Vinegaroon3

(2012-04-27 10:43:41)

I really enjoyed this movie...

I have long been a Coen brothers fan, and this film simply bolstersthat trend.I found the characters to be believable and easy to empathize with, thevisuals to be gritty yet spectacular and perfect, the dialog was verywell done, and the storyline was maintained at a good pace. There weresome extraneous details thrown in (the bear man) that probably addedlittle to the story, but I found them entertaining nonetheless.Many reviews have compared this film to the original. While this maynot be entirely fair, it is difficult to avoid.Unlike most, I watched the original AFTER I saw the 2010 version. Ithink the 2010 True Grit was the superior film. The 1969 version seemedsimply designed to showcase Wayne yet again, and the acting of theother cast members was quite wooden and hollow. John Wayne was simplyJohn Wayne. What more needs to be said? And while some would argue itwas irrelevant to the story, shooting scenes that are supposed to beoccurring in Arkansas/Oklahoma in the grandeur of the Rocky Mountainswas a bit....much.While this may be complete heresy to say, I think Jeff Bridges made abetter Rooster Cogburn than John Wayne.I recommend readers see the 2010 True Grit. I greatly enjoyed it.

(2012-04-27 06:39:18)

A great matchup.

I was excited about this movie as soon as I heard that the Coen brothers and Jeff Bridges were involved. The comic effect of the heightened vocabulary of Portis' novel fits right in with the Coen's aesthetic, most notably Raising Arizona and O Brother Where Art Thou, but it's also present in many of their other films as well. Like an O Henry story, the Coen's characters often speak more eloquently than their educational or societal level would seem to support.Jeff Bridges is great as usual and Hailee Steinfeld is amazing as Mattie. Matt Damon is hilarious as the blowhard Texas Ranger who imagines his quarry, Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin), to be a criminal genius when he's basically just a vicious idiot.Like pretty much every other Coen's movie, I'll be picking this up as soon as it comes out and giving it repeated viewings.There's really no point in trying to compare this to the '69 version. They're two different animals. Enjoy them both for what they are.

(2012-04-26 11:28:16)

Great Western

I had never really been a fan of western films, but when I saw "True Grit" I was absolutely blown away. The acting, directing, and cinematography were incredible. Jeff Bridges was great as he usually is, and I was pleasanty surprised with Matt Damon, Barry Pepper, and Josh Brolin. They really lucked out in finding Hailee Steinfeld, because she was born to play the role of Mattie Ross. You can tell that each actor felt like they were a part of something special. It can be very difficult for a film that takes place so long ago to capture the audience, but this film's cinematography makes it easy to be totally absorbed into the 1800's. The script was great, and there was so much more humor than I thought there would be. This was a very different direction for the Coen Brothers in comparison to their other projects, but I think it's one of their best films yet. If you're not normally a fan of Western films, give this one a try.

TheUnknown837-1

(2012-04-25 14:12:46)

The only thing consistent about Mr. Bridges's performance is the way he reminded me how much better John Wayne was in the original.

