@@dangerdan2592 you must not know the old day twang,, as in, “me did” means, “did I do it?” Listen again. But immediate would be sufficient in this case. If you’re not from the west I understand why this may be a hard one. We adapted a southern accent around 1800s ish
Jack the Film Fanatic It is also a direct quote from the novel. I just finished reading it for the first time and it’s absolutely worth the read if you enjoy the movies.
@@jakefitzpatrick577 I think the 2010 true grit portrays the novel better. 69 was good, but you really had to be alive when it came out to appreciate it the way some folks do. Especially the final gunfight with lucky Ned.
@@grizzlyblackpowder1960 the 1969 version was basically a cartoon. Silly, goofy. The 2010 version is much, much closer to the book in tone for certain.
I had a good laugh, too. As an attorney, I've seen very similar questioning of witnesses in modern trials. It's now an established trial tactic with trial lawyers to get the witness to say the things they want rather than have the witness stray from those points the attorney wants the witness to testify to.
I think it is better than the first film since that was a John Wayne movie. The Coen Brothers version is closer to the story told in the novel. Mattie is the protagonist and not Rooster. Rooster is important but the story is about Mattie demanding justice.
@@GodsFavoriteBassPlyr The original film was basically a cartoon. Goofy, silly. Even that weird technicolor or whatever it was they filmed it in back in 1969 looks garish and sort of "cartoony." This version is much darker in both overall tone and cinematography, and much closer to the original novel by Charles Portis. They're just about as different as two movies based on the same book can get, and still be recognizable as having the same story. If you like either version, get the book. It's excellent.
This scene is an example of what makes a film rewatchable to me. I’d never seen the original or read the book. I had a lot of things going on when I first saw this, and I was a little distracted. I only realized the underlying story progression here after seeing it again years later. On cross examination it’s revealed that rooster made up his testimony about the confrontation. The excellence of the dialogue aside, I was struck when I realized this was the moment that Maddie decided to pursue hiring rooster to track down Chaney. You can see her realizing in an instant that he did sneak up on those three, and opened fire on them. It WAS a cold blooded bushwhack. Rooster didn’t play around. He wouldn’t flash a badge or do a lot of talking. This is a man who’d hunt and kill anyone he’d set his sights on, and he would do it quickly. Efficiently. Without mercy. Maddie wasn’t looking for an officer of the law. She needed a killer. Because when Chaney killed her father after gaining his trust, she became one as well. This scene highlights in a very subtle way how much she must have loved her dad, and how badly his death had broken her heart.
Not sure we can conclude that definitively. His deputy was blown away by a shotgun. Woulda been hard to do that if they were just getting bushwhacked. That would also mean Otis ran the very instant the fighting started rather than try to fight with his family. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. The cabin scene later is a good indication to me for what really happened. Cogburn will take them alive if he can, but if they pull on him he lets loose on instinct and worries about the consequences later.
@@QUINTBLINT quite true. Can’t know for sure, but I’m inclined to think what Maddie thought. Firstly, she was able to size up people right away. Even better than rooster. He totally wrote off leboeuf immediately, but Maddie held back on that. Even after he whupped her butt and got all creepy. She still seemed to think there was more to him than bluster. She even stuck up for him later on. Anyway, second reason? At greaser bob’s. The ORIGINAL. Greaser bob’s. Rooster smoked out the first two, and shot one through the wall blindly. Then sat perched to snipe the ned pepper gang from cover. As the defense attorney would say, “a cold blooded bushwhack while poor Mister Pepper was arriving from a long day’s travel for some rest and a bowl of beans.” I’m sure he’d have no problem shooting someone in the back from cover if he’d just seen the the last moments of a helpless old man who’d been basically tortured to death and died next to him in agony. Rooster had a strong sense of right and wrong. Couldn’t watch Maddie being whupped. Couldn’t watch kids torturing a mule. Injustice seems to be a rage inducer for rooster, and it seems he might be inclined to think that fighting a dishonorable person requires no honorable methods on his part. That aside? US Marshals back then had a habit of dying quite a lot. I’m sure he’s only survived this long because he had seen that being honorable tends to be synonymous with being stupid, and stupidity leads to death pretty often when it’s you against many.
The truth is implied to be a combination of Rooster’s story, and Gowdy’s accusation. From reading the novel, I came away thinking that what most likely happened was that Cogburn had attempted to kill all the Wharton’s after they had killed Potter.
"how many men have you shot?" "shot or killed?" "haha well let us restrict it to killed so that we may have a manageable figure." love this script haha
@@karlacleverly9812 You heard these same lines already if you saw the John Wayne version......why do people act like they're hearing them for the first time?
@@theophilusthistle1988 Some of us did hear them for the first time in the recent adaptation. Not to deride John Wayne and his legend, but I think the Coen bros version is an equally if not slightly better film.
