"True Grit" remake by Coen Brothers - Page 4

I wasn't saying that the older Mattie was written as having softened with age, just that Elizabeth Marvel played her as having softened with age. I would have liked to see more grit from her performance, so to speak. The older Mattie's rather resolute opinions concerning the 1928 presidential election were wisely left out here, but they helped define her continued resoluteness for me when reading the book. It fascinated me at the time that someone could come through such an ordeal at such an impressionable age at great personal injury and still view life from just about the same perspective on the other side.

A few comments:

 

Loved the film. The Coen Bros. are a big favourite of mine and this is among my favourite of their films.

 

Re-makes: Call them what you will, but I have no difficulties with the idea of doing "re-makes". I judge them individually, not because they are re-makes. After all, without re-makes, I would never subscribe to the symphony nor would I get to enjoy Shakespeare and Molière (to name but a few of a tiny subset of "re-makes" across all artistic genres).  

 

I look forward to adding this to my library of films and watching it again and again. Perhaps not the best film of 2010, but certainly the best I've seen (admittedly, I've seen very few of this past year's releases--kids and other major life obligations have considerably slowed my once ubiquitous presence at the local cinema houses--as a young, single and childless man, I used to average 5 movies a week at the cinema and the same at home; now, 5 movies a year at the cinema is more my speed and 3 a month at home is about what I can manage 8 months a year).

After seeing The Social Network, I thought for sure that film would run away with Best Picture.

Having just seen True Grit, I hope that's not the case.

I absolutely loved this movie. Most entertained I've been in a theater in a long time.

Pretty much a perfect film in every way to my ears, eyes and brain.

I'm glad to see so many people enjoying this film but I must admit that with each passing review I grow more and more confused as to why this film is getting so much love.  As much as I enjoyed the movie I feel as if years from now I'm going to have to call the thing overrated.  Perhaps I should give it a second viewing and not right after watching the original.

 

As to what Robert said about other directors doing a Western.  It would be interested to see if the mainstream crowds would be ok with 3-4 Westerns being released a year.  Since UNFORGIVEN they've all been spread apart and I'm guessing this is because the studios don't believe the people will show up for them too often (the same with Musicals). 

I don't know how to explain what I was looking for from her. It was something intangible. As you say, the character of older Mattie was plenty gritty. The performance just didn't feel that way for me, almost too feminine or nostalgic. There's a certain pugnaciousness in Steinfeld's tone throughout the picture that I would have liked more of from Marvel. She seemed too... pleasant.
 

 

A movie like this couldn't be made if there were still three to four Westerns being released a year. Part of the joy of this picture is that there is no twist, no gimmick to sell the Western genre. It's a straight-up, unreconstructed Western telling a straight-up, unreconstructed Western story. It works because audiences haven't seen a straight-up, unreconstructed Western in a long time. The genre still resonates deep in the American psyche, and this is the genre done conventionally but also done extremely well. And there's the fact that Mattie Ross and Rooster Cogburn were great, crowd-pleasing big-screen characters 41 years ago, and they're still great, crowd-pleasing characters today.

After having read the posts on the Home Theater Forum for the past couple of days, I decided to go see this film with my wife and several of our children Tuesday. There was a 3:35 showing, and since Tangled (for the younger children) was being shown at 3:25, this ended up being quite convenient. From what I had read on the HTF, it sounded as though True Grit was one entertaining and well-made film, and I was not disappointed.

I think Hailee Steinfeld did a remarkable job in her role. But imagine having to fill the Duke's shoes? Yikes. Perhaps an even more remarkable performance was given by Jeff Bridges, which IMO is saying quite a lot given Steinfeld's interpretation.

I loved the two or three Christian hymns that I heard prominently throughout the film. The piano sounded (appropriately) like it was almost a period instrument -- similar to how it resonated (to my ears) in the Ken Burns excellent Civil War series. One of the departures from the 'normal' scoring of the film occurred during the prairie scene, at which point it almost sounded as though a second composer were at work -- very modal (and quite unlike any of the aforementioned hymns I had heard) in parts, but IMO still quite breathtaking.