When the trailers for the Coen brothers' remake of the 1969 John Wayneclassic "True Grit" came out, I made some predictions about itsmuch-hyped young star, Hailee Steinfeld. Looking at clips of herperformance in the advertisements, I regrettably predicted that she wasfar too inexperienced and new to the camera to pull off the part well.Now in hindsight, I really kick myself with regret because not only isher debut performance remarkable, it's one of the few good things in anotherwise lousy and unnecessary remake.Joel and Ethan Coen are two of the most celebrated filmmakers inAmerica today. But I am not among their fans. I've always found twothings in their movies: professional craftsmanship and dead air. Theyknow how to handle cameras well; they know how to work continuity andmake a film easy to assemble for an editor. They know how to stage goodlighting and (most of the time) work well with actors. And if I gradedtheir movies based on that and not their real merits, I would go alongwith the crowd. But I've also always found that dead air. Not just deadair, but pretentious dead air. Their movies are so longwinded, soverbose, so tediously padded out, so overdrawn. They talk themselves todeath, they ramble about things that are not so interesting that theydeserve so much attention. Their moral subtexts become lost inscreenplays that mutter so many words and yet say so little to me. Soas you can imagine, I was completely against "No Country for Old Men"winning Best Picture and for this one being nominated earlier thisyear.It's the same story from the original and the book by Charles Portis.When a young girl (Miss Steinfeld) learns that her father has beenmurdered by a hired hand (Josh Brolin), she recruits the aid of analcoholic marshal (Jeff Bridges) to track him down and bring him tojustice. Along the way, they are joined by a money-hungry Texas Ranger(Matt Damon) and fight with each other as well as their foes.It's a promising presence. But the directors and their overly verbosescreenplay waters it down beyond belief. The first two-thirds of thismovie is really slow-going with nonimportant scenes dragging on foreverand vital moments that going before we even know they started. Thecourtroom scene in particular, so tautly-paced and funny in theoriginal, is dreadfully monotonous here. A violent moment in a cabinbuilds up terrifically and then cuts off before it could leave any realimpact on me. And then there are the scenes which are not only toolong, but completely useless. There is a very bad scene that stops thestory cold, where Mr. Bridges and Ms Steinfeld encounter a grisly old"doctor" in the woods. The scene takes a long time to build up, ittakes its time passing, and then disappears without ever beingmentioned again. It existed just to be there, not to enhance the story.Oh, and I didn't laugh either. Admittedly, the movie's final gunfightis appropriately gritty and thankfully quite exciting, but thedenouement and the way that it chooses to wrap itself up is in a word,lame. Part of the trouble was that the directors chose to be sofaithful to a book which I have been told is long-winded and verbose.When translating text to images, certain liberaties have to be taken.Director Henry Hathaway knew that in 1969; the Coen brothers were tooself-righteous to acknowledge that here. And their underplayed moralsubtext about violence in our culture was handled so limply amongst allthe talk-talk-talk that I only thought about how much better ClintEastwood handled the same subject in "Unforgiven."This time around, the directors' skill with working with actors failsthem. Despite my predictions, Ms Steinfeld did shell out a terrificperformance. From beginning to end, she is buttoned up and solid. Sheis an amazing actress and I hope she stays smart and acceptsscreenplays that are worth attempting. There is one more really goodperformance and that is Barry Pepper's, playing the role that RobertDuvall once helmed. Unfortunately, that's it as far as goodperformances. Josh Brolin, so good before, handles the role of themurderer in a dumbed-down, autistic manner that theoretically was agood idea, but only that. Mr. Damon, also so good before, isludicrously miscast as the Texas Ranger. He's too much of a 21stcentury actor to play this part well. It's not just that he lacks thephysique. But what shocked me the most was the simply put awfulperformance by Mr. Bridges. The actor whom I have admired so often,even in lousy movies, is instructed by the directors to give a hammy,one-note, uncharismatic performance with a mouth full of so muchtobacco that I found myself looking for subtitles as I could hardlyunderstand a word that he said. I'm a little ashamed of him, because ifanybody could play this part anywhere near as good as John Wayne had,it would have to be Jeff Bridges. He was wonderful in "Wild Bill," so Iknew he could play a Western part well. He just did not here and theonly thing consistent about his performance is the way he reminded mehow much better John Wayne did it in the original.With its overlong dialogue sequences, slow-moving sketch of a story,and shockingly lackluster performances (save Ms Steinfeld and Mr.Pepper), this unnecessary remake of "True Grit" just left me feelingempty. Now I have seen the original "True Grit" many times and I willcontinue to watch it as I grow older. But I've already forgotten aboutthis remake. Ms Steinfeld's debut performance excepted, there justisn't much to really go on here.

Robert J. Maxwell

(2012-04-24 16:30:33)

Adventure In The Old West.