That same line was in the original as well. In fact, I noticed a lot of the lines in the remake were almost word-for-word repeats of the lines in the original film, however the actors in the original talked way more lively, whereas here, everyone in my opinion sounded bored and like they didn't even wanna be there.
One of his roles I was most impressed with was actually obadiah stane in iron man. Not your typical dense character portrayal or anything, but I hadnt seen bridges in a role as a corporate villain, and I completely bought it. Hes so menacing in his reveal screne as the villain, and youd never think this was the dude or any other of jeff bridges’ more easygoing characters. Thats range for ya
From what I've read, that Actor is a Voice Coach. He obviously modeled his Character on Trey Gowdy. The name on the cast list is Lawyer Goudy, with a U.
The way cogburn talks and carries himself and how he puts his sentences together is basically what all my uncles in my family sound like (I’m from Texas) when he says “spotted them two boys and their daddy Erin” just sounds like another conversation amongst my family 😂
@@nerthus4685 yes, and that is the accent that I have or people that meet me would say I sound like, in my opinion, there are two main strains of southern accents… a more “rough” and stern accent with a downward draw, and the more “light” loose accent spoken by the lawyer.
As an attorney, its amazing how I could go back a 100+ years and still be able to practice, because much of what is true today was true then. But the rules of evidence being used in this scene are 100% accurate. The questions used by both the prosecutor and defense lawyer are accurate and well done. The attention to detail for this scene is truly remarkable because most Hollywood movies are far from accurate when depicting courtroom testimony. Props to the film for getting it spot on.
As an attorney, the Court of Judge Parker covered only the Indian territories. Judge Parker's decisions were final and no appeals possible for the 160 convicted to death incl 4 women from 1875>1889. It was more of an occupiers tribunal court than followed the military code of justice at that time.
between bridges absolutely owning this character and hailee steinfelds performance..this movie is pure gold. matt damon did awesome too but pale in the light of the dude! roosters my hero.
@@edwardmoore5325 apples and oranges. The two movies are about as different as they could get being based on the same book. The 1969 version is silly, goofy, basically a cartoon. The 2010 version is far darker (and much closer to the original novel).
I'm actually in this scene as an extra but it's difficult to make it out. It was amazing watching this live. The crazy part is this scene took 3 days to make! Really showed how crazy long it take to make a movie
Reuben Cogburn was a real person. He was a Confederate veteran of Captain Bill Quantrill's volunteer cavalry guerilla warfare unit. He lost his eye in battle, the bullet failed to pierce his socket despite shattering it. He WAS a tough, alert, ruthless, practical, stoical but energetic soldier, despite the bad reputation unjustly heaped on him after the war. He had his faults, but he was mostly an honorable and plaindealing man, all his life.
My favourite line in this segment is "down the crick bank with some haaawgs and they shot a shoat"....among so many great lines in this part. I agree with a lot of my co-viewers on their favourite lines. Just classic American cinema.
Have you seen the whole movie? The line where Maddie tracks down Rooster in the outhouse and he hollers, "The jakes is occupied! Will be for some time" has been repeated in my house numerous times. The whole thing is pretty much one great memorable line after another; too many to list, really.
The Coen Brothers have a real love for the American West. Their latest film, The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, is awesome too. It's just a collection of Wild West stories but all six of them are excellent and make you think long after the movie is over.
Best courtroom scene in any movie and lawyering isnt even the story in this one. The way the prosecutor casually introduces crucial testimony by leading the witness is a trial technique; and here it was executed both subtlely and powerfully.
At least in Canada, leading questions aren't prohibited, but the trier of fact will be instructed to give the answers less/no weight, the answer having been suggested by the question. You're entitled to lead on non-contentious points, generally, and if the witness is clueless, you sometimes end up leading even on the merits, thought it will cost you with the judge/jury.
in the 80s as a teen i saw Jeff Bridges in 8 million ways to die and Against All odds. He was my favorite actor. Decades later. I am glad to see him still acting great in good movies. Here is a prime example. Im my opinion he is bordering legend status.
Neil Tipton that goes to show how focused she is. She could've easily taken so many roles that went to actresses like Jennifer Lawrence, Emma Stone, Margot Robbie and a few other younger actresses after this acclaim and success of this film but she chose to do something completely different and I applaud that
He'll always be Flynn from Tron to me, it's the first thing I ever saw him in. Second thing I saw him in was Starman. So whenever I see him, those are the movies I think of.
"C.C. Warten pulled down on Potter with one barrel, and turned to do the same to me and I shot him. Old man raised the axe and I shot him. Otis led out and I shot him." I love the silence that follows that line, like he's describing what he ate for breakfast. Total badass.
Yeah and I like how the camera shows Mattie contemplating what she's heard, almost like "Yep, this is the man I want tracking my father's killer...no mercy."
I read this story in the late fifties or early sixty. It was in installments in maybe Life magazine. I read it by the light of a coal oil lamp. I loved it then and love it now more.
