Movie Review: True Grit (2010)
Simply remarkable filmmaking
Photo: Paramount Pictures
Don't get caught up trying to compare Joel and Ethan Coen's True Grit to the 1969 version that won John Wayne his one and only acting Oscar. There is no comparison. The two films aren't even within a thousand miles of one another.
The cast includes Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin, Hailee Steinfeld, Barry Pepper, Paul Rae and Domhnall Gleeson. For more information on this film including pictures, trailers and a detailed synopsis choose from the following menu.
Review
"True Grit" is a Paramount Pictures release, directed by Joel Coen and Ethan Coen and is rated PG-13 for some intense sequences of western violence including disturbing images. The running time is 1 hour 50 minutes.
In an instance of obvious casting, Jeff Bridges was chosen to fill the shoes of the snarled and drunken U.S. Marshall, Rooster Cogburn. He's a weathered old man that loves to drink and tends to shoot first and ask questions later. Bridges is perfect in the role, but it's the casting of newcomer Hailee Steinfeld that really keeps the film moving. Only 13-years-old, Steinfeld is years beyond her age as Mattie Ross, the 14-year-old youngster who heads to Fort Smith, Arkansas to tend to the murder of her father and find law-for-hire to help her bring the man responsible to justice.
Voice over in the film's early moments take care of any necessary plot particulars and it takes very little to establish Mattie's character as she takes to her mission. After some forceful reasoning with a local stock trader to buy back some horses he'd sold her father, Mattie secures Cogburn's services and the makings of a most unlikely relationship is instantly born.
Bridges plays Cogburn with all the inebriated flair and comedic timing you could ask for. He's a lovable embarrassment if there ever was one. Half the time you'll be straining to understand his words, but when the occasion calls for it his one liners land with perfect clarity. Rooster can't match wits with Mattie, but his knowledge of the territory and learned life lessons make him exactly what the young girl needs at the moment.
The third wheel to the story is a Texas ranger by the name of LaBoeuf (pronounced LaBeef) played by Matt Damon. LaBoeuf is a hard man to figure at first as I wasn't sure if Damon's performance was off or if he had tapped into the essence of the character to the point I was meant to laugh. Happily, it was the latter. LaBoeuf's confidence in himself reads more like a clumsy bluff than an actual declaration of his abilities, though a lot of this can be credited to Mattie's wherewithal. Nevertheless, Damon nails the performance from the start, allowing room for the character to build throughout.
Just as important as the lead characters, the Coens again prove they realize the value of a supporting cast. Jarlath Conroy as the Undertaker, Dakin Matthews as Stonehill, Joe Stevens as the lawyer who cross examines Cogburn and Ed Corbin as a more than memorable "Bear Man" make vital contributions to the film. Had these performances been merely average or below, the film wouldn't have been nearly as good.
A couple of larger names also adding moments of brilliance to the supporting cast include Josh Brolin as the man that killed Mattie's father and Barry Pepper as Lucky Ned Pepper, a role played by Robert Duvall in the original. And while Pepper damn near plays it exactly like Duvall did before him, he puts his own stamp on the role.
Carter Burwell's soft score makes use of 19th-century hymns and suits the time period perfectly, delicately guiding the narrative from scene to scene and rising to the occasion when called upon. Roger Deakins is also back for his eleventh time working with the Coens as their director of photography and just as before, this is another notch in his belt of beautiful films to his credit.
From top to bottom It's almost impossible to find a complaint about this film, and those I do have are minimal and don't need to be brought up here. The Western may be dead in Hollywood, but the Coens prove that good Westerns can still be made. True Grit touches upon every emotion you can muster from its melancholy beginnings to its more outrageous and comedic moments all the way up to its action-based climax.
If anything, True Grit proves Joel and Ethan Coen's talents know no bounds. At nearly two hours this film feels as if it runs 60 minutes. I attribute this to the fact the Coens quite simply know how to tell a story and know how to find the right people to help them tell it. There is no fat on this film, the performances are some of the best of the year and it plays much more straight-forward than any Coen film before it. I expect their next film will flex their imaginations a bit more than this one did, because this almost seems like it was too easy.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 45 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
I just got back from a preview of it and I couldn't agree with you more. I went in with incredibly high expectations, I'd been following it since they first announced they were going to make it way back when. Those expectations were easily met and surpassed. I loved it. Now that it's been released, do you think it's Oscar chances have changed or improved any? Hopefully the Academy gives it some recognition. It was the best of this years movies that I've seen.
Definitely one of the year's best. I can now officially be somewhat unsettled by the Golden Globes snubbing this great movie.
