Took my grandparents to see my #3 movie of the year for Christmas. They don't really get to watch movies and frankly, they're not many movies I think they'd be able to sit through at their age. True Grit seemed like a perfect fit; an ideal mixture of old school and new school Hollywood. Thought I'd whip up a short review for it here.

I'll leave the plot and those kinda details alone. I think a lot of people here've been looking forward to this one.

That said, I do have a suggestion to anyone who goes and sees it. Don't go in thinking "OMG, a Coen bros. Western! OMG! OMG! OMG!" I think 50% of that crowd will be disappointed. The other 50% might just get what they expect... but not more. Just go in expecting a fun time at the movies and don't worry about the directors.

Because that's what you're going to get. A fun time at the movies. The Coens bring superb filmmaking and exceptional dialogue to the table. Not Coens dialogue. Just good dialogue all around. The Coens have always been skilled at writing dialogue that's period accurate. No exceptions here.

Other than that, their influence is rather invisible here. The dialogue is sharp and often funny but it's not quirky. Neither is the filmmaking. It's a cut above the rest and perhaps a little more somber than, say, Scorsese would've gone for but not unprecedented for a Western. There's a handful of moments, not scenes, moments, that ring Coen but they don't stand out. You kind of have to keep an eye out for them.

True Grit is truly a Hollywood film. If you have any doubts, note the Paramount logo and the executive producer's name. The story is very straightforward and functions very much like Hollywood movies ideally are supposed to function. It makes you root for the heros, pluck at your heartstrings and kick the seats when you're startled (the guy behind me barely missed my head). It hits all the marks. It's exciting without being complicated. It's not a dark film. The violence isn't restrained but I don't think it was graphic by any standards. Nothing really feels out of place or idiosyncratic. There's a few moments of accentuated realism that other directors may not have chosen to highlight but you'd really have to be amongst film geeks for them to be discussed.

I think the only real exception is the character of Matti Ross. There's never been one quite like her before. A 14 year old girl with true grit just about sums her up though you shouldn't come in expecting Hit Girl or anything. Of course, this is based on a book so you can't attribute her character to the Coens again.

But let's forget about the Coens for a second. I've only spent so much time talking about them because I think the concept of a "Coen bros. Western" carries a lot of expectations.

The actors are the ones who make the film. That is Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon and newcomer Hailee Steinfeld. Josh Brolin is also there but he's not around for very long and is more a character of myth than of flesh, so to speak. In any case, the three leads are just superb. You can pick them apart pretty easily but they're all pretty well rounded. Bridges has got his share of one liners and his cantankerous personality is just a delight. But Damon matches him both in humor and leading man quality. Steinfeld is the "straight man," so to speak, even though she's a girl, but she's just as strong as the other two. This is a film that involves chemistry, for sure, and the composite character the actors form as a troupe is one to be reckoned with as well.

There's some Oscar wins in there somewhere. I don't want to make any calls because all the actors were so fantastic but one of them's gotta get it, for sure.

Okay. One last time with the Coens. But it's really just to sum up the film. I don't want to say the bros. took a break but I think what they set out to do was make a Western that's simple and tells a good story with overall classic sensibilities to it. So don't expect anything. Because you know what? That's enough. This could very well be the Coens selling out, at least at this point in time, but if it is... they survived.

BTW, my grandparents loved it. My grandmother, in particular, because she grew up with a jockey as a father and loved the horses in the film. She said it made her remember what it was like to go to the movies.

When I said this was a short review... I lied.

Happy holidays, dudes and dudettes.

It's pretty much like the John Wayne version; scene for scene and word for word for the most part (both films being based on the book). Robert Duvall and Barry Pepper as Lucky Ned Pepper, well, Barry played it pretty much like Duvall did; delivery of the lines and the confidence each had as Ned Pepper. Base on all that I can't buy into this new one. To me it's just a remake no matter what they say about being written for the screen by the Coens.

I like John Wayne better as Rooster Cogburn and Kim Darby better as Mattie Ross. Wayne seemed to have more emotion in his character than Jeff Bridges did, especially when Ned Pepper called Cogburn a one-eyed fatman. And there was a better connection between Wayne and Kim Darby.

Chaney of the Wayne version was seedier, too, and I seem to remember him more than Brolin's version.

So kind of tough to rate this one on its own merits.

By far waaaaaaaaaay better than the original, also one of my fav coen bro film, jeff bridges dances circles around john wayne, he was great, so was matt damon and the little girl, much better than the original actors, like the fly it is one of the few remakes a million times better than the original, my fav film of the year!

What am I missing here, dude? That looks dull as hell. I mean I suppose it's not fair to comment on a film based on a trailer but you posted it, which leads me to assume you found something of value here. I honestly don't see it. Looks absolutely hokey. Kim Darby seems especially bad for what her role's supposed to be. Strong female character, eh? Right... Cut her hair short. That'll do it!

She was like 20 as well playing a 14 year old, it was pretty bad casting, this new girl was amazing, i wouldn't even wanna fuck with her!  I'd love to see her get a best actress nom, but i can't see a 14 year old getting it!

Haven't seen the original, so cannot comment.

The dialogue is mentioned here and it was something that was going through my mind during watching. There was a delicious comedy to the words that appeared to embolden the performances - particularly that of Damon, who was excellent. Bridges as the focal point was clearly carrying the weight and he did it with aplomb - at times, I did feel as though he slipped into The Dude, but that's not to suggest the performances was lazy or less impressive for it.