A good example of the US legal system in action. I practiced law in Ohio in the 80s 90s and 00s and not much had changed. One does avoid asking dumb questions when cross examining an experienced witness. But counsel made his point.
I'm not a lawyer but there were some seriously missed objections there- I think it should be irrelevant how many members of the family he had killed or how many people he had shot/killed while being a Marshal. This is clearly just trying to drum up sympathy instead of giving evidence to the case in question. As an expository device for the story, to show Rooster as a badass gunslinger- it works well. But it's bad l legal there, especially if the other side is so strict with objections to hearsay and leading.
it goes to the credibility of the witness and that has a tendency to act in a certain manner when placed in certain situations, therefore, having laid the groundwork the defences thesis that Cogburn was pursuing a personal vendetta and ambushed can be advanced. As to objections, there are different schools of thought as to what is the best approach some lawyers such as the defence object frequently others such as the prosecution take the view that objections should rarely used if at all. Indeed there was a murder trial where there were multiple defendents each of whom had their own lawyers. They made no objections as in essence objecting would not have helped their clients case.
This scene was very accurate for when the book was written in 1968 but not so much for when the scene was set in the 1870's, as evidenced by trial transcripts from cases of that era or even films of trials as recently as the 1920s and '30s. A trial would have sounded much different from this scene in the late 1870s. There was a century of procedural evolution and case law between the time of the story's setting and when the book was written.
@@RMBB4202 australian lawyer here can you recommend any open source transcripts or provide an example of how things would have proceed in the 1880s vs the 1960s would be interested to learn more.
"Did you find the jar with $120 in it?" "Leading!" "Sustained." "... What happened then?" "I found a jar with $120 dollars in it!" "What became of Otis Wharton?" "There it sits."
And the only hearsay that fall under the Dying Declaration exception is a statement made by the dying person that relates to what they believed to be the cause of their death.
In the law of evidence, a dying declaration is testimony that would normally be barred as hearsay but may nonetheless be admitted as evidence in criminal law trials because it constituted the last words of a dying person. The rationale, accurate or not, is that someone who is dying or believes death to be imminent would have less incentive to fabricate testimony, and as such, the hearsay statement carries with it some reliability.
Great movie. I've seen it in theater when it came out and I immediately fall in love with this film and his soundtrack. The greatest western of the decade just passed, one of the greatest western of the new millennium among the remake of 3:10 to Yuma, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford and etcetera and possibly one of the greatest western motion pictures ever produced.
Prosecutor was asleep at the wheel. Took him long enough to object to anything. I’d have screamed “objection! Relevance!” As soon as he started asking about his body count.
@@MrRolyat98 LOL yeah. Marshall Potter didn't make it out alive, was that a coincidence or something? But as someone else said, this was Judge Parker's territorial court, so there was likely going to be some hanging.
Isaac Charles Parker was a real federal judge of this era. The 23 or so men Cogburn shot and killed would be on the high end but it was extremely dangerous work. During Parker's tenure, which lasted 21 years, 65 of his marshal's were killed. Parker's court sat six days a week due to the enormous number of cases and often up to ten hours each day. He sentenced 160 people to death overall.
Jeff Bridges and Kurt Russell seem to have morphed into one person over the last decade. Seriously, whenever I watch movies like True Grit or Hateful 8, I can never tell which one I'm lookin at....
In the book, Odus Wharton escapes after they leave Fort Worth and that, after the events of True Grit, is found by Rooster again and killed 'in a duel'. However, Rooster also shot two of Odus' accomplices who technically did nothing wrong and he was forced to resign. Goddamn Whartons..... would love to see a prequel involving Rooster, Columbus Potter and the Whartons.
When you read letters from back then they are written with so much more style, substance and gravity than today. It feels like modernization has cheapened how we communicate and in turn the very ideas we're attempting to get across.
If you appreciate (as I do) the language they used back then, may I suggest another example of that style- "EULOGY TO THE DOG" (sometimes also called "TRIBUTE TO THE DOG"), delivered by a Missouri lawyer in 1870, who was also a renowned orator in this region- his name was George Graham Vest, & I think you'll find the written text of this speech to be beautiful & moving! (PS- if you choose to seek it out, I'd be interested in your opinion! But beware: there are spoken-word versions of it here on YT, but it was shortened, & the delivery by the actors is weak in comparison- Anyway, be well!)
He really tied the scene together, did he not? Like a nice rug ties a good room together. Luckily there weren't any Chinamen present, but that's not the issue here
"How many members of this one family have you killed?"
"...Immediate, or...?"
lmfao
He actually says, “me did, or?” 😂 but either way a hilarious line
@@Talltrees432 That doesn't make any sense. He said immediate, as in immediate family vs extended family.
