It's very, very good - not quite great. It's an interesting deconstruction of Western archetypes and values, seen through the eyes of a child, but it needed to be a bit longer and end more emphatically. Brolin's role is limited to little more than a cameo, and it hurts the film, I think, to have him dispatched so easily. But as a child's view of violence and masculinity in the Old West, it's pretty intriguing. Plus it's brilliantly scripted and rather hilarious - as if I even need to say this about a Coen brothers film.

Also, supporting actress my ass. Steinfeld's in basically every scene and the story is told from her perspective. If the studio had any balls, they'd have campaigned her in lead. She's that good.

I don't see how she's not a lead. Amazing little actress I'd have to say. Anyways, it was a perfect Western movie, and a classic tale of revenge. Rooster and LeBeef were fantastic characters, flawlessly acted.

A-

True Grit was very good, but nothing more.

And sadly, it is the trademark CoenBro^® style that gets in the way of the dang thang.

One of the good parts was all of the humor - - True Grit really can be viewed as an out-and-out comedy movie, and the lead actors know how to play it for big laughs. Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon clearly look to be enjoying their dry clowning. Another good part was the Grrrrrrrllll Power!!! streak running through it's storyline - - both Hailee Steinfeld's amazing performance and her very cleverly written dialogue delivered some good old fashioned, yet non-schmaltzy inspiration. Plus, she easily kept up with the big boys in the funny department.

The bad parts were some strangely stagey blue screen scenes with stilted line readings - - an homage to old school F/X and editing? I suppose - - but it sure kept throwing the tone of the screenplay for a loop. And Josh Brolan... Yow! He seemed like he was dropped in from an entirely different movie. Bad writing, bad acting there.

It's a shame really, if this remake* of True Grit had been played a little straighter, it coulda been a contender.


4 out of 5.



(*I haven't seen the original, but know that even when it was released way back when, it was already past the end of the western genre's dying days. In my cultural memory of it, it seems a slightly comic tale of an old man getting to the point he's gruffly honest. And that touching Academy Award, of course. So, I can't compare the original and the remake. (e.g: if I'd judged Taking Pelham 1 2 3's pale remake by it's full-bodied original, I would have condemned the lot).)

Given the growing consensus that it was not amongst the Coen's greatest films and it was merely very very very good, I went in with some tampered expectations. I'm not sure if it's my favorite of the year, I'll watch it again within a few weeks and be more certain. It does not touch the sacred ground of No Country for me, but it is certainly a masterpiece. I essentially agree with trixster's view, and I assume the voice-over was attempting to follow the book's framing but I found it hollow and below the magnificience of the rest of the movie. The final scene felt unnecessary to me, however I don't think the ending of the actual story was poor. Brolin's relegation to just a few short scenes at the end was very appropriate given the focus of the film. it wasn't a classic tale of revenge, it was the dissection of western mythology and fables through the prying eye of a child, as trixster said. Thus the actual incident of revenge is not particularly crucial to the story, or at least that's what I perceived the Coens were trying to communicate. Also, I really didn't expect to like a script from this year more than Sorkin's work on Social Network, but I guess that was underestimating the Coens.

Her need for revenge on Cheney amassed a long line a dead bodies, and

***

it's very pleasing -- there's nothing truly eccentric here (other than the forrester guy in the bear suit...maybe) and it totally plays out as a movie meant to be seen on christmas eve, but i didn't mind. bridges is a hoot.

so that's four in a row

No doubt a better film than the original. True Grit isn't necessarily one of the Coens' best films ever but still represents a superlative, highly entertaining endeavor. Perhaps most surprising of all is just how funny this movie actually is. The tone is fairly lighthearted throughout, and while the Coens have always had a knack for dark humor of the gallows variety, True Grit is definitely their most entertaining film that's not a "comedy." The acting is excellent across the board. Jeff Bridges has no problems stepping into John Wayne's shoes, Hailee Steinfeld is outstanding and brings a gravitas to the role that was missing before, and Matt Damon is a hoot in a more subtle performance. And while I'm spoiled by having just seen Black Swan yesterday, the cinematography in this one is appropriately lush and grand. Certainly in my top ten of the year. A-

It's funny, the main trio all give fine performances, and the thing sure looks pretty.