Barry Pepper was impressive and obviously the performance of young Hailee Steinfield was also and will no doubt receive the justified praise.

Before jumping back to the dialogue, it's worth noting that this was an enjoyable film and something that will entertain its audience. The one point I wanted to touch on was the clever nature of the Coens' dialogue and how it always seems so 'real' - I mean that in a sense that you feel it's not an unreachable goal to write that yourself (it is) but it doesn't feel as untouchable as that of Quentin Tarantino. I'm not suggesting the Coens are not as good, but I guess I just feel like their dialogue is more accessible, for want of a better word. Easier to replicate, less blow your head off.

Will definitely watch the JW version soon to compare. I would recommend catching this film to those who have not.

Quoted from The boy who could fly I'd love to see her get a best actress nom, but i can't see a 14 year old getting it!

Jodie Foster was nominated for best actress when she was 12.  Anne Paquin won when she was 12.  I'm surprised that Abigail Breslin hasn't won an Oscar yet.


Phil

Quoted from James McClung What am I missing here, dude? That looks dull as hell. I mean I suppose it's not fair to comment on a film based on a trailer but you posted it, which leads me to assume you found something of value here. I honestly don't see it. Looks absolutely hokey. Kim Darby seems especially bad for what her role's supposed to be. Strong female character, eh? Right... Cut her hair short. That'll do it!

The trailer only shows how similar the new one is to the old one. It couldn't be that tough to pen the script when everything is the same. The current version is more realistic (costumes, makeup).

I watched the Coen brothers take on the Charles Portis novel last night.
I honestly can not compare this film to the 1969 production.
To me, they are truly apples to oranges.
One is a vehicle for one of Hollywood's brightest stars of all time.
The other is a faithful adaptation of a cherished novel.
I feel both films accomplish what they set out to do.
The John Wayne film was so successful, it spawned a sequel, "Rooster Cogburn".
Katherine Hepburn came on board as Hollywood tried recapture the magic.
That film is not based on a Portis work and is the less remembered of the pair.
The new production far exceeded boxoffice expectations and is the #1 movie in America.

The core difference between the two films is, whom is the central character.
John Wayne in a supporting role? Not bloody likely, better rework that story.
The Coens put the emphasis back on Mattie Ross, as per the novel.
Everyone orbits Mattie in the new production. She drives the story.
Kim Darby in the 1969 film is almost played for laughs sometime. Aww, she's plucky.
It's not her fault, she was told to play it that way. It's a John Wayne vehicle.
Hailee Stanfield's audacious character leaves all around here dumbstruck.
The gravity and flow of both films feels entirely different to me.

I truly enjoy both films, they are fine examples of what they set out to accomplish.
One is a rousing vehicle for a megastar that made a character through his image.
The other is a modest tale told with rustic elegance.

E.D.

Was waiting to see the original before commenting... but since everyone seems to want to watch the original before seeing the current version I have not been able to get a hold of the Wayne version.  So I am to press on and review the current version.  To add: for some reason, I remember commenting on this post before but I think my internet crashed before I could post.

In any case - on with the review:

I particularly like the opening, even if it is somewhat similar to one of my Dreams of Reality openings. My favorite part of the film because it shows Mattie Ross and her boldness and toughness right off the bat.  The bargaining scenes are great.   This is a traditional Western so do not go expecting big action scenes and the film paces itself nicely.  There are slow parts, but they are quickly passed through, and usually Cogburn is rambling on about a story or something that's mildly entertaining.

Jeff Bridges was very good.  Some say he slipped into The Dude at times and I don't see it. Hailee Steinfeld I thought was okay, but then after seeing her on a couple talk shows, and in interviews you hardly recognize her and she is very well spoken.  And after seeing the film again, I picked up on her little subtleties that just add to a performance - the last two people her age that were that good with the little extras were Dakota Fanning and Annasophia Robb.    Talk of an Academy award for her role in this I believe is deserved.

Matt Damon surprised me.  I try to go in without expecting a certain standard or anything, but when I heard he was in it, I was caught a little off guard and wasn't sure it would work.  Things didn't start out great either. When he introduces himself to Matti as La Beouf (pronounced La beef) snickering and laughter came about in the theater I was at.  But through the movie you realize he really is the comedic relief so to speak.  I believe his accents were superb and after the tongue incident it's quite hilarious in a dark way to hear him speak.  

Barry Pepper is almost unrecognizable as Lucky Ned Pepper.  While Josh Brolin plays his small part wonderfully.  A little disappointing that they were not in it more, but that's a minor issue.

While i've heard whispers that this was the same sometimes scene for scene - this is to me is more true to the novel, therefore a better piece of film. Nothing against John Wayne, and maybe I'll change my mind when I see the original... if that person ever returns the apparently only copy here in Southern California.

This isn't a review but it's an interesting article that interviews the bros about True Grit.  It's from Babz.

http://wga.org/content/default.aspx?id=4474

Quoted from dogglebe Jodie Foster was nominated for best actress when she was 12.  Anne Paquin won when she was 12.  I'm surprised that Abigail Breslin hasn't won an Oscar yet. Phil

And, Tatum O'Neal was only 10 when she won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress, prob. be in this category, I think?

I thought TG might be a bit boring, you're all making me think again