@@dangerdan2592 you must not know the old day twang,, as in, “me did” means, “did I do it?” Listen again. But immediate would be sufficient in this case. If you’re not from the west I understand why this may be a hard one. We adapted a southern accent around 1800s ish
@@Talltrees432 the script says immediate
moviecultists.com/wp-content/uploads/screenplays/true-grit.pdf
@@dangerdan2592 fair, I am incorrect it sounds so much like the old way of people saying “I did it”
"I always go backwards when i'm backing up"😂😂😂
Jack the Film Fanatic It is also a direct quote from the novel. I just finished reading it for the first time and it’s absolutely worth the read if you enjoy the movies.
Just goes to show common sense can be some funny fucking shittttt
@@jakefitzpatrick577 I think the 2010 true grit portrays the novel better. 69 was good, but you really had to be alive when it came out to appreciate it the way some folks do. Especially the final gunfight with lucky Ned.
I like the "rolled up newspaper" line.
@@grizzlyblackpowder1960 the 1969 version was basically a cartoon. Silly, goofy. The 2010 version is much, much closer to the book in tone for certain.
If you think it was a cold blooded bushwack, well thats like your opinion, man.
Nice.
You said it, my friend. Nobody fucks with the Rooster.
No such thing as cold blooded when you're dealing with men who just tortured and killed another for some money.
@@bullballsallday or El Roosterino if you're not into the whole brevity thing
Ha!
"Did you find the jar with $120 in it?"
"Leading"
"Sustained"
"What happened then?"
"Found a jar with $120 in it."
Brilliant
I had a good laugh, too. As an attorney, I've seen very similar questioning of witnesses in modern trials. It's now an established trial tactic with trial lawyers to get the witness to say the things they want rather than have the witness stray from those points the attorney wants the witness to testify to.
Yeah, its an excellent example of being "unable to ring a bell." I'm a 3L :).
Objection, articulation.
Did I say 120 it was 115
@@wayneparker9331 It's a pleasure, I am an attorney too
Bridges is one hell of a performer - A true artist. While not usually a fan of 'remakes', this entire effort was brilliant!
It’s not really a remake of the original movie though. It’s a readaptation of the book.
I think it is better than the first film since that was a John Wayne movie. The Coen Brothers version is closer to the story told in the novel. Mattie is the protagonist and not Rooster. Rooster is important but the story is about Mattie demanding justice.
@@grovercleavland2698 - Ok.
@@GodsFavoriteBassPlyr The original film was basically a cartoon. Goofy, silly. Even that weird technicolor or whatever it was they filmed it in back in 1969 looks garish and sort of "cartoony." This version is much darker in both overall tone and cinematography, and much closer to the original novel by Charles Portis. They're just about as different as two movies based on the same book can get, and still be recognizable as having the same story.
If you like either version, get the book. It's excellent.
Here here!
"Them hogs might have moved him ... I do not remember." Classic.
Hogs indeed
This scene is an example of what makes a film rewatchable to me. I’d never seen the original or read the book. I had a lot of things going on when I first saw this, and I was a little distracted. I only realized the underlying story progression here after seeing it again years later. On cross examination it’s revealed that rooster made up his testimony about the confrontation. The excellence of the dialogue aside, I was struck when I realized this was the moment that Maddie decided to pursue hiring rooster to track down Chaney. You can see her realizing in an instant that he did sneak up on those three, and opened fire on them. It WAS a cold blooded bushwhack. Rooster didn’t play around. He wouldn’t flash a badge or do a lot of talking. This is a man who’d hunt and kill anyone he’d set his sights on, and he would do it quickly. Efficiently. Without mercy. Maddie wasn’t looking for an officer of the law. She needed a killer. Because when Chaney killed her father after gaining his trust, she became one as well. This scene highlights in a very subtle way how much she must have loved her dad, and how badly his death had broken her heart.
Not sure we can conclude that definitively. His deputy was blown away by a shotgun. Woulda been hard to do that if they were just getting bushwhacked. That would also mean Otis ran the very instant the fighting started rather than try to fight with his family. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. The cabin scene later is a good indication to me for what really happened. Cogburn will take them alive if he can, but if they pull on him he lets loose on instinct and worries about the consequences later.
@@QUINTBLINT quite true. Can’t know for sure, but I’m inclined to think what Maddie thought. Firstly, she was able to size up people right away. Even better than rooster. He totally wrote off leboeuf immediately, but Maddie held back on that. Even after he whupped her butt and got all creepy. She still seemed to think there was more to him than bluster. She even stuck up for him later on. Anyway, second reason? At greaser bob’s. The ORIGINAL. Greaser bob’s. Rooster smoked out the first two, and shot one through the wall blindly. Then sat perched to snipe the ned pepper gang from cover. As the defense attorney would say, “a cold blooded bushwhack while poor Mister Pepper was arriving from a long day’s travel for some rest and a bowl of beans.” I’m sure he’d have no problem shooting someone in the back from cover if he’d just seen the the last moments of a helpless old man who’d been basically tortured to death and died next to him in agony. Rooster had a strong sense of right and wrong. Couldn’t watch Maddie being whupped. Couldn’t watch kids torturing a mule. Injustice seems to be a rage inducer for rooster, and it seems he might be inclined to think that fighting a dishonorable person requires no honorable methods on his part. That aside? US Marshals back then had a habit of dying quite a lot. I’m sure he’s only survived this long because he had seen that being honorable tends to be synonymous with being stupid, and stupidity leads to death pretty often when it’s you against many.
