Movie Review: True Grit

One of the best narrative films I've seen in ages. It is typical Coen Brothers genius, but the violence has been turned down a notch. It's still there, but it isn't quite as overwhelming as in past films (PG-13).

The characters are compelling, something you can rarely say about a movie anymore.

Loved it, a super film. The tag line (in reference to John Wayne's film of True Grit) was:

"You've seen the movie, now see the book."

Superbly edited, well acted, no real weak link at all, though the action really gets going when Bridges and posse hit the woods.

Barry Pepper and Bridges were incredible.

One review I read said that the movie was excellent, but it lapsed into being formulaic when the character of the young girl was essentially shoved into the background after a very compelling beginning that showed her as the strongest character in the movie.

Be that as it may, I think I'll go see it this afternoon instead of grading papers :)

Quote: mkl654321

One review I read said that the movie was excellent, but it lapsed into being formulaic when the character of the young girl was essentially shoved into the background after a very compelling beginning that showed her as the strongest character in the movie.

Be that as it may, I think I'll go see it this afternoon instead of grading papers :)

Good choice. Mrs and I thought it was fantastic.

I give it a big thumbs up too. Would like to see it again.

Quote: Wizard

I give it a big thumbs up too. Would like to see it again.

Who would have thought Jeff Bridges would be the premier actor of our times. His performance last year as a drunk country singer was over the top and won him the big award. I met him once. I was an extra in a movie he was making in Santa Barbara (I lived there) and he was about as laid back as they come. Nice guy, been married to the same wife for 40 years.

I give it a thumbs up, as well, and I think that the criticism I quoted earlier was off the mark--the character of Mattie did NOT fade into the background as the movie went on.

I love period piece movies in general, and I was impressed that I saw only two obvious anachronisms---in such movies, there are usually dozens. But that's a minor quibble anyway--this was a character study. I also like how hardscrabble and bleak everything (accurately) looked. The Coen brothers were unflinching in their depictions of North Dakota/Minnesota, west Texas, and now Oklahoma. I wonder if they are from one of those areas. My reaction is, wow, I can see why virtually nobody lives there, even now.

Go see it!

Hailee Steinfeld is incredibly poised for a 14 year old girl.

I saw it today, too. Thought it was great. Much better than their last one, which won the Academy Award. The actors just kill it, and the photography/pacing/story is great. I hope it gets nominated again this year. (It probably won't win, but it should be nominated). Steinfeld should of course get an actress nod.

The Coens are from the Twin Cities. What were the anachronisms you found?

Quote: teddys

I saw it today, too.

Kindof wierd, I saw it today ( Sunday ) too along with apparently about 1/2 of the participants of this website.

Pretty good. I am a big fan of Matt Damon and Josh Brolin.

So, what's up with the bear guy ?

The trains shown in the earlier scenes used couplings and other machinery that wasn't invented until 1890 or so, and backdating the story (a "quarter century" before 1903) puts it in 1878. Of course, it may have been pretty hard to find an intact, functional train and locomotive from the proper period.

The office scene where Mattie is negotiating for payment for the horses contains several minor anachronisms, in the details of the office and furnishings.

But as I said, these are very minor, and overall, the props, scenery, furnishings, clothing, etc. were spot-on and accurate for the period.

Quote: Rex Reed on TRUE GRIT

If there's one thing I don't need in my Christmas stocking this year, it's a sorry, lumbering and unasked-for remake of the 1969 sagebrush saga True Grit. Stick it into the one reserved for thorns and thistles. The original western won John Wayne a puzzling and undeserved Oscar for finally falling off his horse. Don't expect the same miracle for Jeff Bridges. In the numbing hands of pretentious filmmakers Joel and Ethan Coen, history does not repeat itself in any way whatsoever.

...

Newcomer Hailee Steinfeld is a passable Mattie, but she's no Kim Darby. The really appalling thing here is Jeff Bridges. Last year, he won an Oscar. This year, he gives the worst performance of 2010, grunting and growling with a throat full of gravel that renders any rational assessment of the screenplay pointless. (Maybe the Coens planned it that way. What I did hear between burps, flatulence and snoring is not worth repeating.) Incoherent mumbling has become his trademark, substituting bloated self-indulgence for what used to be acting. Mr. Bridges does everything to out-wobble, out-drawl, out-screech and outdo John Wayne, hoping his meandering tirade will make everyone forget the original and forgo comparisons. The result is just the opposite: This violent, boring and unnecessary re-shoeing of an old mare that ain't what she used to be only reminds you of how much you forgot you cared about John Wayne in the first place.

Rex gives a terrible review for what is one of the best movies this year.

Reed has made a career out of contrarian reviews. Particularly when he writes for the New Yorker or the NY Times, he affects a pretentious snob air that resonates well with those New Yorkers who think that the part of the country west of the Hudson doesn't really exist. After ahl, WE are the ohnly ones who truly uhnderstahnd the AHTS.

Quote: mkl654321

Reed has made a career out of contrarian reviews. Particularly when he writes for the New Yorker or the NY Times, he affects a pretentious snob air that resonates well with those New Yorkers who think that the part of the country west of the Hudson doesn't really exist. After ahl, WE are the ohnly ones who truly uhnderstahnd the AHTS.

I quite often base my choice of movies on Rex Reed's reviews. The more he trashes a film, the more I want to see it. The more he hates it, the more I end up liking it. Who can forget his great work on the Gong Show?

Quote: benbakdoff

I quite often base my choice of movies on Rex Reed's reviews. The more he trashes a film, the more I want to see it. The more he hates it, the more I end up liking it. Who can forget his great work on the Gong Show?

I haven't read the mag in years, but it used to be that Playboy was the epitome of worthlessness in reviews. For audio reviews -- usually it was jazz albums they focused on -- every single album they mentioned was excellent, probably the best album ever released. For films, everything that made it to the screen was junk, complete trash. The only exception to that last rule was films for which they published a pictorial article -- those were almost exclusively given favorable reviews, no matter how trashy they were in reality.

With a review pattern like that, the magazine gave no basis whatsoever for deciding whether you should want to buy any album or see any flick. You always knew what the review would recommend before even reading it. Now if you can reliably judge a film by believing the opposite of what Rex Reed says, then that negative correlation could be quite useful.

Quote: Bad Review of King's Speech by James Owen

If Tom Hooper’s “The King’s Speech” were graded on an art-house test for aesthetics, it would ace. Hooper impeccably films the English countryside in elegant tones. The1920’s and 1930’s are perfectly replicated. If you could buy a “British-Movie-in-a-Box” Filmmakers Kit, it would tell you to cast Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter, and Michael Gambon. I mean, these people account for almost all of the Harry Potter films and whatever dreck Richard Curtis is writing. What else does British filmmaking do besides humanize the affluent? How could the average “cinephile” resist heading down to the local micro-cinema, throwing down six bucks for a beer, and feeling good about enjoying THIS TYPE of movie?
...
While there is some connection there, overcoming a lifelong speech impediment can’t be as simple as unloading a bunch of Daddy issues and unearthing hazy memories of child abuse. Having such a negative reaction to such a polished production makes me a bit sad; there was a time I would drive three hours to the nearest art-plex to lavishly bathe myself in such production values and high dramatics, coming out the other side a baptized believer. It’s best to be more guarded against beautiful vapidity. “The King’s Speech” certainly looks fulfilling but should leave you craving more.

I suppose that every film will eventually draw a bad review.