For my own part, the only weakness of the film was the final ten or so minutes. 'Older Mattie' just did not do it for me. Perhaps it's because (to my way of thinking) the scenes were either too brief or seemed a bit too rushed, or maybe it's because 'younger Mattie' by contrast was so very riveting in her performance. I just wasn't all that convinced in that particular part of the story, or in that particular actor's delivery of those scenes. I am not a film expert by any means, but as an analog, it was similar to a song in which the B section fails in part to be formally related to its A section via harmonic unity, and in the process loses a degree of its overarching (in this case, antecedent-consequence) coherency. Sure, the song still functions and is related melodically and strophically -- that is to say, from the linear and textual standpoints as it transitions from A to B -- but something is lost vertically (i.e., harmonically) in the process. This does not mean that it fails to work, it just means that it is less unified (and in my estimation, less convincing). That being said, I still found this to be an excellent film. My oldest son plans to pick it up on DVD once it becomes available.
 

 

 

I dragged my folks to see it today(completely my idea  that they watch a good film on the big screen).  My mom despised it, and my dad gave me a little reassurance in that at least it had a good musical score.  I now feel very bad that they paid prime theater prices to see something they disliked very much.

I should have learned my lesson long ago:

  Never impose your like of a movie on other people.  If they are interested in seeing a film, they will see it.

 

 

 

Saw it with my wife and father-in-law yesterday, digitally projected (2k Cinemark XD in Robinson). I saw the original as a child, but have no memories of it, other than John Wayne's image. So this was very much a "virgin" experience for me.

 

It was the best Western I've ever seen, and quite possibly my favorite film of the last few years. My wife thought it was a great film, though I don't think she enjoyed it quite as much as I did. My father in law, a big fan of the original, thought it was a great character study, but that it didn't have quite as much action as he would have liked.

After three weeks in theaters "True Grit" has now tallied $110.4 million making it the third most successful western in history.  It currently trails "Dances With Wolves" ($184.2 million) and "Wild Wild West" ($113.8 million).  "True Grit" marks the first time a Coen bros. film has topped the century mark and with the film expected to do very well in terms of Oscar nods, Paramount is now predicting a final domestic haul well north of the $150 million mark.  Out of the expected ten Best Picture nominees this year, "True Grit" will be the third most successful of the predicted line-up (behind "Toy Story 3" and "Inception"). 

 

While it's very unlikely that anything will derail the 'Social Network' train at this point in terms of Oscar glory, congrats to the Coens for earning their biggest hit movie to date.

And True Grit has a good chance of being the #1 movie at the box office this weekend.

The weekend estimates have "True Grit" topping the box office with $15 million, while "Little Fockers" came in second with $13.8 million.

I love the brothers Coen so I had high expectations for this movie

 

caught the original (which I had never seen before) on AMC on Saturday night and was suprisingly thoroughly entertained throughout (despite not being a John Wayne fan in the least)

 

decided to catch this remake/reinterpretation/retelling earlier today

 

highly disappointed ... I thought the original was better in almost every way and I completely don't understand all the praise for Steinfeld  ... I was much more convinced with Darby's performance

I'm glad I'm not the only one not bowled over by this film. Jeff Bridges plays the part well but IMO is in no way as memorable as John Wayne's Rooster Cogburn. The young girl has been getting good notices and the film is a hit but it's already fading from the memory.

A generous 3 out of 5.

Isn't anyone bothered by the fact that the Coen Brothers used John Wayne's eye patch on their supposedly true to the book version of True Grit?  I have'nt seen one person mention it in all the reviews I have read.  I won't go into the details of Mr. Wayne opting for the eye patch because it is pretty easy to figure out.  When I saw the first trailer and Jeff Bridges had the eye patch I said to myself well that's it,  I won't be seeing that film. A few posters mentioned iconic in reference to the 1969 film. Well there isn't anything more iconic than John Wayne's Rooster Cogburn. The eye patch belonged to John Wayne and nobody else. Yes it was a necessary prop back in 1969 but with todays film technology there is no excuse for the Coens to incorporate it into their film except maybe for higher box office receipts.

 

If any of you has heard why they did this please share.

 

The "Dude" is no "Duke".

Huh?
 

In the book Rooster Cogburn had a damaged left eye, sightless, with only a crescent of white showing at the bottom. No eye patch.

Huh? indeed. what do you mean John Wayne's eye patch?

Well the Coen's did not literally use the eye patch John Wayne wore in the film. What I am saying is that in the book Cogburn did not have an eye patch. So if the Brothers were making a more true to the book remake, they would not have Jeff Bridges wearing an eye patch. Seems like all they changed was the ending which was the book ending.

I still say Bridges Rooster ain't a patch on Wayne's.

 

OK  
 

One of the years best.