I can really only echo your review in my praise of this film Brad, but I will add that watching movies that are so gripping and involving on practically every level after a year of some notable let downs makes me appreciate just how hard it is to make a truly engaging cinema. My viewing experience for this film was more pleasurable than roughly 80% of the time I spent watching films all year.
The Globes are always a taste unto themselves, but now having seen it, I'm pretty mystified by its shut out too.
Just saw it about an hour ago and still have that glassy eyed feeling you described in your 127 hours review. Absolutely loved it. I am, however, surprised and a little curious why Hailee Steinfeld is only receiving attention as supporting actress when to me she was just as central, if not more, to the story than Jeff Bridges. I'd really like to see her be appreciated as the main actress (or member of cast for that matter) that gave what I felt was the best performance in the movie.
Just got back from seeing it, and thought it was fantastic. Am I the only one who thought this was incredibly violent for a PG-13? I dont think Ive ever seen that much blood spraying and splattering in a PG-13 before. It basically had the same amount of blood was comparable to that seen in Open Range, 3:!0 to Yuma and The Assassination of Jesse James, yet they were all R. Just find that kind of odd.
I haven't seen it but it sounds miles better than No Country for Old Men. Anyone care to make the comparison?
Put side by side, there is a Coen Brothers signature on both films. A certain feel and flow to the story telling.
However, I would say where No Country for Old Men left me hanging, not just the end but in terms of character development, True Grit flies high. Though, in the span of the story, you don't spend long with these people, you feel as if you know them and your involved with them.
I never really felt that for any of the characters in No Country, I felt almost like a voyeur watching that film. Just watching a series of random events play out in front of me.
Wow, this was just as great if not greater than what I had expected going in. I waited all year long for this, and boy did I love every aspect of it. Hailee Steinfeld blew me away with her performance as did Jeff Bridges. This is surely another winner in the Coen franchise. I'm going to have to agree on the solid A on this one.
I'm going to have to go the other way. This is probably my least favorite Coen Brothers movie (and I've seen all of them). I really didn't buy the dynamic between the three main characters like I did in the original, and I thought Bridges' performance lacked any of the charisma or humor that made Wayne's performance great. I also found Burwell's score obtrusive, often hammering home moments with no subtlety whatsoever (see Brolin's introduction and the ominous music playing over it).
The movie is also FULL of dialogue, none of which I found the slightest bit interesting (other than the occasional zinger now and then). The courtroom scene is a great example of the Coens relishing so much in the dialogue of the scene that it goes on way too long and loses complete track of what the point of the scene actually was, before it abruptly ends and moves onto the next.
I could keep going but nobody seems to agree with me so I'll just go sulk in the corner.
These things happen sometimes. I think I'm the only person in the world who didn't like 127 Hours.
Maybe part of the point of the courtroom scene was to both illustrate and get you used to the manner of speaking of these people, which was indeed different than it is today. I feel it helped set the tonality of the film, and helped set up the very end of the film, remembering Mattie's reaction to the testimony (which was to reinforce, for her, that she was choosing the right man for the job).
Plus, I completely disagree with you about the point of any given scene in a movie. You may feel that every scene needs to advance the plot of the film, without filler. But I feel that movies that are rewatchable will have scenes that are vignettes in themselves, and are outstanding in their own right. So what may seem to you to be filler, is actually something that will make the film timeless. For an illustration, see the difference between Batman1 and Batman2.
Anyway, I did indeed rent the original movie just before seeing this one, and it's fun to see the difference a director's choices make in a film. I know my film, if I directed, would have been different. The Coens ending is hard to argue with, and brings home things you may have not thought of earlier. Like why Mattie ended up in the pit with the snakes.
I highly recommend seeing this movie in the theater. I was actually on the fence, thinking a rental would be just fine. But the visuals had the scope to make theater viewing a better option, and I came out of the theater very happy. I also give this movie an A rating.
i agree i wasnt a huge fan. I did like Bridges, but i really had no attachment to any of the characters. All the emotions people were getting while watching this movie, id like to know which scenes actually pulled you in. And also, i thought the ending was kind of anti-climactic. I walked out of the theater flat disapointed i didnt see the fighter. Also this is the first time i found myself disagreeing so much with everyone elses thoughts on a film, and i love bridges and the coens.
See… This was the first movie in awhile that while watching it, I forgot I was watching a movie… I didn't see Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon "playing the characters" of Cogburn and LeBeuf… I saw Cogburn and LeBeuf. And I see Hailee Steinfeld (hopefully) having a great career ahead of her. I found the score to be a great throwback to the heyday of Westerns, but without being "too nostalgic" to get in the way. The cinematography was incredible, I don't think I have to say too much about that as it has already been said. But I must say, the night time scene toward the end while Cogburn and Mattie are on the horse was one of the best dispictions in showing to the audience the characters sense of surrealism in a quasi- "race against time" type moment… All in all, this movie completely blew all my expectations, which were really high, out of the water…
Warning! Spoiler Alert!!! Do Not Read This If You Haven't Seen The Film, Yet!