The novel is a whiz-bang action comedy and sometimes is funny as hell.Matty Ross, the book's fourteen-year-old narrator, is a pinch-penny,opinionated, preachy instigator who doesn't suffer fools gladly -- orat all, if they can be avoided. What gives the novel its comic flavoris that, like Voltaire's Candide, she is a naive observer. She's atough little horse trader but she proposes to Rooster Cogburn, theMarshall she's hired to capture her father's murderer, that they hitthe killer on the head with sticks and capture him. This is the WildWest we're talking about -- 1873 in Arkansas and Oklahoma.The first adaptation was released in 1969. It was relatively faithfulto the novel and starred John Wayne in one of his two best roles, theother being Captain Brittles in "She Wore A Yellow Ribbon." It was asunny movie, shot amid the glorious gold and bright yellow ofColorado's aspens in the Fall. The musical score was heroic, chipper,and programmatic. If Wayne became drunk, so did the music.Wayne won an Oscar for his performance. These awards don't mean muchbut he deserved critical praise for genuinely getting into his decrepitand debauched character. He never did it again, reverting instead tohis Mainstream John Wayneness, maybe in search of lost totemicadulation.Too bad for this later version that Wayne was so good in the first andthat the mood was so up beat. The Coen brothers are among the mostoriginal writers and directors working today, but this film can't helpbeing compared to the headlong and happy-go-lucky original directed bythe thoroughly unimaginative Henry Hathaway.Here, the atmosphere is dampened. It begins with the score. Instead ofthe tuneful and triumphant theme of the original -- melodic enough tobe warbled by co-star Glen Campbell -- we have variations on an earnestand somber religious hymn. That's true to Matty's character but thepoint of the story is to allow us to see dastardly and hilarious goingson through her eyes while perceiving what she doesn't, not to adopt hertemper literally. The atmosphere isn't helped by all the night shootingor the stark and colorless landscape.Wayne's earlier exuberance works against Jeff Bridge's interpretationof Rooster Cogburn too. Wayne didn't bother to adopt a regional accent.He didn't have to. His aging croak told us all we needed to know.Bridges, on the other hand, uses this mangled hillbilly drawl that's sothick it's hard to understand what he's saying. And he's so slow andand solemn that it's hard to tell when he's drunk and when he's sober.With Wayne, there was little room for doubt. Hailie Steinfeld as Mattieis adequate and Matt Damon as their Texas Ranger sidekick has little todo.The original story has been tampered with quite a bit. That's notnecessarily bad. The novel wasn't a charter document like the Koran orthe United States Constitution. And, in fact, the additional dialogfollows Charles Portis's style rather closely. Yet, the way thenarrative has been rearranged, something is lost. It's the sense ofcommunity in the novel and in the 1969 film. Everybody knows everybodyelse in the earlier stories, or at least knows OF everybody else. Thevisit to McCallister's store in the Indian Territory, carries with itthe affection of old friends meeting and kidding around. The Coen'smovie is about three friendless strangers wandering through aninhospitable wilderness. On the other hand, maybe that's what the Coenswere aiming for. If so, they got it.It's not a bad movie but it's different from both the novel and the1969 version. And it's darker and a little less fun. Cogburn's lifehistory emerges in fragments. It's hilarious but you can't tell fromthe off-hand way it's mumbled by Bridges. It would have been nice ifsomeone had laughed or even smiled, but hardly anyone does. The Coenbrothers have done some splendid commercial work before, as well assome truly challenging stuff. They've produced a couple of clunkerstoo. This comes somewhere in between the clunkers and the fireworks.

Jessica Selwood

(2012-04-24 11:23:40)

This film most decidedly has True Grit!

Now I'm not one for cowboy films or the Spaghetti Western despite myfather roping me in to watching repeated screenings from multipleeditions of classics like The Magnificent Seven (1960) and The BigCountry (1958). However, the Coen Brothers re-make of True Grit (withgood ole Spielberg overseeing the project as producer) is timeless inits execution of both its cast and set.The film opens with an establishing shot, first used in 30's cinema, ofthe tumbleweed, down trodden, good-for-nothing patriarchal cowboy town.One recalls not so much John Wayne, choking at the dustbowl onhorseback, but the menacing Clint Eastwood shooting down one deputyafter another in Pale Rider (1985). The establishing shots in True Grit(2010) are reminiscent of the ES's we see in Charlie Walters musicalre-make of the Grant, Hepburn and Stewart trio in The PhiladelphiaStory (1940) called High Society (1956) starring Bing Crosby, FrankSinatra and Grace Kelly respectively. However, the scenic views aren'tso beautiful yet mesmerising. This is also not so dissimilar from BazLuhrmann's experimentation with the establishing shot in his recentproduction of Australia (2008) starring both Kidman and Jackman. Thereare beautiful panned ES's and WS's of the endless Australian outback.Hailee Steinfeld more than earned her award for best young performerand her nomination as best supporting actress (in the Broadcast FilmCritics Association) for her portrayal of the feisty outspoken 14 yearold girl who spins us rhetoric far beyond her years. She confronts hermale supervisors with articulation and dexterity. They areflabbergasted even angered by her sharp wit and tongue to boot. EvenMr. La Boeuf, proud Texas sheriff (played marvellously by our almostunrecognisable Bourne hero Matt Damon) utters at one point that hedoesn't know whether to kiss Mattie Ross (Steinfeld) or give her a goodsmacking for speaking out of turn. To which Ross retorts, with aperfectly serious and stern look, "neither would be pleasant." AlthoughI am not ofay with the 1969 original True Grit, Steinfeld's charactermanages to cleverly manipulate both La Boeuf (Damon) and RoosterCogburn (Jeff Bridges) through challenging their egotistical and proudnature; although both males seem to disagree on what is deemed to beright and wrong. The 'trial and tribulations of the famous trio' plotline is a familiar narrative device also featured in Butch Cassidy andthe Sundance Kid (1969) as well as briefly emerges in the killercouples hit and feminist favourite Thelma and Louise; with the smoothand sexual introduction of Brad Pitt and his 6-pack! Although thisplatonic bond between our three favourites, in True Gritt, is notwithout its problems. The camaraderie between La Boeuf and Cogburn isrestored when Cogburn saves La Boeuf's life. This reminds me of theclimactic scene where the prodigal son (played by Aidan Quinn) saveshis father (Anthony Hopkins) in Legends of the Fall (1994).The emerging success of True Grit not only paves the way for the futurefilm career of Hailee Steinfeld, as something tells me she's not goingto repeat the Macaulay Culkin disaster, but that the Spaghetti Westerngenre is becoming ever more prominent and popular among audiences oftoday. 3:10 to Yuma (re-make of the 1957 classic; produced in 2007)directed by James Mangold and starring Russell Crowe and ChristianBale, as well as Brokeback Mountain (2005) also starring Damon are bothprime examples of this. The latter obviously is more contemporary inits portrayal of the traditional Western genre but its originality wasboth commended and rewarded for this.For me, the Coen Brothers 2010 production of True Grit would havereceived 10 out of 10 if it wasn't for the peculiar appearance of Rossas an adult woman in 40's/50's. It destroys our vision of Ross as achild character. Coupled with the reported death of Rooster Cogburn,the narrative then appears to lack substance. If this is the Coenbrothers attempt at moving the fictitious tale into a legend, it is apoor strategy that should not be repeated.Despite this, and certainly last but not least, Jeff Bridges (nominatedas best actor by several ceremonies with some yet to come including theAcademy Awards) portrayed as the cantankerous drunkard yethero-of-the-day is flawless. Casting, setting, characterisation andre-invention of this re-make is purely sublime! You'll be sitting onthe edge of your seat from the opening scene! THIS FILM MOST DECIDEDLYHAS "TRUE GRIT!"

