Time Just Gets Away From Us

Ever since I watched No Country For Old Men I have been nearly addicted to the Western genre. That's not to say I have watched Westerns nonstop, but I have watched more Western movies in the last couple years than I have throughout the rest of my life.
When I heard the Coen Brothers were making another Western, I was really excited. Of course, I read up on the movie and found out it is based off of a book called True Grit by Charles Portis. I also found out John Wayne starred in another film adaptation of the book and won the Academy Award for Best Actor for his role in the film. When I learned there was one book, and two movies to be based off of it - one starring the most renowned Western actor, the other adapted by and directed by one of the best duos in the movie business - I had to see how they all matched up against one another.
I first saw the 2010 film. My brother Geoff and I went to see it in the theaters. The first thing you notice is this film is no No Country For Old Men, which is perfectly okay. There is music, and a narrative, and humor, all absent in the Coen Brothers's previous film. However, the story goes along nicely, is not complicated, is very funny, well acted, and indulges us with a great ending. However, It wasn't mind blowing like No Country For Old Men, so it wasn't everything that was expected. A great movie that I expect to do well at the Oscars, but won't be surprised if it does not win Best Picture. I hope it does, though.
Next I read the book. There isn't much to say about the book that I haven't said about the latest film. It is funny, entertaining, exciting - a well written piece of American literature. Why is this book neglected in schools? I do not know. I enjoyed reading it, and it's the second novel I have read by my own freewill and conviction since...well, at least since high school.
This morning I watched the earlier film adaptation of the book. For a 1960's Western not directed by Sergio Leone, I was very impressed. I think I laughed just as much watching this film as the more recent version. Also, the 1969 version features famed actors Robert Duvall and Dennis Hopper, and the aforementioned John Wayne. I don't know how famous Duvall and Hopper were in 1969, but it was great to see those icons play their roles.
Well, after reading the book and watching both films, the natural question is which one follows the book more closely? Which one does the book more justice? Well, I can honestly say the 1969 film follows the book more closely. Since I watched the 2010 movie first and then read the book, as I was reading I was waiting for certain things to happen. Some things did not happen. It became disappointing the Coen Brothers left certain parts of the book out, or added their own parts. One of the main things they changed affects the story completely (not the end result, but the story as it goes along) is LaBoeuf breaking off from Mattie and Rooster, then rejoining them as he is met by Ned Pepper and his gang at the little holdout when the shootout from the cliffs takes place. In the novel, LaBoeuf is always with the other two on the journey, and he shoots at the bandits from the cliffs on  the other side of the valley. He never bites part of his tongue off, but gets splinters and lead lodged into his arm. The earlier film does a much better job staying accurate to the novel in that aspect of the story, and others.
In the end, after all is said and done, I love this story. Both films are great as movies - entertaining, funny, great cast and acting. The novel is great as well. It is a story that you care about, and for someone who has not read much throughout my life, I will read it over and over.