About the ending. I felt it was an attempt to highlight the anti-violence aspects of the movie. Mattie only fell into the snake pit because she chose to shoot Tom Chaney when she had him dead to rights, and could have chosen justice instead of revenge*. Losing her arm, along with her cantankerous character, lessened her chances of getting married. Remember, in the beginning of the film she says, in voiceover, that "nothing is free in this world except God's grace". Including revenge.
* this is in contrast to showing that it's not always practical not to just start shooting when a situation is bound to deteriorate not in your favor, such as when LaBoeuf was surprised by Tom Cheney's gang.
I couldn't disagree with you more; I thought the film was quite funny and very engaging.
But not everyone is going to like a film. I'm sure EVERYONE here could name a few popular and beloved flicks that are completely at odds with their personal evaluations of these films. (That would be an interesting and lively discussion, I'm sure.) Wall-E and The Dark Knight top my list, both of which would get me pilloried faster than your dislike for this version of True Grit.
Avatar, Paranormal Activity and The Hurt Locker were all very underwhelming. Those top my list and they're all from last year.
Trust me, you're not alone. This movie is a perfect example of typical Oscar bait — yes, it had some nice performances, but it did nothing for me and my 4 friends when we saw it. We all yawned throughout the whole thing. I wish movies like this didn't get so much attention during awards season (they most certainly don't deserve it), and I also wish people stopped band-wagoning and hyping up something that doesn't deserve to be hyped up in the first place. Seriously guys, this movie wasn't all that great. The Fighter, Inception, and The Social Network are in a whole other league compared to this soulless piece of garbage.
Truly, one of the best movie in this year.
This movie reminded me why I love movies! My favorite movie of the year…
great review as usual. i couldnt agree more.
btw. no country is the shit. anyone whho has to say otherwise can suck pidgeon balllls
Terrific film; surprisingly funny. Steinfeld was quite impressive. Likely my favorite of the year.
Why do you think the GG's completely snubbed this one? It was fantastic
I finally saw the movie. I thought it was FANTASTIC… up until the last minutes. What a ridiculously bad ending to a great movie.
From what I've gathered, the ending is the same as the book, I haven't seen the film yet its not out in Britain until Feb (which i'm gutted about) but I read the book and I actually preferred it in tone to the ending of the John Wayne version.
I have seen the movie. Truly nice one.
I saw the movie and really, really liked it. It was top notch all the way. But am I the only one who was annoyed at Hailee Steinfeld? I didn't think her performance was amazing at all. She stumbled over the dialogue on more than a couple of occasions. Again, this is just my own opinion, but I was more impressed with Bridges's performance.
I thought the movie was great. I saw it recently with my parents, my mother grew up watching westerns (mostly John Wayne films) and she enjoyed it, but likely being a bit biased, said she didn't enjoy it like she did the original with the Duke. She had no problems with Bridges at all but was disappointed at how similar she thought the movie was to the 1969 version. I thought that to be interesting because of Brad saying the films aren't within a thousand miles of one another. I haven't watched the original since I was a young kid so I am going to have to watch it again and perhaps read the book just to see how different the dialogue is. I assume that's where the films are miles apart?
Hello Jimmy,
Actually, watching the two back to back will have you thinking the brothers simply copied the original script right from the screen in most applicable scenes. The major differences, but not all, are the lines in the court room … the new version embelishes more; and scenes in which the characters move in somewhat different directions … as in where the trio split up in the territory.
Much of the text in same scene continuity is practically the same. I'm sure much came right from the novel, but I'm not sure how much, as I haven't read the book in 35 years, but I found myself mouthing the lines frequently all through the movie (I watch the original several times a year).
Perhaps Brad is refering to the enthusiastic tone of the new film … in this respect the two don't fit the same universe and to one who hasn't viewed the original, or at least not for several years, the two can seem like different movies.
Watch one theater troop produce a work in lack-luster recitation but supurb backdrop and costume, and watch another wing it on an outside stage but with supurb embellishment of the same lines and heartfelt acting, and the two won't look anywhere alike.
Like your mother, I have no problem with Bridges, with any of the actors, actually. But they sound like they are reading from cue cards in a rehersal.
I suggest watching the two back to back, and then form an opinion.
It's like watching Tombstone verses Wyatt Earp; the one was far more entertaining, the other much closer to detail. You can takes serious notes on this newer film with regard to period, but …
Well, that is my opinion.
