Director: Joel and Ethan Coen (Raising Arizona, Fargo, The Big Lebowski, A Serious Man)
Novel: Charles Portis
Screenplay: Joel and Ethan Coen
Producers: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen, Scott Rudin
Starring: Jeff Bridges, Hailee Steinfeld, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin, Barry Pepper
MPAA Rating: R
Running time: 110 min.
(3.5/5)Tough to go any extended length of time knowing that a Coen Brothers film is right around the corner. It is an event for most cinephiles and everything else just seems to pale in comparison with the expectations and anticipation felt by movie goers everywhere. So finally the day comes and we rush to the theater with excitement. Is it worth the wait? The short answer is yes. True Grit has all of the trappings of a Coen Brothers picture; complete with antiquated, yet somehow goofy dialogue, fabulous casting, a fun storyline (often having to do with a satchel of money or some sort of “on the run” scenario) and of course Roger Deakins. Yes, this is a worthy trip to the multi-plex this holiday season. But there are some reservations.
It must be understood that this is not a remake of a film of the same name produced in 1968 and starring the late, great John Wayne. No, this is the Coens’ own interpretation of the novel. That said, having seen the 1968 version, one would find it difficult to not compare the two as they’re both extremely similar on many levels – neither of them deviating much from the screenplay-like dialogue of the book. So I’ll get this out of the way first: overall, I like the original version of the film better. It’s arguably not fair to compare the two movies and one should let this product stand on its own. But again, that’s difficult to do with the previous version so fresh in the mind and if I were letting it stand on its own I’d say its certainly a lesser entry into the repertoire of Joel and Ethan.
After the murder of her father, young and headstrong Mattie sets off in search of justice (and a dash of vengeance). To capture the man running loose on the open plains, mountains and forests of the American frontier, Mattie hires a tough old U.S. Marshall named “Rooster” Cogburn to help bring the wanted criminal to justice. Competing for the capture of the same criminal is a Texas Ranger name LeBeef. More hard lined, younger and generally less fun to be around the two bounty hunters bicker and trade quips with one another for most of the duration of their travels as Mattie tags along relentlessly. To find their man, they must travel deep into the heart of Indian Territory and face the dangers of the elements, the beasts, the outlaws and their own inner demons.
Make no mistake; this movie is an absolute ball. Huge hero cookies should be delivered to the casting director and the rest of the crew who took big name stars and refaced them into characters so unique and precise that it’s a breeze to forget you’re watching Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon and just see them as tough, horse mounted gunmen hot on the trail of a deadly killer and his gang. The roles are showy and obvious to be sure but they’re played with equal parts bravado and gusto and the journey is many miles of beguilement. Lots is being made of the performance of young Hailee Steinfeld in her feature film debut in what is arguably the lead role. And while it’s fashionable to say she dwarfs the work of Damon and Bridges here, it’s a ludicrous statement. There is zero question she holds her own and delivers a fantastic performance. It’s almost certain we’ll see great things from her in the future. That said, it isn’t anything miraculous or award worthy, or anything surpassing Kim Darby’s version of the role; at least from the point of view of this author. For my money, the standout performance here is from Bridges. Sure he could probably do the role in his sleep and he maybe seems like the most obvious choice, but so what? He knocks it out of the park as usual (with a little help from the make-up department) with pretty much every line spoken and that icy, blue-eyed glare is what we paid to see and it pays off in spades. Damon is almost unrecognizable at first and his character feels like he didn’t get quite enough screen time (particularly in the second half of the film in which his character takes on a slightly new persona). He was a delight and I’d like to have seen more.
One highlight for me was the surprise of Barry Pepper showing up as a gang leader looking like Grizzly Adams on meth. This dude seriously deserves more work from the Hollywood big wigs. He dives into his roles and they’re almost always a stand out. From 25th Hour to Three Burials of Malquiades Estrada and everything in between and through today, the guy seems to always shine. More lead roles for Mr. Pepper please!
The writing throughout the movie is pretty on par but at times somewhat puzzling. Most of it is directly taken from the novel (so I assume since it’s the exact same phrases from the original film). There are minor tweaks here and there and the recognizable Coen “feel” is still present, but a lot of it seemed forced just a tad – a tad. Despite the awesome cast and performances, in general the goofy nature of the dialogue just seemed to fall off the tongue in the original picture a little bit easier and smoother. Don’t get me wrong, there are still plenty of joyous chuckles and grins to be had, but there might have been just a little bit of the Ocean’s Twelve syndrome going on here; in which the cast and crew were just having so much damn fun with what they were doing to really dig hard into the lexicon and find that special spark of special.