I think it's a little kooky you're getting so worked up because the character wore an eye patch - and that you think the Coens did so because they felt it'd help the box office receipts...

Quote:

Bridges doesn't get as much support from the Cohens as Wayne got from Hathaway.

 

It took two Cohens to remake True Grit, but only one Hathaway made the original ... just kidding, of course.

 

My biggest complaint with the new version is technical. I don't mind the use of digital tools to enhance the weather and replace "dying" horses, but the image looks dim and undefined at times, especially during the pans. I'm thinking of that scene where we first see Rooster Cogburn in the courtroom, for example. Roger Deakins is so careful to maintain the light at edge of over-exposure, so careful to capture texture and tonality, and then the digital intermediate flattens the light and smudges the image. It will look better under the luminosity of an electronic monitor than it does on the big screen, but I would prefer photochemistry over a digital intermediate when the mood and atmosphere are this important in telling a story.

 

Actually, I have another complaint, but I want to see the film again before I post it here.

Edited by Richard--W - 1/17/11 at 4:00pm

Having neither read the book nor viewed the John Wayne version, I walked into True Grit with no preconceived notions about the movie other than considering Raising Arizona and Miller's Crossing to be two of the finest films I've ever seen.  With that in mind, I absolutely loved the Cohen Bros version of True Grit.  The entire cast to a one was outstanding, and Jeff Bridges gives a remarkable performance in what I consider his finest role to date.  I have to say that this is my favorite film of the year, and it's a shame to me that the Oscar conversation is between The King's Speech and The Social Network when True Grit trumps both of those movies and every department.

 

But the thing that sticks out to me the most is the dialog -- I don't know if they reused much if any of the dialog from the novel or previous movie, but I absolutely loved the archaic manner of speaking that reminded me of Miller's Crossing.  It was like watching Shakespeare -- yes, it's English, but it's syntactically distinct and sprinkled with words and idioms that passed the language by long ago.  There was a musical quality to the dialog that I found quite enchanting.

 

I usually prefer my movies to have well crafted or even elaborate plots -- but True Grit is as spare as the Choctaw land the characters travel through.  I was still riveted.

 

Don't know if this was brought up yet, but how in the world is Hailee Steinfeld up for Best Supporting Actress?  She has more screen time than any other cast member, and it's her story from beginning to end.  They obviously wanted the girl to compete in a category that traditionally allows for younger actresses, but how in the world can a principle cast member vie for a supporting role when there is little justification to support such a thing?

 

In any case, True Grit gets an A+.

I pretty much agree with this post 100%. Well said Hanson!

 

Having read Charle Portis's novel only a month or so before seeing the film, I would judge that well over three-quarters of the dialog was taken directly from the book. The novel was famous at the time of its publication for the cadence of its dialog.

 

 

Unlike many other categories, there is no hard and fast rule for the acting categories, other than that you can only nominated for a performance in a picture the was first screened in the United States during the calendar year in question. Academy voters can nominate whoever they want, for whichever category they judge the performance most suited for.

 

So how did an actress who was on screen for nearly every shot in the film end up in the Supporting Actress category, while her co-star who was on-screen for half as much time ended up in the Best Actor category? When the Academy tallies the nomination submissions and a performance has enough votes to be nominated in both the Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress categories, the performance is placed in the category where it got the most votes. Paramount's "For Your Consideration" campaign for the film actively promoted Steinfeld for the Supporting category. While I would not be surprised if she got a lot of votes in the Best Actress category, she obviously got more in the Best Supporting category.

 

In the Supporting category, she's neck-and-neck with Melissa Leo for frontrunner status. In the Best Actress category, she would have had to settle for being happy for being nominated. That prize is going to either Jennifer Lawrence or Natalie Portman. Barring a huge upset, all others need not apply.

Off-topic - Jennifer Lawrence has no shot at an Oscar this year.  This year's Best Actress race is between Portman and Bening.   Also, Anthony Hopkins had less than 20 minutes of screentime in "The Silence of the Lambs", and yet he took home the Best Actor Oscar in 1992.  (Should pick this up in the Oscars thread for any follow-up).

 

Obtopic - John Hawkes (Winter's Bone), probably, maybe, nabbed Matt Damon's supporting actor nomination for his work in True Grit.  It happens.

 

Anyhow, definitely a solid film, loved the zingers spoken in this type of speech/dialect.  Made for fun listening at the movies.

 

True Grit: 1969 vs 2010 from Amfidiusz on Vimeo.