Leszek Kicior

(2012-04-24 10:43:08)

The culmination of the movie doesn't give the satisfaction that you would expect.

Don't get me wrong, True Grit is a good movie. In a time when mostfilms seen in cinemas are made for teenagers, it can appeal to anybodyregardless of age. The gunfights (not much) and talking (a lot) give ita nice pace that keeps you on the edge of your seat while not beingchaotic enough to confuse your father.Mattie Ross is a 14-year old girl who gets a US Marshal Rouben"Rooster" Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) to help her track down and bring tojustice her fathers killer (Brolin). Tom Chaney is also pursued by aTexas Ranger by the name of LaBeouf (Matt Damon), who wants to punishhim for the crimes committed by him back in Texas.***Spoilers start here, i guess.*** While the movie starts at slow anda little bit annoying pace, it soon picks up after our unlikely teamleaves town. The director was obviously well aware of the saying thatchasing a hare isn't about catching it but about the chase itself. TrueGrit makes you want to catch Tom Chaney along with it's heroes, butwhen they do actually get him, it does not give you the expectedsatisfaction. That is weird, because the character was obviouslysupposed to be given a personality. When he talks to Mattie you mighteven reconsider thinking about him as the bad guy - The bandits haveemotions and Tom gets desperate after his team leaves him. But then, hequickly reverts to his "I'm this pictures' villain!" pose, tries tokill the girl and gets shot. Boom, that's it. Not even any last wordsthat would make him more human and less two-dimensional. Nope. He getsshot point blank with a rifle. That's it. The force of the bulletcauses him to fall off a cliff (Not very naturally, too) and that isthe last time you see him. Did he have a personality? Or was he justtrying to get Mattie to lower her guard? We'll never know.Then, suddenly, a plot hole appears! It seems Mattie and Rooster haveto leave LaBeouf, because he DOESN'T HAVE A HORSE! Yup, that's right.It doesn't matter much that he just shot a bandit off a mount 400 yardsaway, and that the horse is still standing there, saddled and ready.No. Instead, Rooster and Mattie (now bitten by a handy plot device,rattlesnake!) ride her horse to death and end up in a middle of afield. Cogburn, a weak old man then proceeds to carry the girl in ascene that was surely envisioned as touching, but still makes youwonder about why exactly didn't they take the horse with them (orLaBeouf, for that matter). If you can ignore some plot points that don't feel right and thegeneral lack of soundtrack in most scenes, you will find yourselfcaptivated by the plot of True Grit, a motion picture that is by nomeans mediocre. Great acting skills of not only the main characters butsupporting cast (such small roles as Dakin Matthews who argues withMattie about a price of a horse) make it a memorable experience that Iwill be happy to watch again some time. You will enjoy it as long, asyour expectations aren't too high.