After a week of catching up on a glut of year-end prestige pictures, this registered below everything but maybe Ben Affleck's silly The Town.

A clucking chicken man would beg to differ.

The Coen Brothers break out another hit here with True Grit and show they can tackle any genre in their way. The film does add more than just having the simple revenge tale. Also seeing the film through someone younger instead of older puts a new spin on the Western and the type of story as well. Steinfeld is very strong here and her first 15 minutes are some superb bits. She doesn't match that greatness as the film progresses, sometimes falling back into the age of her character instead of one very mature for their age, but she still does a superb job. Though putting her in supporting role position is bullshit as her role is complete lead. Bridges and Damon both do fine Oscar-worthy performances. It's amazing that both men could be receiving back-to-back nominations after their turns in Crazy Heart and Invictus respectively. Josh Brolin is surprisingly on screen for too little amount of time and that in fact robs the film out of a fully satisfying ending. At least, it did keep to Western roots and didn't go all "happy ending". The film definitely has Coen wit and finds time for a good bit of comedy, mostly from Bridges. It isn't the brothers' best or top of the year material, but is still great. ***1/2

I wonder why Matt Damon hasn't been a more significant figure this awards season. I thought he was fantastic here. A colorful, detailed, larger-than-life performance from an actor who tends to be modest, reserved, "solid." I thought he was even better than Bridges. I know Best Supporting Actor is intense this year--Bale, Garfield, Hawkes, Renner, Rockwell, Ruffalo, Rush, even Cassel--but Damon deserves a nomination.

And I loved the movie. It's a grand western adventure with potent currents of melancholy and quirky humor. Hailee Steinfeld delivers one of the best performances of the year. The Best Supporting Actress campaign is absurd.

A-

The performances were the best part, but a pretty good film overall. A lot funnier than I expected.

Still too full of yourself. So Revenge not crucial to the story. Well it was the reason for the story and the driving force through the Movie. More Later after I watch it again.

If you look upon it in the most simple terms of what composes the essentials of the plot, that is true. However you may someday discover Citizen Kane is not actually about a newspaper journalist interviewing people close to Charles, and then you'll start to understand what I meant by revenge not being crucial.

Blah Blah Blah.

Agree with your very simplistic answer on Citizen Kane but not on True Grit. Revenge is crucial and starts the ride in True Grit.

PS. Try to get over yourself.

Certainly enjoyable, and the Coens' craft is, as usual, impeccable, but there's something missing here.

Yup, the Duke is missing. First noticed it, in that scene where Jeff Bridges was in the court house chair, that he wasn't going to be able to equal the great John Wayne.

That is not untrue. I love Jeff Bridges, and he's fine in the picture. But he doesn't really leave much of a mark here. Part of that is due to the Coens' change of emphasis to Mattie, but I still left the theatre with the sense that Cogburn was less than fully realized.

I think the Brothers Coen were asking for trouble in staying this close to the book. None of the principals have any real character arc, beyond accepting that Mattie's got True Grit, yo. And the story is rather uneventful. They fill in the blanks with all that effective stylized dialogue, but it still feels like less than a full movie.

Disappointing. 6/10.

i don't think mattie left much of a mark, either

[runs from pedophile gang]

i thought bridges was great. but yes, he's a supporting character.

it's very serviceable stuff. probably the most "mainstream" movie they've made. not half as good as a serious man. was definitely intended to be an xmas present to lonely jews -- so it shouldn't be seen after. roger ebert's review is truly moronic.

google says no gender studies grad student has yet to blog a piece called 'true grit = johnny guitar jr. jr. ' --guess they're saving it for the spring term or something.

and what was with the titanic coda?

Awsome! A+

Coen's should do more westerns

I saw this today. I didn't like the coda but no movie is flawless. This was one of the best movies the Coen brothers have made, and possibly the absolute best.