I’m no horsemen, but it seems pretty common in westerns for folk going long distances to ride one horse and lead the other. I would imagine it would take FAR less out of a horse to run unburdened, than with a (or two) rider(s) - so the led horse would have quite a bit left after Blackie was finished. And even if they had to go slower while leading a horse, it might well be offset by the fresher horse being able to go much faster than Rooster on foot carrying Maddy.
Just saw it tonight and LOVED it! Once again I covered my eyes when Mattie fell in the rattlesnake pit. Just like I did in the original movie.
I thought all the actors did an outstanding job.
I think I’m in the extreme minority here but saw it two nights ago and I was significantly disappointed. The movie had a few moments here and there but overall I felt it was pretty bad across the board. I so wanted to love this movie, I really did.
MeanJoe
Anything in particular that you didn’t like?
I liked Kim Darby better.
I missed
Reins in his teeth, Navy Colt and Winchester.
+1
So I finally saw it. I argued in an earlier thread against those that said they shouldn’t remake it. I saw quite a few places where the original could be improved, other than John Wayne and Robert Duvall. They were quite good, of course.
I found the setting disappointing. Bleak. I miss the beautiful scenery of the original. It’s intentional, of course. It’s a hard life, and the winter setting makes that more clear than summer or fall would.
Damon did as well as I thought he would. Berry Pepper DID seem to be channeling Robert Duvall, and that’s not a bad thing. When I saw the casting, I thought,“WTF? Brolin as Cheney, and Barry Pepper in the Robert Duvall role?” I haven’t seen Pepper in a lot of things, but this is the first thing I’ve seen him in that I didn’t wish someone else had been cast.
I won’t say Kim Darby was better or worse, but Hailee Steinfeld was more enjoyable. If you’re hired to play an unlikable character, and you play an unlikable character, then just being unlikeable is not a criticism. I didn’t enjoy listening to that for 2 hours, though. If Darby had toned it down some, I could’ve overlooked Glen Campbell’s work more easily, and enjoyed the original all the more.
I’m not a Coen Brothers aficionado, though I have seen a few of their films and am particularly fond of, “Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?” I noted some weirdness in this movie, like the bear-man, but it seemed random. I guess “Oh Brother” made me think there should be some meaning there. I liked the dugout stabbing scene better in the original. As noted earlier in this thread. It was more suspenseful, and the tension built nicely.
(sigh) Jeff Bridges. Thought he was a good choice. Thought I could enjoy his “Rooster” on it’s own merits. I argued this before, in a previous thread. I’m saddened to say the spectre of John Wayne weighed heavily on me as I watched the movie. Perhaps it was that there was little likable about Jeff’s “Rooster”. Wayne had that persona where he’d have to shoot kids in the back before you’d really hate him, and even then you’d listen to his reason first. I’m sure they created the Rooster that they set out to make, but it wasn’t one that made me root for him, and I guess I miss that. Also, I thought his gravel voice was overdone. You want to seem gruff and mean, be gruff and mean. Gargling with glass doesn’t make you gruff and mean.
I’ll have to see it a few more times, and I like the movie well enough to do it, but as I watch, I’m afraid I’m going to be looking for a reason why this was made. I haven’t seen that reason yet, unless they just wanted to get rid of Campbell’s and Darby’s performances. They certainly did that.
I’ll echo everything you just said, including the ‘not a horseman’ part. 
I’ve seen this device used in other works. Someone has to travel far and fast, they’ll take multiple horses.
It was set where and when the novel was set. If they are coming from Arkansas, it makes no sense to be riding through the Colorado Rockies. I really hate watching westerns where someone is riding through the red rocks of Utah and they turn a corner to find themselves in the Sierra Nevada. The movie was shot in a location that more or less matched the setting of the novel, in eastern Texas (a couple of scenes were shot in New Mexico).
The winter setting made for some very lovely scenery, and it made sense to me in terms of the final scenes… Snakes don’t hibernate in fall, when the weather is nice, so it makes sense to have the story set in winter for that scene to work.
This is a matter of personal taste, and I’m going to be ripped for it, but Rooster is not necessarily supposed to be likable. Mattie doesn’t choose him because he’s the most fair and honest guy available; she’s driven by revenge, and her motives are selfish and short-sighted. She wants the guy who is most likely to kill Chaney in cold blood (This, by the way, is why she’s disappointed when he won’t take thetime to give Moon a proper burial and send word to his brother of his death).