brando647

(2012-04-24 00:28:16)

A Western to Engage Modern Audiences

By the time I was born, the Western had pretty much run it's course. Ithink the closest thing I'd seen to a Western for years was BACK TO THEFUTURE PART III, and that's hardly a prime example. The genre hasstarted working it's way back into modern theaters but they're rare,and sometimes (such as the case of JONAH HEX) total crap. Well the Coenbrothers, having touched on the vibe a bit for their 2007 film NOCOUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, dive in to retread the ground of 1969's John Wayneclassic based on their novel by Charles Portis. I've never read thenovel or even seen the John Wayne classic but, as a fan of the Coenbrothers, I wanted to check this one out. The story is told from theperspective of young Mattie Ross. Her father was murdered in cold bloodby hired hand Tom Chaney and the criminal has fled into Chocktawterritory where the law doesn't seem willing to chase him. Mattie hiresdisgruntled drunkard and U.S. Marshal Rooster Cogburn to track Chaneydown. With the assistance of a Texas Ranger who's tracking Chaney for asenator's murder, the three with cross into Indian land in pursuit.I loved the cinematography of this film. It's rare that a film's lookleaves such an impression on me that it's the first thing that comes tomind, but Roger Deakins has done an amazing job here. I expect no lessfrom a Coen brothers film. I don't think they've ever disappointed me.It's interesting that they'd chosen such an obsolete genre and wereable to create such an awesome film that was able to rake in over $150million in a time when Westerns are rare and often ignored. As I'vesaid, I never read the book or saw the John Wayne film but there is onething that stood out painfully to me in this film: the dialogue. Idon't know if the novel had the same clunky dialogue or if it was a newaddition by the Coens. Every time a character spoke, it soundedunnatural and sometimes it felt like they really struggled to get theirlines out. Was there a single contraction used in the entire movie? Ireally think this film would've been better with a last rewriteallowing for more fluid dialogue because it's hard to capture the bestperformance when your actors are surely stumbling over their lines.I probably don't have to say this but Jeff Bridges is just awesomehere. He's gritty, slovely, and perpetually angry. He plods around in adrunken stupor, his slurred words occasionally hard to decipher thanksto the clumsy dialogue. The man does a fantastic job and he deservedthe Oscar nomination. Hailee Steinfeld is the young Mattie and she doesan amazing job when you consider this is her first feature film. Thesupporting cast boasts strong performances from Matt Damon (as thearrogant Texas Ranger LaBoeuf), Josh Brolin (as Tom Chaney), and anear-unrecognizable Barry Pepper (as Lucky Ned Pepper). The movie isloaded with some strong performances and the chemistry between Bridgesand Damon make for some of the best scenes as the trio of hunters breakfrom their chase to make camp. There's a great scene about halfwaythrough where the two are arguing over who's aim is worse as they takepotshots at cornbread. The pace sort of meanders at times but thismovie has helped grab my attention for a genre of films I'd never givena second thought to before.

(2012-04-22 19:41:33)

Better than the original ... Sorry, John Wayne fans

This review is from: True Grit (Two-Disc Blu-ray/DVD Combo + Digital Copy) (Blu-ray) This movie was wonderful entertainment. It had been years since I'd seen the original so after I saw this one, I went back and watched the original again. The new version is more entertaining in every way. Love it!

(2012-04-22 10:18:46)

dialogue here is King

This is not going to compare and contrast the two movies. I know people stand on each side of that, and I do not want that element in my review because it is showing partiality between two good movies. Thanks. A 14-year-old girl finds her father murdered by a man he trusted. After claiming the body for 60 dollars, she steps up and determines that she has to become the insturment of justice or her father will have none. In doing so, she teams up with a marshall, a ranger, and sets out into the unknown.When True Grit came out, I had high hopes for it. The directors clout alone says that this should eb a grea tmovie, and I really was not disappointed. The one thing I was surprised by was the fact that I laughed quite a bit while watching it, and I found myself not being bored. It had great narration, great dialog, and great acting moving that one thing forward. If it had not been that way, I wonder what would have been - thankfully I did not have to ponder that in the really real.The acting in this movie shines, and it makes you really think about how good some of these people can be. Jeff Bridges was the standout amongst everyone, with his portrayal of a man that had grown drunk and cocky and fatter with time, but was still full of fire and grit. The same can be said of the girl that hires him, with her not only presenting a formitable front but also doing great narration. Matt Damon was good but he seemed a little stale in some places, but even that worked in favor of the man standing in that Ranger's badge.The plot itself was easy to follow, but some things happen that you might not expect. I enjoyed that, too, and I liked the fact that the ending was not predictable. Like many Coen movies, I thought I might know the ending but I wasn't sure. I did think one thing, however, and that was that there was a link in the types of endings they had been presenting. Perhaps that says something on them or their views or just what they like. Whatever it is, I find I like it as well.The effects are nice, too, and it has some violent portions. It really does not have to have these and does not rely on them, sticking to dialogue more than anything. this earns it an easy 4.0/5 stars in my book, and is easily worth watching. I could say a lot more but fear giving something away and will stick with this and my recommendation.Thank you

