True Grit (2010)

[titoli]

The remake was (in the States anyway) definitely a word-of-mouth film. I don't think Bridges or the Coens are that much of a box-office draw, and aside from pedophiles I doubt anyone went to see it for Steinfeld.

Don't underestimate pedophiles tastes...I doubt she could have made it to a bunga bunga party in Arcore.
About the word of mouth film, I presume most people over there didn't even know it was a remake.

[Groggy]

About the word of mouth film, I presume most people over there didn't even know it was a remake.

That fact was trumpeted in pretty much every review and advertisement of the film I saw. Heck, even overhearing conversations after the trailer I heard people refer to "the old John Wayne movie."

[The Firecracker]

I don't think Bridges or the Coens are that much of a box-office draw

I disagree.

Since 2007 the Coen's have become popular with the mainstream audience, so much so that people went in droves to see Burn After Reading. A film that the average Joe would have otherwise skipped.

[Groggy]

Since 2007 the Coen's have become popular with the mainstream audience, so much so that people went in droves to see Burn After Reading. A film that the average Joe would have otherwise skipped.

This of course explains the box office failure of A Serious Man, a film the average Joe would have skipped.

Burn After Reading's success is greatly qualified, anyway. Besides the fact that it wasn't that successful, it came out in September (a deadzone for movies) and starred George Clooney and Brad Pitt.

[The Firecracker]

This of course explains the box office failure of A Serious Man, a film the average Joe would have skipped.

Burn After Reading was only a big hit by Coens' standards anyway, and it had George Clooney and Brad Pitt in the cast.

Good points.
I don't think I stand completely corrected though as I don't remember much advertisement for A Serious Man (in fact I didn't even know of it until 2 months after its release whereas BAR's ad campaign was everywhere) and the subject matter is not something that would appeal to a wide audience.
At least BAR had some espionage stuff and actually had laughs in the trailer.

Would it be possible that a reason True Grit did well was because of its brand?

[The Firecracker]

This of course explains the box office failure of A Serious Man, a film the average Joe would have skipped.

Burn After Reading's success is greatly qualified, anyway. Besides the fact that it wasn't that successful, it came out in September (a deadzone for movies) and starred George Clooney and Brad Pitt.

Wait a second...

Looking at the numbers on wikipedia (if that is to be trusted) it says that Serious Man grossed 31 million and was made for 7 million.
Is the 31 million a total or just domestic?
Either way it was a success.

[The Firecracker]

Burn After Reading's success is greatly qualified, anyway. Besides the fact that it wasn't that successful, it came out in September (a deadzone for movies) and starred George Clooney and Brad Pitt.

I'm sorry for triple posting but I forgot to answer this...

Any film as small scale as that that makes well over 100 million is a success.
At least, I'd think so...

[Groggy]

Fair enough then, though it's fair to say $31 million isn't setting the box office alight.

As to your other points: True Grit was heavily marketed and has a recognizable title and story. Plus, as indicated, the extremely positive word-of-mouth from critics helped it a lot. I'm not saying the Coens' being involved had nothing to do with its success, as they have a good many fans. At the same time, however, I don't think "a Coen Bros. film" above the marquee is enough to draw the kind of box-office True Grit did.

[The Firecracker]

At the same time, however, I don't think "a Coen Bros. film" above the marquee is enough to draw the kind of box-office True Grit did.

All those analyst seem to think otherwise and although I don't think they're always right I'm sure they're far more qualified than you or I to say so.

[cigar joe]

From what I jist-ed out of the "The Day the Movies Died" I would lean toward the branding for "True Grit"

[The Firecracker]

 A lot of critics have been saying that what the two films share is Cogburn's eye-patch which wasn't present in the novel.

I read the novel and while I don't remember if Cogburn had an eye patch I'm certain he was missing an eye.
Can anybody shed some light on this?
Is this more ignorance from critics?
Or did Cogburn run around with nothing to protect his empty socket?
I find that highly unlikely...

[Groggy]

I don't recall an eyepatch being mentioned in the book. Jinkies, care to shed some light on this?

[dave jenkins]

Rooster has a bad eye (unspecified which). Nothing is said of an eye-patch.

Getting back to the money-making discussion: could the fact that this film has a PG-13 rating have anything to do with its exceptional (for the Coens) boxoffice? Just asking.

[Groggy]

Getting back to the money-making discussion: could the fact that this film has a PG-13 rating have anything to do with its exceptional (for the Coens) boxoffice? Just asking.

That too.

[dave jenkins]

John Exshaw, over at CinemaRetro, wrote this provocative and well-considered piece on the film: http://www.cinemaretro.com/index.php?/archives/5568-Ridin-with-Rooster-Again-Some-Thoughts-on-True-Grit.html#extended