Nice pun.
But a bottle of expectorate is exactly what he said in the movie.
Too late to edit: I checked (don’t ask how) and you, of course, were right.
Shakes fist.
It finally opened some place less than 30 miles away this weekend, so we got to see it today. I think I liked this version better, but it’s not like I’m really attached to the original considering I only saw it for the first time a couple of weeks ago. This version seemed less…hokey.
That was really the only discordant note for me, well, besides how Mattie’s fate differed, that is. Either there was another time-shift beyond the quarter-century mentioned, or a math error got past, because there’s no way she could have thought he’d be that old. She’d have to be terrible at guessing ages to think the men were near the same age, especially when she can see exactly how old Rooster is just before she says it.
WAG. Think of the phrase “Wanted: Dead or Alive” and you might have your answer. A dead body might be worthless, except for maybe, as Dio mentions, to a doctor needing cadavers. But if it’s an outlaw, there might be a reward. In the movie, the dentist was taking advantage of the Indian by buying him so cheap. The dentist figured could take the dead man’s teeth for himself AND possibly get a reward.
That might be why the man was hung so high too. Maybe whoever hanged him was coming back for the body and didn’t want to make it easy for someone to come along and snatch the body.
Someone who has read the novel recently explained that upthread. She was writing years after she spoke with the two guys and found out that Rooster was dead.
9 thumbs up - best movie I’ve seen in a while.
I have not read Portis’s novel. I noticed much of the dialogue was identical to the older version. The Coens shared their screenwriting credit with only Portis. I assume from this that nothing they copied from the first movie was the invention of the screenwriter for the 1969 version? (Marguerite Roberts).
I loved both movies, but Glen Campbell surely was a massive misfire in the 1969 version.
Am I missing something? I assumed Bearman shot the Native and stole his items. He had the man’s horse and all his stuff. I can’t imagine he parted with them lightly. That also explained the gunshot and Rooster’s unease.
I agree that him having the horse makes it obvious that he’d robbed the Indian. But then why didn’t he also have the Indian’s body?
An innocent Indian is not worth anything compared to a hanged white man. And a dead Indian would contradict his bullshit story.
This was a bit of an homage to the sequel to the original True Grit which was Rooster Cogburn. There is a scene there where John Wayne offers to put his rope around Katharine Hepburn’s pallet to keep the snakes away.
There were several scenes in the new version in which Rooster Cogburn was referenced, actually.
“If I ever meet a Ranger who hasn’t drunk out of a muddy hoofprint, I’ll shake his hand and buy him a Daniel Webster cigar.” Busted out laughing.
I could’ve sworn that was John Goodman in the cabin scene (and given his Coen Bros history, not at all unexpected)…but it wasn’t.
Slightly off-topic question: I thought I knew that the plot of the Sherlock Holmes story “The Speckled Band” was unworkable, because it relies on the snake, the “speckled band” climbing a rope as a crucial point to the plot. This was impossible, because snakes can’t climb rope. Now I see with my own eyes that they can. 
Not only that, but if you look carefully at her in the rain in the graveyard you’ll see they’ve added a slew of wrinkles around her eyes. They definitely aged her from one scene to the next.
IIRC (and it’s been a long time), I think the problems with The Speckled Band are snakes responding to audible signals (they’re deaf) and drinking milk (they don’t).
Well I finally saw the new one and despite being a big fan of the Coens, I have to say I was disappointed.
In the John Wayne incarnation, Rooster Cogburn is a rogue, but he is a charming rogue, and it is easy to understand why Mattie would like him. The most biting lines toward LeBouef are delivered with a wryness that lets you understand that Cogburn is only yanking the guy’s chain.
The Coens version really gives us no inkling why Mattie would feel any affection toward Rooster Cogburn at all. He is a jackass throughout. He does save Mattie at the end, but given how unlikeable he is for the rest of the film, it is hard to see how that alone redeems him.
I think Wayne’s version is closer to the book. We are supposed to like Cogburn in spite of his character flaws. Bridges never makes us like him.
On top of that, Bridges mangles Portis’s sparkling dialogue by mumbling his lines. It takes away from the enjoyment of witty repartee if you have to work to decipher half of it. Same complaint against Josh Brolin.
Those things make this a lesser movie in my view.
Having said that, there are some things the Coens did better:
I liked the more authentic landscape.
The art direction was wonderful, as in all Coen films.
I liked Steinfeld. I didn’t like her better than Kim Darby, but I did like her as well. Her performance is different from Darby’s but just as strong. I also liked that the Coens used an age-appropriate actress.
[spoiler]I think the Coens film does a better job of conveying Mattie’s growing romantic infatuation with LeBouef, and in that way is closer to the book. I think in the book we are meant to understand that Mattie never married because she never got over the guy (even though she, as narrator, would never admit this). The Coens understand this implicit aspect of the book.
It would have been nice to see older Mattie betray some real emotion (other than her usual impertinence) when she is surprised by the news of Rooster’s death. That’s one more way in which the Coen’s movie fails to make us buy any emotional connection between Mattie and Rooster.[/spoiler]
It’s a good movie, worth watching, and even rewatching, but I still prefer the original.
I liked him.
Didn’t do it for me. The character could have used less scowling and more of Jeff Bridges’ more typical charming smirk. (And this is coming from a guy who has complained about Bridges’ smirk in threads past.)
I liked him, too. And it’s easy for me to see why Maddie liked him. Every time you see them he’s telling her old stories and I immediately got a grandfatherly vibe from him and I think she did, too.
Someone saving your life isn’t enough to redeem him? Besides that, he did take her job offer. He did stop LaBeouf from hitting her with the switch. He did tell funny and interesting stories, as AClockworkMelon notes. He did give her a lot of good information. He did come back for her after she was taken prisoner by Ned Pepper. He did take on Ned and his gang, giving LaBeouf time to rescue Mattie from Cheney. He did come down into the pit to rescue her. And again, even though he ran Little Blackie to his death, he did get her to help in time to save her life. He never asked for the remaining pay due him either. There are lots of inklings as to why Mattie would feel affection toward Rooster.
I liked him, a lot. In all three versions. Which says a lot for Portis’s writing, Wayne’s acting and Bridges’s acting, since Rooster is a trigger-happy, thieving, drunken lout. In the book and the Coen movie anyway. I have yet to re-watch the older movie to remind me if Rooster’s wicked ways other than “pulling a cork” are referenced.
Speaking of the book, I just re-read it, the first time in decades. I was shocked to realize that Mattie is a scheming little liar, so we really can’t take anything she says at face value: (spoiler for the book)
[spoiler]She told Stonehill that her father gave Chaney the gray horse, threatened him with litigation specifically about the horse (“Lawyer Daggett can prove the ownership of the gray horse. He will come after you with a writ of replevin.”) and sold it to Stonehill, much against his will. She lied. Chaney appeared at the Ross farm riding the horse. From Page 1:
Some fine Cumberland Presbyterian she is.
After reading the book, I have to admit I was shocked, very shocked, at how much the Coens changed. They added scenes, they changed scenes, and added dialogue not in the book. It’s not nearly as faithful as I assumed, with all the “faithful adaptation of the book” talk. Has anyone seen a comparison between the two anywhere on the web yet? I was thinking about doing it, but not if someone else has already done it.
Ah well, I still love the movie. I’ve seen it 3 times now, and would see it again in a heartbeat. But oh my god, what a wonderful book. It’s such a quick and easy and fun & breezy read. It’s only 190 pages.[/spoiler]