Riding on four men with the reigns in his teeth isn’t his heroic moment – it’s actually pretty stupid when you think about it, and it’s only LaBeouf’s shooting ability that saves him – His heroic moment, the scene that saves his soul, is the ride to save Mattie’s life. Even shooting the horse once it had collapsed was a level of compassion he had not shown before.
I didn’t think about it at the time, but I’ve always felt about snakes in westerns the way I feel about sharks in boat movies – that they’re overused as a device, and thrown in willy-nilly to increase the drama. Here, Mattie owes a karmic debt once her required revenge is accomplished. That’s why I always thought that saving her arm in the first movie was a cop-out.
Loved it loved it. I’ve seen the first movie about 10 times I suspect. And while it is great, I’ll be watching this one more.
Older westerns are way, way to clean and don’t show the grit. This one did.
Jeff was great. So was everyone else.
Great humor in the new one as well.
Just saw it yesterday. Terrific flick, with great performances all around. John Wayne was the sort of iconic, larger-than-life type actor where it seemed to me a losing proposition to try to remake one of his roles. But Bridges pulls it off.
A question: was that hanging man they ran across after they set out for Chaney in the book? Is there an explanation for it, in general, and specifically, why in the world would they hang somebody that way? IOW, at first I figured that the guy was just at the end of a LONG rope, tossed over that limb but tied off down at ground level, where the guy was put in the noose, then hoisted by guys on the ground. But apparently not. Somehow this guy (and whoever hung him) had to climb up that precarious stretch, and somehow get it all done (and tied off) 50 feet in the air. How did they pull that off?
Or did I misunderstand something? (Or does the book provide some plausible back story?)
I’m pretty sure that whole sequence, from discovering the high hanging body, to the Indian taking it away, to later meeting the dentist in bear skins coming back with the same body draped over a horse was all original Coen weirdness.
1.) I missed why they were surrounding themselves with rope as they slept. Can someone fill me in?
2.) Why would a body be valuable enough to trade away “two dental mirrors and a bottle of expectorate”?
I loved this movie! I came out of it thinking “wow! That seemed really short” but I think that’s because they don’t actually start on Chaney’s trail until halfway through the movie. I really loved the dialog:
“While I sat there watching you I gave some thought to stealing a kiss- though you are very young, and sick, and unattractive to boot. But now I have a mind to give you five or six good licks with my belt.”
“Well, one would be as unpleasant as the other.”
Edit: Given that I haven’t seen the original I can safely say that this one is superior in all respects!
While somewhat better about this than the 1969 version, this scenery was still a far cry from eastern Oklahoma, where the Kiamichi Mountains are heavily forested, low and rolling, and where open prairies and cliffs are rare if not completely unknown. All the Indian Territory shots appeared to be the Sangre de Cristo mountains and grasslands of northern New Mexico. Granger, Texas, which is central (not eastern) Texas, played Fort Smith.
Snake prevention.
LeBoeuf: “That is a piece of foolishness. All the snakes are asleep this time of year.”
Cogburn: “They have been known to wake up.”
Ross: “Let me have a rope too. I am not fond of snakes.”
Cogburn: “A snake would not bother with you. You are too little and bony.”
- Snake barrier.
- The dentist said he had “taken the teeth but would be willing to entertain an offer” for the rest of the body, so my asumption is that (as a dentist) he only wanted the teeth for study.
That doesn’t tell me why the body would be valuable, though. Did the guy who initially took it expect to run into many dentists on the road? Why would anyone want to make an offer for it?
And this is probably a dumb question, but do ropes have any effectiveness at keeping out snakes or is it just a folk remedy thing?
No, a snake wouldn’t have any issue with going over a rope (you can watch a boa constrictor climb a rope here).
I suppose it is possible for the rope to have some sort of scent that would keep snakes away but I don’t know what that would be in the movie’s situation.
The body wasn’t particularly “valuable,” but at that time cadavers actually were a black market commodity for medical specialists when legal cadavers were hard to come by. There was an entire business of grave robbers selling them to doctors. The Indian, presumably, could have known to look for a doctor or dentist.
No idea about the snakes.
It’s an urban legend. The rope was scrathy with little threads hanging off it.
Nitpick: It’s expectorant (i.e., decongestant). A bottle of expectorate wouldn’t be worth spit.