This is a more than enjoyable feature from the film makers of the decade but it isn’t an entry I’ll find myself watching over and over again like some of their more interesting work. And for the second time in history (to my recollection) the Coens have made a film that’s already been done. And while they excel at making movies, it’s clear to me that they should stick to their own writing because by the end of True Grit (again, despite the fun I had with the time spent with these characters), I felt a little twinge of “what was the point?”
Clearly you suffer from the Coen-syndrome of not seeing the film ‘completely’ the first time around. I imagine you will come to love this film with extra viewings (and people should go out and watch Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers a couple more times). Sure True Grit is the Coen’s in ‘PURE ENTERTAINMENT’ mode. This is hardly a Barton Fink or A Serious Man, but that doesn’t make it any less excellent. There is a lot of magic going on in this movie. The fact that this is as close as the Coen’s will ever come to making a ‘family film’ is not a negative in my books. Everything clicked for me. Balls out entertainment. Joy.
It’s not the “Coen syndrome” I’m having. It’s the “Let Me In” syndrome. As I said many times in the review, this film is balls out joy and a fun film. But the original is better in many ways – certainly not in every respect, but in many – mostly with the dialogue. I also liked the ending better in the original.
And Emma pointed out no awesome shotgunning in the pivotal scene. I have to agree, removing that element was kind of a let down.
As a side note, we got to the theater about 5 minutes in to the movie (first time that’s happened in years!). So we walked in right during the scene in which young Mattie is bartering with the horse guy. That was one of my favorite scenes from the original and instantly I could see the casting was lesser in this character. Strother Martin played him so much more brilliantly in 1969.
Do yourself a favour and check out Barry Pepper in the Canadian survival film THE SNOW WALKER (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0337721/ ) He’s pretty great vs. the elements. I saw this in a huge 1000 seat auditorium in Mississauga with only my buddy (same guy who when and caught True Grit with me last weekend, actually). It was a shame that the movie was completely ignored even in its own native country. Pepper doesn’t have the star power, but he kicks ass as a character actor…
I have the ‘benefit’ (not the right word) of never having seen the original….
And yes, Barry Pepper is awesome (as usual) in The Snow Walker.
I can’t imagine something like this not being my favorite film of the year. Maybe that is setting the bar too high, but it’s my favorite working filmmakers, it’s a western, it stars to demigod Jeff Bridges – needless to say, I’ve been sick to see this film since I first heard about it. Now, can it live up to such ridiculous expectations? Who knows? – but I have a feeling I’m going to be on board with Kurt here.
Just got out of this, and I loved it. Most original and impressive of the Coens’ films, no, but it’s a straight-up classic western, and a damn good one. The Coens are so good at repurposing generic elements, it was kind of nice to see them just play it straight. Some may say “safe,” and that’s fine, but I sure had a good time with it. I haven’t seen the original yet, but I’ll try to rectify that soon. Interestingly, though you say a lot of the dialogue is straight from the book, it sounded Coen-y to me. Maybe something more in the rhythms and cadence, though. What do you think – was it the dialogue itself or the delivery? Did they just choose Coen-y material?
Yeah after watching the original a few weeks ago, I talked about it on the Cinecast. I think I mentioned how the original sounds just like a Coen Brothers movie (this was before seeing the Coens version). It made total sense that they would remake it. I just wish they had done their own western – it probably would’ve been even better.
And again, I am shocked that I haven’t run into anyone yet on the webz that has seen the Wayne version. Apparently it’s not as iconic as I thought it was. I thought I was like the last person on earth to have seen it.
I really think there is a lot going on in the margins here. Things will become clearer with more viewings, as with all Coen Brothers movies.
I think westerns are not popular among our generation, even fillm buffs. I find a lot of people who are film literate on classic drama, comedy, sci-fi, etc, but haven’t seen any John Wayne films. Especially with Wayne, there’s a perception of gung-ho blind patriotism/rightist politics that puts people off, though I don’t really get that, and I don’t think it comes from Wayne so much as he stands for some sort of rugged Americanism that my more liberal friends find outdated and off-putting about old westerns.
Personally, I’ve seen a boatload of Wayne films, just not this one.
Previous comment is a gross generalization, I am aware.
It took me awhile to get to a point of outright love for John Wayne, he was, after-all, an icon of our fathers, and we always want to rebel and find our own icons. So I have only really been a fan of John Wayne for 5 years or so. I love The Searchers, Stagecoach and Rio Bravo… I had heard that True Grit was a significant film of his and it was on my to-see list, as is Red River and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. John Wayne is the American Toshiro Mifune to me, it is not about quality of acting as onscreen presence.
How is this film not rated R? Bloody Blue Valentine struggles to obtain an R rating, while a film that depicts many extreme scenes of violence gets a bloody PG13. What an appaling rating system! Useless, utterly useless.