I feel your passion 🙏
The truth is implied to be a combination of Rooster’s story, and Gowdy’s accusation.
From reading the novel, I came away thinking that what most likely happened was that Cogburn had attempted to kill all the Wharton’s after they had killed Potter.
The original with John Wayne was terrible. But the soundtrack was excellent. Never read the book.
I absolutely love how they kept the original script, almost word for word.
Agrees to the original book too :)
The actor playing the defense attorney is so good lmao
he sounds like a real lawyer!
I agree
He even sounds like Trey Gowdy too
@@PheonixNine That's what I thought when I saw this. Such an odd coincidence, with them both being named Gowdy.
He Was TheCop in "VarsityBlue's"
"how many men have you shot?"
"shot or killed?"
"haha well let us restrict it to killed so that we may have a manageable figure."
love this script haha
Now I'm going to have to watch the movie again. I didn't realize there were so many excellent lines.
@@karlacleverly9812 You heard these same lines already if you saw the John Wayne version......why do people act like they're hearing them for the first time?
@@theophilusthistle1988 Some of us did hear them for the first time in the recent adaptation. Not to deride John Wayne and his legend, but I think the Coen bros version is an equally if not slightly better film.
This is straight outta the book. Give it a read, it's great.
@@bendevictor3398 really? I should check it out, thanks.
I always go backwards when I'm backing up. 😂😂😂 one of my favorite parts
+zomantheboss very amusing :D
I love the way he chuckles at his own joke haha
i love it because when he said "well...if it aint loaded it dont shoot" he heard the crowd chuckle so thats why he started making jokes.
zomantheboss you and the courtroom ...!
Fair point lol
"lets keep things to a manageable number shall we"
This movie has to have the best dialogue in the history of cinema.
That same line was in the original as well. In fact, I noticed a lot of the lines in the remake were almost word-for-word repeats of the lines in the original film, however the actors in the original talked way more lively, whereas here, everyone in my opinion sounded bored and like they didn't even wanna be there.
Jeff Bridges is a magnificent actor. The Dude and Marshall Cogburn shows some pretty serious range.
Don't forget Starman , and the first thing I saw him in...Last American Hero.
One of my favorites
One of his roles I was most impressed with was actually obadiah stane in iron man. Not your typical dense character portrayal or anything, but I hadnt seen bridges in a role as a corporate villain, and I completely bought it. Hes so menacing in his reveal screne as the villain, and youd never think this was the dude or any other of jeff bridges’ more easygoing characters. Thats range for ya
First movie I took notice, Fat City.
He was great in "The Men Who Stare at Goats" and "The Big Lebowski" and this. Vastly underrated.
I just love the second lawyer's Southern accent.
Trey Gowdy impersonator 🤣🤣
@TBC Films such a great acting
@@brettwilkinson9529 To the point where the character is named "Mr. Gowdy" lol.
From what I've read, that Actor is a Voice Coach. He obviously modeled his Character on Trey Gowdy. The name on the cast list is Lawyer Goudy, with a U.
@@brettwilkinson9529 EXACTLY!. The Actor is a Voice Coach. And the name on the Cast List is Lawyer Goudy, with a U
I love how he looks surprised and at the laughter from the audience after his first remark, and then starts playing to them like he really enjoyed it.
I love that part.
The way cogburn talks and carries himself and how he puts his sentences together is basically what all my uncles in my family sound like (I’m from Texas) when he says “spotted them two boys and their daddy Erin” just sounds like another conversation amongst my family 😂
All the Actors are Amazing aren't they! SO AUTHENTIC it makes you wonder how they did it
Daddy Erin's lawyer sounds just like Matthew McConaughey, which is I suppose a South Texas accent.
Just a good script altogether, the Coens really know their stuff
bless your uncles
@@nerthus4685 yes, and that is the accent that I have or people that meet me would say I sound like, in my opinion, there are two main strains of southern accents… a more “rough” and stern accent with a downward draw, and the more “light” loose accent spoken by the lawyer.
The defense lawyer seems so perfectly old-timey.
As an attorney, its amazing how I could go back a 100+ years and still be able to practice, because much of what is true today was true then. But the rules of evidence being used in this scene are 100% accurate. The questions used by both the prosecutor and defense lawyer are accurate and well done. The attention to detail for this scene is truly remarkable because most Hollywood movies are far from accurate when depicting courtroom testimony. Props to the film for getting it spot on.