K night

(2012-04-20 22:34:44)

This movie is not good

I've really come to expect more from the Coen bros. I've almostinvariably enjoyed their previous films, finding them very witty,sharp, and pervaded with dark humor. This film relies heavily on apronounced dichotomy between fast-paced banter and typical "Hollywood"resolutions; there seems to be a nice story build-up to a place ofdespair, in which they realize the trail has gone cold and thespectator can feel the emptiness in any further pursuits. After thisthe movie spirals into a formulaic approach to story-telling; thereseems to be a time constraint in which they need to crank out theremaining details listed in the script. The bad guy is miraculouslyfound, the little girl avenges her father after being saved at the lastsecond (more than once) by the deus ex machina of screenwriters(blatantly spitting in the face of real life, which has no such piety..human life is ballast at most, but essentially useless)... I find ithard to believe that anyone who has some degree of familiarity withcinema still finds relief in having the hero come through virtuallyunscathed (her losing her arm doesn't change the direction of thisdiatribe). It's sad... I had high hopes for the performance of JeffBridges, but he wasn't able to provide enough contrast to the role tobe convincing. We'll see what the directors come up with next, but thisone did not deliver.

epocian

(2012-04-20 11:22:58)

You better die in the summer, because no graves are getting dug in the winter!

I've never been a real western fan, of course I've seen most of theClint Eastwood' films, the last one I remember watching though, couldbe seen as the surrealist of them all and that was AlexandroJodorowdsky' 1970 cult classic "El Topo".However, being a fan of the Coen brothers and knowing what theirrenowned for, I had a feeling that I wouldn't be surprised, butthroughly enchanted by a new take on what I know now is a remake of anold western classic.What got me hooked from the beginning was the dialogue between thecharacters and I'm sure you'll think and feel the same.At times,It wasjust A constant barrage of put downs and comebacks, quite similar tothose you'd expect between friends at a bar.The first that got me was the bartering scene between Mattie and ColStonehill ,then, her second meeting with the Rooster and his quip aboutfairy tales and her surprise encounter with Labouef and her last wordsabout the state of his cow licked hair.Anyway, it was these and many others that kept me keen to hear whatwould be said next throughout the film, but the overall story, action,suspense and setting made this movie a really good watch from beginningto end and for anyone who's never really been into westerns before,should definitely give this one a try, you won't be disappointed, butpleasantly surprised.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

(2012-04-19 15:59:32)

One-eyed and left-eyed at the same time

The main interest is nostalgia in this film and that is slightly short.The first film with John Wayne was a mediocre average western onlysaved by the presence of a 14 year old girl chasing and hunting thekiller of her father. The Coen brothers performed a miracle and givethis film a strength and power it did not have in 1969. After spaghettiwesterns now is the time of kaddish westerns.They more or less try to be a lot more effective as for the feelingsand emotions of the audience. They use the girl at her maximum in allsituations. The story though is simplistic but it provides us with somebeautiful pictures and landscapes and it increases the dramatic tensiona lot.But that does not make a great film and not even a beautiful film,except the touristic discovery of the Santa Fe region and itswilderness. The ending is different and it adds some posthumous depthto the story but fundamentally we are very far away and even more thanfar away from the tension of Sergio Leones' and Ennio Morricones'films.Yet it is pleasant and I must say the hanging scene is a lot moreimpressive in this version probably due to the nice sound track thatmakes the breaking of the vertebrae a lot more audible. But let me giveyou a final piece of advice: do not spend the night with the localgranny.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

Eruditass

(2012-04-18 22:34:04)

A radical western that will keep you entertained.