Hope it helps.
JPN
Just came back from a screening…thought it was super-boring. In fact, I almost fell asleep (and I've never felt the urge to do so in a movie [in theatres] in my life). I loved No Country for Old Men, but I am extremely bewildered at what everyone finds so interesting about this film. I would never EVER place this movie even near my 2010 Top 10 film list. Everyone, please go watch The Fighter instead. Brilliant film. Even Black Swan. Just stay away from this crap. NOT RECOMMENDED. AT ALL.
I too agree with your review but have a question no one seems to have brought up about the scene toward the end when Mattie, 25 years later, is looking for Rooster at a wild west show he has been performing in, only to find that he died three days before she got there. She was informed of this by the show's owner, Cole Younger, the man who shot Jessie James. She seemed to be honored to have met him in person, but calls the other one with him "Trash." I thought that that was Jesse's brother Frank. Did I miss something? Anyway, that was a total add on by the Coens and I don't think it helped.
Oops. My mistake. It was not Cole Younger who shot Jesse James but a member of his gang named Robert Ford. So as far as the ending of True Grit is concerned, it seems that the man she called trash was Jesse's brother, Frank, but I still don't understand why.
She called him trash because he didn't stand up when she walked over.
Duh. Thank you!
Walked out of this movie in 20 minutes. It was boring sad to say and I do like the directors, but not this one.
If you walk out of a film 20 minutes in, before characters and even premise have been established, your opinion of said film is invalid. Perhaps you should be checked for ADHD, or at the very least, go home and watch something with 100 jump cuts per minute, like MTV. Maybe you should just stick to watching trailers from now on.
No offense, BTW.
This is definitely one of the better movies that has come out this year though I must admit I do prefer the original. Jeff Bridges did a wonderful job but the portrayal of the marshal by John Wayne was far better (receiving a much deserved Academy Award for it). However, I do believe the supporting characters and cinematography in this film are much stronger than the 1969 version. Big kudos to Halie Steinfeld for knocking Mattie Ross out of the park as well. I would give this film a strong B+ though I feel after repeated viewings the grade would likely be raised.
I had mixed emotions about seeing the Coen's version of this film, as I loved both the book and the original 1969 film. After seeing the 2010 version, I still have mixed feelings. Much of Rooster's dialogue was lost to me and my movie companions due to the speaking voice affected by Jeff Bridges, so I think I missed much of the humor because I just couldn't understand what the character was saying. Halie Steinfeld was excellent as Mattie Ross, and much more age appropriate to play that role. It's hard to get vested in a work of fiction when 25 year olds are portraying characters in their mid-teens. I'm glad I saw the new version of True Grit, but I enjoyed the 1969 version much more.
Several characters seemed to be mouthing the words..I have always thought Jeff Bridges had a speech impediment. The movie is not memorable in any way.
What an amazing film. I didn't expect it to be so good. Glad they didn't make it as "golly gee" as the original, which is certainly charming but just doesn't ring true. Jeff Bridges turns in yet another "can't take your eyes off him" character, following "Crazy Heart" and of course "The Dude". It's just a gorgeous looking film, and I really love the climax chasing the hallucinated rider in the moonlight. Very moving.
I found this more intriguing than the original. Though Jeff Bridge can't top John Wayne, this film's script, mood and direction is very well handled. And to that guy who says he walked out during the first 20 minutes, you missed all the good parts.
Ok movie. The ending was absolutely awful. For once can we have a movie without a bad ending, or even worse a movie that's just leaving the door open for a sequel if it does well at the box office…
It's the same ending as the book, plus I saw both versions after i read the novel and I actually prefer an actual ending than just a freeze frame before the credits.
Speaking six months later, now that the DVD is out, I find myself wondering if I even want to see it again. I'm sure I will, but how soon, I don't know.
Without a doubt, this version is closer to the novel than the original. Also, there is a high class attention to the period. The lighting was great, camera was excellant, casting superior. But it is my opinion you can't watch the original 5 – 6 times a year and then watch this one and get excited.
As an actor and director (albiet small scale) and writer, the vocal tone and enthusiasm of this film reminds me of a 1st time sit down read through. Nor did the score at any time bring me out of my declining state of boredom.
When it was time to bring the story home, the ride of L'il Blacky was attractive in the way it was set, but brought to mind no sense of urgency, let alone excitement, the original did. After viewing John depict his race against time over a hundred times, I still find myself clenching my fists and the music pulses up and down my spine. In this film I just put my head in my hands and groaned.
Again, this film scored all 10's in artwork and attention to period detail; it was also much closer to the book, especially in the end … but I think I'm going to use the DVD as a coaster for my beverages.
I give a total score of 6.5