Straight out of the novel, which also gets it correct
As a police officer I can verify the contempt the defense attorney shows to the law man ....100 years later
As an attorney, the Court of Judge Parker covered only the Indian territories. Judge Parker's decisions were final and no appeals possible for the 160 convicted to death incl 4 women from 1875>1889. It was more of an occupiers tribunal court than followed the military code of justice at that time.
Proximate Cause the judge was quite fair
I just took my evidence final and decided to rewatch this scene. It really did a great job.
“And how many members of this one family have you killed?”
“Immediate...or?”
I love that lol
"Well if you put it that way, I guess I might've moved the body.." That's gotta be the best defense line ever..
"That's where the body was, I might have moved him"
lol still a great line
Lol! Yep.
If it ain't load and cocked it don't shoot. 😂😂😂
zomantheboss good advice
Locked and loaded ....A pistol a knife and hankie no ?
I've always been curious as to how closely archaic American vernacular and colloquialisms can be translated into other languages like Arabic.
between bridges absolutely owning this character and hailee steinfelds performance..this movie is pure gold. matt damon did awesome too but pale in the light of the dude! roosters my hero.
Maddie killed it too, as well as Tom Chaney.
I would have to see the whole movie to compare it to the original.going up against John Wayne is a serious challenge for anyone.
@@edwardmoore5325 apples and oranges. The two movies are about as different as they could get being based on the same book. The 1969 version is silly, goofy, basically a cartoon. The 2010 version is far darker (and much closer to the original novel).
@@MrJmobes all 3 were great in this
Every time I see this scene I really wanna play RDR2
"I always go backward when I'm backing up"!
I've shot about 12-15 people
*I have a record stating the exact amount*
Oh I believe those two boys makes it 23.
That made me laugh pretty hard.
I love how period-accurate this whole scene was.
How so was it period accurate?
Lawyer: How many members of this one family, the Wharton family, have you killed? Rooster: Immediate? or... That's my favorite.
testodude he said “beaten”
no he did not lol
testodude just checked the transcript. I stand corrected.
Black Pill I’m from Texas where it’s not uncommon to hear someone with a Texas draw say “beated” .... I just misheard the dialogue is all.
@@markwinter1193 it's a real word. It just made no sense in this context.
Just as much hats off for the actor playing the second lawyer.
I'm actually in this scene as an extra but it's difficult to make it out. It was amazing watching this live. The crazy part is this scene took 3 days to make! Really showed how crazy long it take to make a movie
Explains why his eyepatch keeps wandering around his brow.
Wow! Where was this filmed?? How much did you make and was Jeff Bridges there the entire time?
Reuben Cogburn was a real person. He was a Confederate veteran of Captain Bill Quantrill's volunteer cavalry guerilla warfare unit. He lost his eye in battle, the bullet failed to pierce his socket despite shattering it. He WAS a tough, alert, ruthless, practical, stoical but energetic soldier, despite the bad reputation unjustly heaped on him after the war. He had his faults, but he was mostly an honorable and plaindealing man, all his life.
But he also fought for the confederacy. That’s kinda gay
I call that a bold exposition about a one-eyed fat man.
@@MrElmofamily calm down now, let a man fight for what they believe in
@@MrElmofamily Yeah bootlicker we get it you prefer the taste of Lincoln shoe polish
@@MrElmofamily CHECKMATE LINCOLNITES
Wish I could speak with the eloquence these guys spoke with.
John Smith thx
My favourite line in this segment is "down the crick bank with some haaawgs and they shot a shoat"....among so many great lines in this part. I agree with a lot of my co-viewers on their favourite lines. Just classic American cinema.
Have you seen the whole movie? The line where Maddie tracks down Rooster in the outhouse and he hollers, "The jakes is occupied! Will be for some time" has been repeated in my house numerous times.
The whole thing is pretty much one great memorable line after another; too many to list, really.
The Coen Brothers are truly a blessing on our existence
The Coen Brothers have a real love for the American West. Their latest film, The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, is awesome too. It's just a collection of Wild West stories but all six of them are excellent and make you think long after the movie is over.
Best courtroom scene in any movie and lawyering isnt even the story in this one. The way the prosecutor casually introduces crucial testimony by leading the witness is a trial technique; and here it was executed both subtlely and powerfully.
At least in Canada, leading questions aren't prohibited, but the trier of fact will be instructed to give the answers less/no weight, the answer having been suggested by the question. You're entitled to lead on non-contentious points, generally, and if the witness is clueless, you sometimes end up leading even on the merits, thought it will cost you with the judge/jury.
in the 80s as a teen i saw Jeff Bridges in 8 million ways to die and Against All odds. He was my favorite actor. Decades later. I am glad to see him still acting great in good movies. Here is a prime example. Im my opinion he is bordering legend status.
Neil Tipton that goes to show how focused she is. She could've easily taken so many roles that went to actresses like Jennifer Lawrence, Emma Stone, Margot Robbie and a few other younger actresses after this acclaim and success of this film but she chose to do something completely different and I applaud that
He'll always be Flynn from Tron to me, it's the first thing I ever saw him in. Second thing I saw him in was Starman. So whenever I see him, those are the movies I think of.