Characters: 4 Screenplay: 4 Cinematography: 2 Emotional: 2Overall: 3.5It was very refreshing to see such a strong young female role. Shebrought back memories of Natalie Portman in Leon: The Professional,except with a more prominent role. Steinfeld does a stunning job onscreen. At only 14 years, she fills the boisterous snarky shoesextraordinarily. And her character is rounded out quite well with themore natural undertones of her character as the stories goes on.Cogburn is a great as the drunken headstrong fool. Sprinkled with sillyantics and one liners, his character is less fleshed out, but providesa great deal of entertainment when interacting with Mattie and Laboeuf.LaBoeuf rounds out the trio well, with the logical and structured side,albeit a bit odd. The interplay between the characters is priceless.The film starts of strong. The introduction scenes are entertaining andmemorable. The short caricature introductions each match the flavor oftheir characters exceptionally. The pacing is well done, with nicedowntime scenes between. The film does a good job of rewarding carefulviewers: little tidbits of foreshadowing that are followed through.Interspersed throughout the film are bits of comic relief between thetrio, and it is well timed and fresh. Thankfully the film rewards logicover brash courage in the end. My only concern is the ending. It's a bit anticlimactic, whichinitially is a letdown. But there is a bit of appreciation for anunorthodox ending for an unorthodox story. It leaves you high and dry,which one may not always appreciate Following the clichГѓВ©s of westerns, True Grit begins looking likestandard fare. With a slow fade in scene, silhouettes, and warm tones,we're pleasantly surprised when the film strays from the beaten pathcharacter wise. Some scenes are very well shot, such as the endingframe. The only problems I had with the cinematography were thestereotypical traveling fades: a bit too much. Yeah, I presume theywere trying to mock westerns, but the cuts were too fast and short.While the film attempts to build up the sympathy for Mattie, theemotional investment of the story is diluted by the unorthodox humor.It wouldn't suit this film to become too invested in the film, it'smore akin to something you just sit back and watch. At the climaxpoints of the film, I just didn't find myself caring all that much. Butit was still highly entertaining and the ending was unique in a goodway, once the initial dissatisfaction fades away. A radical westernthat will keep you entertained.You can read the review with encoded spoilers here:critical-eruditass.blogspot.com/2011/04/true-grit-2010-usa-western.html

johndallas

(2012-04-17 21:55:11)

never saw the original but...

I never saw the original True Grit but was Mattie Ross as obnoxious asportrayed in the remake? The story is fairly well done and enjoyable asis the cinematography. I'm not a huge fan of westerns but this one keptmy interest well enough. I think Bridges and Damon did a fine jobportraying their respective characters but Mattie Ross seemed a bitgreen. I didn't find myself believing her character. Her whole personawas that of an obnoxious child who gets whatever she wants. I think herstubbornness could have been accomplished in other ways that would makeher character more likable and relatable. At any rate, the movie was"ok" overall, nothing spectacular and nothing horrible either. I'm sureit will be enjoyed by most people who are fans of this genre.

purrrpuss

(2012-04-17 08:19:37)

Plucky girl's story of search for justice

Wow - Hailee Steinfeld is a force to be reckoned with. A 14 year oldwho can play with complete integrity her leading role and put the old'superstar' guys in the shade to boot is really something. Oddly, Ifound this presentation completely believable - even if there were somelittle mistakes in fact (e.g. the three hanged men would have slowlysuffocated to death if the ropes had really been tied like they were inthis scene). The Coen's have a real feel for the settings in whichtheir stories play out and they succeed again here, bringing to lifethe frontier jeopardies that must have been a daily challenge for theearly settlers in the American wild west. Jeff Bridges is billed as thelead star - he does well in his role but it is Hailee's film from startto finish. Who cares about John Wayne - this is the girl's story andthe Coen's have captured it perfectly. Bridges merely assists ingetting you to the cinema.

(2012-04-16 06:01:13)

Great but not awesome

This review is from: True Grit (DVD) We bought this movie based on all the previous reviews, including those of critics. We were surprised, I guess, and probably due to the fact that the previous version with John Wayne still sticks in our memory. Really, we didn't see a big difference, and in the end decided we still appreciated the more humorous banter of Wayne and Kim Darby. This is not to say that the acting wasn't good or the character portrayal appropriate. It just wasn't the big difference we were expecting. I'm sure we'll view it again sometime (sometimes a second viewing changes your opinion), but for now we still love The Duke's version. Guess he'll always be the quintessential western gunslinger.

