correct meant more subdued in color and a lot less glamorous.

2. The main character, Mattie Ross, was MUCH better. 13 year-old Hailee Steinfeld was great and nearly the age of the character (a year younger). The original Mattie was too old and a bit whiny--almost like a cute little girl pitching a cute fit periodically. Steinfeld was stronger and more believable.

3. Matt Damon was a much better actor than Glen Campbell. I have no idea why, but starting in the late 1950s, John Wayne's westerns often featured pop singers in supporting roles--such as Fabian, Frankie Avalon and Ricky Nelson. While they weren't bad, they were not particularly good in most cases.

4. The film looked better. The winter scenes and starkness of the location shoot really stood out and looked great.

The bottom line is that both films were very good. If I had to pick one as the best, I'd say it's the new one--but not by much and I am not sure that the new one is THAT much of an improvement to merit the remake. The new one is a bit more graphic, though for a G-rated film the original is awfully adult (with cursing and some somewhat graphic scenes of violence).

I do not think this is John Wayne's best movie or role, but I did like this movie, though I do not think it is perfect. While the film starts and ends very well, the film slackens in the pace in the middle. My other flaws are to do with casting. Glen Campbell is adequate in his role, but I was never engrossed by his character and he never quite make me believe in him. Worst though was Kim Darby, I am not going to go through a debate about whether she was too old for the role(I'll drop a hint, I think she was),but for me she is one of the blandest and most annoying leading ladies in a John Wayne movie.

However, the film does look great. Handsomely shot with great scenery, True Grit is pleasing to the eye. Elmer Bernstein's score is rousing and very fitting, while the story is interesting, most of the characters are credible and the script flows well. Also True Grit is very well directed, and there is a glorious final shoot-out. Other than Campbell and Darby, the other acting is fine. While I would have not personally given the Oscar to this particular performance(I thought he was better in The Searchers, Red River and The Quiet Man) John Wayne is excellent here, and while he doesn't appear until quite later on Robert Duvall also makes a positive impression.

All in all, a very good film but could have been better in my view. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Now personally there are John Wayne performances in terms of acting that I like better than True Grit. Among others Fort Apache, The Searchers, Red River, The Horse Soldiers, to name a few. And certain films like The Commancheros and McLintock and Big Jake I find to be more entertaining.

What True Grit does is succeed on both levels, being both great entertainment and giving John Wayne the acting role of a lifetime in the person of Rooster Cogburn.

Mattie Ross from Darnell and Yell County Arkansas personified by Kim Darby has come to Fort Smith seeking the killer of her father Jeff Corey. Turns out he's also killed a State Senator in Texas so Texas Ranger Glen Campbell informs her. Both of them team up with United States Marshal Rooster Cogburn who resides in Fort Smith with Chin Lee and my favorite movie cat, General Sterling Price.

Corey is now in the outlaw band headed by Robert Duvall at large in the Indian Nation Territory that became Oklahoma. True Grit's plot is the trio's pursuit of Duvall, Corey and the rest of the gang.

But oddly enough True Grit isn't really about plot. It's about the creation of a character. Like Margaret Mitchell who wrote Gone With the Wind with Clark Gable in mind for Rhett Butler, Charles Portis wrote the novel True Grit with only John Wayne in mind as Rooster Cogburn. It must have been one singular delight for Charles Portis to see the Duke flesh out Rooster Cogburn exactly as he conceived him.

Tough old Rooster, likes an occasional drink, isn't above a little larceny, but has one stern moral code about real bad guys. Bring him in dead or alive and make sure you shoot first coming up against them. And he's got quite the colorful past as he relates tales of his younger days to Campbell and Darby on the trail.

In other reviews I've said that John Wayne had one of the great faces for movie closeups. You can see a perfect example of that in that scene with John Fiedler who plays Darby's lawyer J. Noble Daggett. A man who rates high in the legal profession in that area having forced a railroad into bankruptcy.

The camera is facing Fiedler as he's talking to Wayne about his visit with Darby who's life Wayne saved. Wayne's got about a third of his face to the camera. But even with that third, your eyes are focused on the Duke and his reactions and then as the camera slowly pans around to Wayne in full face his reaction shots are hysterical. You don't work with scene stealing character actors like Chill Wills, Walter Brennan, and Gabby Hayes for 30 years without learning something.

John Wayne was up against some stiff competition in 1969 for the Best Actor Oscar. It was his second nomination, the first being for Sands of Iwo Jima. He was facing Richard Burton as Henry VIII in Anne of a Thousand Days and a couple of newcomers named Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight for Midnight Cowboy. He was certainly the sentimental favorite.

If in no other place in our lives, sentiment does have its place in cinema. It was an honor well deserved, not just for one performance but for a lifetime of achievement in cinema being the player who put more people into movie seats than any other person ever. So many of the Duke's contemporaries like Edward G. Robinson, Errol Flynn, Tyrone Power were never even nominated for an Oscar much less win one.

Because the Motion Picture Academy has deemed this John Wayne's grandest cinematic achievement, it's almost a command to support this fine western and the man who defined the western hero and is still defining it.