Indeed. Portis was more Raymond Chandler than Zane Grey. The Coen Brothers movie is closer both in text and theme to the novel, if that is a measure of credibility, though a rigid adherence to the source material is also a false metric of cinematic merit.
Stranger
No. They lost much of the humor of the novel. The horse-trading scene and the scene where Mattie was sharing her bed with the grandmother were the only scenes that captured the comic tone of the book. The banter among the three main characters came across less as witty repartee (as it was in the book) and more as petty sniping.
Don’t get me wrong. I like the Coens’ movie. But to say it is closer in tone to the book than the Wayne movie is just wrong. The Coens went a different way (which is fine of course).
I have to say that I found the Coens movie a lot funnier the second time I saw it, and by the third, it really kicked in. I think many Coen films are like that. I sure didn’t get the humor of The Big Lebowski the first few times I saw it, then one day I saw it in the right mood and thought it was one of the funniest movies I’d ever seen. It still puzzles me to the day as to why I didn’t think it was so funny the first times I saw it.
Odd to think that True Grit is the same way, since they didn’t write the source material, but it is. I was so serious watching it the first time, looking for differences and judging everything. On subsequent viewings I could just relax and let Portis’s dialogue, and the acting, some of it very subtle, wash over me and I laughed out loud several times. Even when the Coens added their own lines, like after the undertaker says “If you would like to kiss him, it would be all right” (which is in the book) but Mattie’s not sentimental like that, and refuses, saying “Thank you, the spirit has flown” (which is not in the book) I found it so perfect the 2nd time. And funny! It was so no-nonsense, and so like Mattie, and Hailee’s delivery is just wonderful.
You say you like the movie and I’m not trying to get you to like it even more, but you might find that on future viewings the humor will pop out at you more.
You may be right. It’s certainly been my experience that Coens movies reward repeat viewings.
One thing I find interesting about this thread, is the way we all seem to bring our own history and interpretations to the discussion of having seen 2 movie versions and read the book in various orders and over varying times. Not sure I’m inteligent to draw any conclusions from it, other than that I find it interesting how the experience might affect the interpretation.
I thought there was a pretty significant shift when LaBoef was whipping Mattie, and Rooster said, “No, I don’t believe I am going to allow that”
It occurs to me that one thing neither movie gets right is Mattie’s appearance. It is apparent from at least a couple of lines of dialogue that she is supposed to be physically ugly, or at least quite plain. Neither Kim Darby nor Hailee Steinfeld qualifies.
I found her plain. Both as a child and especially as an adult.
Sorry to disagree with you at every turn. 
But there you go.
Plain enough to justify the line of dialogue that she had been beaten with an ugly stick?
She responds by telling him that a kiss from him would be as unpleasant as a few licks from his belt. Is Matt Damon ugly?
You’re thinking of a different scene. The outlaw in the cabin made the ugly stick remark. So two different characters found her unattractiveness worthy of remark.
Anyway, here’s a side-by-side of Hailee Steinfeld and the artist’s rendering of Mattie on the dust jacket of the book. Yeah, no. 
Oh, woops.
Either way. My point stands. Yes, she’s plain enough to warrant being called unattractive by Damon and ugly by the outlaw. Just like Damon is ugly enough to warrant having his kisses compared to a belting. They’re insulting each other, not accurately describing one another.
The actress looks nothing like that in the movie. She looks plain, as I said. Children typically aren’t ugly anyway. To me most of them look plain. And we see her as an adult and she definitely isn’t attractive.
Okay, but she didn’t look that good in the movie.
Sorta a hijack, but speaking of Mattie: I just realized yesterday that Kim Darby (Mattie from the 1969 version, which I’ve never seen) played John Cusack’s mother in Better Off Dead. “It has raisins. You like raisins.”
Mattie or no, you can bet your ass Rooster Cogburn would have collected those two dollars.
Well she wasn’t wearing makeup in the movie. But that didn’t make her ugly. (Except in Hollywood, I guess.)
<unpopular opinion>He looks like a potato.</unpopular opinion>
He sure can channel Glenn Campbell, though. 
I’m not sure who you’re agreeing with. As I said, I don’t think she looks anything like she did in the glamor shot Spoke provided.
And now you have photographic evidence.