The Bridges abides...
"C.C. Warten pulled down on Potter with one barrel, and turned to do the same to me and I shot him. Old man raised the axe and I shot him. Otis led out and I shot him."
I love the silence that follows that line, like he's describing what he ate for breakfast. Total badass.
Yeah and I like how the camera shows Mattie contemplating what she's heard, almost like "Yep, this is the man I want tracking my father's killer...no mercy."
*lit out
Otis "LET" out.
@@nomadjensen8276 it's "lit". The slang is "lit out"
“A cold blooded bushwhack” describes 90% of what I do in Red Dead Redemption 2
Lawyer: "And How many of this one family, the Wharton family, have you killed?"
Rooster: "Immediate? .... or.......... ?"
12 or 15 and the 2 additional wharton boys makes 23 lol
Trey Gowdy for the defense.
Shit I was just thinking that!
Trey Gowdy played "Lonnie" in Deliverance 1972 movie. He was a child actor
Billy Redden played "Lonnie" in Deliverance.
Sounds just like him
Lol really does sound like him. The name is just icing on the cake.
Yes, Jeff Bridges nailed this character!
I read this story in the late fifties or early sixty. It was in installments in maybe Life magazine. I read it by the light of a coal oil lamp. I loved it then and love it now more.
One of the best westerns of our time. Also one of the best book adaptations I've seen.
"I always go backwards when I'm backin' up!"
A good example of the US legal system in action. I practiced law in Ohio in the 80s 90s and 00s and not much had changed. One does avoid asking dumb questions when cross examining an experienced witness. But counsel made his point.
I'm not a lawyer but there were some seriously missed objections there- I think it should be irrelevant how many members of the family he had killed or how many people he had shot/killed while being a Marshal. This is clearly just trying to drum up sympathy instead of giving evidence to the case in question. As an expository device for the story, to show Rooster as a badass gunslinger- it works well. But it's bad l legal there, especially if the other side is so strict with objections to hearsay and leading.
It is good lawyering to show that the Marshall has a very extensive record of using deadly force.
it goes to the credibility of the witness and that has a tendency to act in a certain manner when placed in certain situations, therefore, having laid the groundwork the defences thesis that Cogburn was pursuing a personal vendetta and ambushed can be advanced. As to objections, there are different schools of thought as to what is the best approach some lawyers such as the defence object frequently others such as the prosecution take the view that objections should rarely used if at all. Indeed there was a murder trial where there were multiple defendents each of whom had their own lawyers. They made no objections as in essence objecting would not have helped their clients case.
This scene was very accurate for when the book was written in 1968 but not so much for when the scene was set in the 1870's, as evidenced by trial transcripts from cases of that era or even films of trials as recently as the 1920s and '30s. A trial would have sounded much different from this scene in the late 1870s. There was a century of procedural evolution and case law between the time of the story's setting and when the book was written.
@@RMBB4202 australian lawyer here can you recommend any open source transcripts or provide an example of how things would have proceed in the 1880s vs the 1960s would be interested to learn more.
I love this scene. Coens are so great
Now I want to see the Coen Brothers make a courtroom drama set in the old west.
the thing I liked about it was the authenticity of these people actually seemed like they knew what they were doing
Lesson: Never bring a king bolt to a gun fight… man.
They held true to the original dialog. Loved all of it!
“I always go backwards when I’m backing up”. That was epic..
One of the finer cross examinations in the movies.
"Did you find the jar with $120 in it?"
"Leading!"
"Sustained."
"... What happened then?"
"I found a jar with $120 dollars in it!"
"What became of Otis Wharton?"
"There it sits."
I like this version so much better than the John Wayne version.
"I always go backwards when I'm backing up" 😆 Jeff Bridges is brilliant in this film
"That little ole kingbolt or rolled up newspaper paper or whatever it wassssszzzzz"
One of the best deliveries, ever
"...come at me with a kingbolt..."
The exception to the hearsay objection is "Dying Declaration" which is admissible.
@IfYouDisagreeYouAreWrong I think that's kind of implied by "Dying Declaration", isn't it?
And the only hearsay that fall under the Dying Declaration exception is a statement made by the dying person that relates to what they believed to be the cause of their death.
“Commence to cussin’ … and I shot him….”
One of my favorite movies of all time.
Those Coens can make a helluva film.
That noise he makes at 6:06
He's saying "well hold on"
I love this dialogue.
In the law of evidence, a dying declaration is testimony that would normally be barred as hearsay but may nonetheless be admitted as evidence in criminal law trials because it constituted the last words of a dying person. The rationale, accurate or not, is that someone who is dying or believes death to be imminent would have less incentive to fabricate testimony, and as such, the hearsay statement carries with it some reliability.
“If it ain’t loaded and cocked it won’t shoot” 🙏🏻
My step dad and I, before he passed away, used to rewind this scene over and over while laughing non-stop.
