True Grit (2010) (1 Viewer)

[TerryRL]

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.

 

[Patrick Sun]

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

 

[TerryRL]

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

 

[MatS]

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

 

[Steve Christou]

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.

 

[Mick B]

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".

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Huh?

Originally Posted by Mick B

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".

 

[Mick B]

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

 

[TonyD]

Originally Posted by Mick B

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

 

[Mick B]

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.

 

[Steve Christou]

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

 

[Henry Gale]

Originally Posted by Mick B /forum/thread/294372/true-grit-remake-by-coen-brothers/90#post_3770914

 

[Tino]

One of the years best.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Originally Posted by Mick B /forum/thread/294372/true-grit-remake-by-coen-brothers/90#post_3770931

 

[Richard--W]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Christou

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

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.

 

[Hanson]

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+.

 

[Tino]

Originally Posted by Hanson Yoo /forum/thread/294372/true-grit-remake-by-coen-brothers/90#post_3777221

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Originally Posted by Hanson Yoo
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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[Patrick Sun]

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.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

True Grit: 1969 vs 2010 from Amfidiusz on Vimeo.