Charles Whitwam

(2012-04-15 19:22:22)

awful

huge disappointment and I'm a Coen brothers fan. Why did they make thismovie? I was expecting a hardcore western, not that it had to be, butwhat a pile of crap this movie was. There was simply nothing to beinterested in and a waste of time on the Coen bros part. and thenominations?? what are those for? garbage. True Garbage, not True Grit.don't waste your time at the theater. wait for it on cable if you must.My opinion is that anyone who says this is movie is good is just lyingto themselves and only want the movie to be good simply because it's aCoen bros movie and yes I'll gladly admit they've made some amazingmovies but this movie is an insult.

diggus doggus

(2012-04-15 17:37:04)

Easy to like/dislike

Short review - since there are another 200 you can read if you do notagree with me.True Grit (which i just found out is a remake of a classic) is a verywell made, high production values film with no faults whatsoever, andit is extremely unexciting. No, i didn't like it. I didn't *dislike* it either since there isnothing really to dislike, but nothing in the film stands out asmemorable. The main fault lies in the interaction between the two main characters,and the story - as the story is laid bare before you immediately(fierce girl is getting her revenge ZOMG, old drunkard is no drunk atall, bad guy will fall) , the girl and the old man have their work cutout for them - and nothing unexpected happens. A moment of brieftension is when the *other* ranger seems to challenge them, and ithought "wow, maybe it will be a triangle, with girl, bad guy andranger, that's nice" but no. Sorry but True Grit just hasn't got enough juice for me. When thewriting process is so evident to the audience that we can see the nextscene happening before it does, something's amiss. Audacity, i wouldsay. Final Vote 7/10, UNLESS you are a western- fan, then make it 6/10.

Johnny Hollywood

(2012-04-14 19:35:40)

The Modern Western rides on

The Western. Arguably the single most recognisable genre across thelandscape of all films. The plot, the physical setting and thelarger-than-life, almost cartoonish characters defined Hollywoodblockbusters during the late 1950s and the entire decade following.More recently, the Western has enjoyed a modernised resurgence throughquality films such as 3:10 To Yuma, There Will Be Blood and No CountryFor Old Men, also directed by the Coen brothers.In 1969, John Wayne starred in (and won the Oscar for) True Grit. Over40 years later, the talented directing duo have taken the same materialand moulded it for a contemporary audience, oddly, through closeradherence to Charles Portis' 1968 novel than the original film. Itfollows the efforts of Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld), a teenager wisebeyond her years, who is intent on bringing to justice the man whokilled her father. To do so, she enlists the help of Matt Damon'supstanding Texas Ranger LaBoeuf (pronounced 'le-beef') and JeffBridges' Rooster Cogburn (awesome name for a cowboy, by the way), arenegade bounty hunter who plays only by his own rules.The ensemble acting is a big positive for this film, with two actorsstanding out among the pack. Bridges is nothing short of a livinglegend at this stage of his career, and the growling, menacing personahe creates for Rooster is even more threatening than what John Waynemanages to do with the character. Hailee Steinfeld astounds, putting inthe most complete, convincing performance I've seen from any childactor for a long time.Perhaps the only factor more impressive than the acting is thespectacular script. With True Grit, the Coens have constructed aflawless depiction of the way people back in 1880 would have conversedwith each other. Because nobody alive today talks that way, thedialogue has a Shakespearean, almost Biblical quality to it that makesit a joy to listen to. And of course, there is the regular injection ofblack humour and strange side characters that make a Coen filminstantly recognisable (wait for the arrival of 'Bear Man', in what isthe most peculiar yet comical scene of the entire movie).Unfortunately, the film is not without its flaws. My biggest concern isthe pacing, which appears off-kilter from the opening scene and nevertruly recovers. Some were quick to praise the way the film opened withthe aftermath of the murder, rather than plodding its way towards thecatalyst for the series of events like the 1969 version. That's fair enough, but from that point the film really slows down, andthe trade-off for such an engaging screenplay turns out to be a lack ofprogressive, fast-paced scenes that really define the plot structure ofthe Western. Put simply, the action: dialogue ratio is similar to thatof Inglourious Basterds. The difference is that that style suitsTarantino, but fails to accommodate this sort of film.There is a moment in the Third Act where Mattie comes face-to-face withher father's killer for the first time, which requires an immensesuspension of disbelief. It feels as if the directors realised theyspent too much time on the journey without offering ample screen timefor the climax, and it results in a swift and lazy introduction of newvillains who don't get nearly enough time to develop their charactersinto the kind that we desperately want to see beaten by the goodies.The conclusion is satisfying enough, but it's followed up by a'twenty-five years later' epilogue that is just plain unnecessary. But ultimately, the acting gold on display coupled with a marvellousscript manages to overshadow the negatives, enough to push this filmfrom a possible six into a just-barely-got-there seven.*There's nothing I love more than a bit of feedback, good or bad. Sodrop me a line on jnatsis@iprimus.com.au and let me know what youthought of my review.*