Great movie. I've seen it in theater when it came out and I immediately fall in love with this film and his soundtrack. The greatest western of the decade just passed, one of the greatest western of the new millennium among the remake of 3:10 to Yuma, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford and etcetera and possibly one of the greatest western motion pictures ever produced.
Prosecutor was asleep at the wheel. Took him long enough to object to anything. I’d have screamed “objection! Relevance!” As soon as he started asking about his body count.
Overruled, it goes toward the witness credibility and experience.
@@erosson27 maybe. I’d have thought the evidence of another Marshal dead at the scene would have aided his credibility.
@@MrRolyat98 LOL yeah. Marshall Potter didn't make it out alive, was that a coincidence or something? But as someone else said, this was Judge Parker's territorial court, so there was likely going to be some hanging.
I could watch an entire courtroom drama written by the Coen Brothers set in the 1800s.
Yes, but pls give writing credit where it's due- this scene was lifted, basically verbatim, from Charles Portis's book...
Isaac Charles Parker was a real federal judge of this era. The 23 or so men Cogburn shot and killed would be on the high end but it was extremely dangerous work. During Parker's tenure, which lasted 21 years, 65 of his marshal's were killed. Parker's court sat six days a week due to the enormous number of cases and often up to ten hours each day. He sentenced 160 people to death overall.
I read Parker was a Lincoln elector …he’s known as the hangin judge …
I love that sound he makes when he asks him about his arm in the fire
The best actor ever
Jeff Bridges and Kurt Russell seem to have morphed into one person over the last decade. Seriously, whenever I watch movies like True Grit or Hateful 8, I can never tell which one I'm lookin at....
My favorite part in the movie this and the charge of rooster at the end
This scene is light years better than the John Wayne version. The entire movie for that matter. There, I said it.
Lmao 🤣 @ “that little o’l Kingbolt or Rolled up newspaper or whatever it was.”
If a man is answering questions like this with such detail he ain’t lying 😂
He damn near killed the whole Wharton family at this point lol.
Anything worth doing is worth doing well.
@@dashcammer4322 No one can say he isn't thorough.
apparently, the extended Wharton family.
This film is based upon what happened in Fort Smith at the Fort Smith National Historic Site. This courthouse is still there.
This remake really delivered!
Hopefully Bridges will make "Rooster Cogburn" to follow up on this great re-make.
Yes that's what Hollywood needs, another remake.
To be a law man back then.
In the book, Odus Wharton escapes after they leave Fort Worth and that, after the events of True Grit, is found by Rooster again and killed 'in a duel'. However, Rooster also shot two of Odus' accomplices who technically did nothing wrong and he was forced to resign.
Goddamn Whartons..... would love to see a prequel involving Rooster, Columbus Potter and the Whartons.
Best scene in the movie
The prosecutor is named "Gowdy" and even sounds kinda like Trey Gowdy.
He does sound like Gowdy. He also sounds a little like Keanu Reeves in The Devil's Advocate
Spelled Goudy, which was also that character's name in the 1969 version.
I generally go backwards when I'm backing up 😆 🤣 😂
The rare case when a remake is better than the original in every way.
Better than the original (which was a masterpiece as well so chill).
Nah it definitely wasnt a masterpiece lol people can be butthurt but nah the old one kinda sucked
This is a great movie. 👍👍
Little to no music, like No Country for Old Men, 2 classics by the Cohen's.
When you read letters from back then they are written with so much more style, substance and gravity than today. It feels like modernization has cheapened how we communicate and in turn the very ideas we're attempting to get across.
Survivorship bias.
If you appreciate (as I do) the language they used back then, may I suggest another example of that style- "EULOGY TO THE DOG" (sometimes also called "TRIBUTE TO THE DOG"), delivered by a Missouri lawyer in 1870, who was also a renowned orator in this region- his name was George Graham Vest, & I think you'll find the written text of this speech to be beautiful & moving! (PS- if you choose to seek it out, I'd be interested in your opinion! But beware: there are spoken-word versions of it here on YT, but it was shortened, & the delivery by the actors is weak in comparison- Anyway, be well!)
This is a great scene
"...turned to do the same to me and I shot him. Old man raised his axe at me and I shot him. Then Otis let out, shot him too."
Anyone else notice the fictional defence lawyer named Mr Gowdy sounds like the real life lawyer (and former Congressman) Mr Gowdy?
The gent who plays the lawyer is what gripped me with this film. That accent and how concise he is 👊
He really tied the scene together, did he not? Like a nice rug ties a good room together. Luckily there weren't any Chinamen present, but that's not the issue here
Dam the country lawyer slam dunked em....good lawyering
Jeff Bridges plays the gruff, old guy a lot. like in Hell or High Water.
I always go backwards when I'm backing up!!! Fkn priceless!!!😄😄
“Well, it ain’t loaded and cocked, it don’t shoot.”