I do find it strange that Kurt wouldn’t let his kids watch Rare Exports, but wouldn’t mine showing them True Grit.
Looking at the film descrition, even Andrew subconsciously thought that it is an R rated film. The film is in fact a PG13 film.m
I guess that’s the problem I have with the film. Too graphic to be a family film; too wimsical to be an arthouse film (I.e., it’s no No Country for Old Men).
Even Andrew James subconsciously thought that it was an R rated film. It’s in fact a PG13 film.
I do find it strange that Kurt wouldn’t let his kids watch Rare Exports, but wouldn’t mine showing them True Grit.
I guess that’s is the problem I have with the film. Too explicit to be a family film; too whimsical to be a an art-house film.
I still don’t understand the taboo surrounding film. In USA schools, explicit, mature books, ranging from The Stranger to Catcher and The Rye, are part of school curriculum — but if a teacher shows an R rated film, he/she could get fired.
Nowadays, it’s become perfectly acceptable for teenagers to play violent video games; yet, it is viewed morally damaging for the teens to see R rated films without an adult.
Antho, because anyone can put on a film in 2 seconds, but reading a book is considered ‘effort’ by some people. however you will find that people treat books like film when it comes to school reading lists, but a bookstore is considered off limits in terms of censorship (unless a big mainstream book comes along like Davinci code, harry potter or twilight.)
Erotic and pornographic novels are freely availble to minors in bookstores, so if you are old enough to read the stuff, then it is deemed ok. i’m fine with that actually. wish more people read.
Kurt– I’m also fine with more people reading — but the double standards bothers me. Aren’t fair laws (which ratings clearly are) suppose to be grounded on consistency?
PS– Speaking of reading, The Master and Magarita is a fantastic book. The premise is that the devil and his minions visit and cause havoc in the atheist oriented Moscow. Best translation: Burgin and O’Connor.
“But the original is better in many ways – certainly not in every respect, but in many – mostly with the dialogue. I also liked the ending better in the original.”
Boy, I don’t know how I could disagree with you more than I disagree with you on these two statements. You prefer the overly-sentimental yee-haw ride off on the horsie original ending to this one’s? Really?
The ending of this film is as purely Coen-Brother and I can imagine. It’s wonderful, even if it is a bit audience off-putting, I can see that, but to me, it was a nice ‘declining frontier’ moment to underscore that yep, The Coen’s a sealing up this Western thing….
I found the ending to the Coen’s particularly awkward feeling, I am not a fan of the jump to old age ‘where we are now’ capper… for all the build up to the character of the revenge seeking daughter it goes nowhere by the final act… this is a strange case where the best part is BEFORE the mission, once they leave the city it is less impressive
I actually seem to remember that the original was not quite a “Yee-haw” moment at all. Maybe my memory is wrong, but yes John Wayne rode off into the sunset, but there were some bleak undertones and a finality to the actions. It was very much a “end of an era” sort of feeling to it. It felt like a nice ending. The Coens version just felt like a tack on ending. The voice over with the girl, etc. just seemed forced and trite. Whatever floats your boat though I guess.
(as a side note, like I said in the Cinecast – I did like the set piece of the Wild West show. That was a nice touch; just felt out of place.
I just finished watching the 1969 version, and there may be some “viewing primacy” at issue here since I saw the new one first, but I did like the Coen version better. It’s a little bleaker and darker (the 1969 version is SO BRIGHT I could hardly take any of the danger seriously), while still retaining a sense of fun and humor. I think the Coen one is shot better, too. Take the scene of Mattie crossing the river – the Hathaway version is longtake and doesn’t feel momentous at all. The Coen one is much more suspenseful and is the moment that I started realizing that the title refers to Mattie as much or more than it does to Cogburn. I actually never got that sense in the Hathaway version.
Actually watching them both, they feel really different, even though a lot of the individual scenes and dialogue are quite similar. I liked the way the Coens had LaBoeuf move in and out of the story more, too. I’m unwilling to compare Wayne and Bridges, though – they took very different approaches to the character, and I liked both.
SPOILERS
On the ending – the 1969 version ends with Mattie offering Cogburn a resting place in their family grave plot. After accepting, he mentions his new horse supposedly can jump a four-rail fence, she suggests he’s too fat and old to be jumping fences, then he turns, jumps the fence, and rides off. In terms of the cowboy hero being old and fat, it’s “end of an era” kind of, but it was definitely not as final-feeling as the Coen version. That said, I didn’t care totally for the Coen ending either – I think I would’ve had her voiceover telling a shortened version of what came after, but just over black or a still image, to match the opening. Seeing the wild west show did feel out of place.
********SPOILERS SPOILERS******** ********SPOILERS SPOILERS******** ********SPOILERS SPOILERS******** ********SPOILERS SPOILERS******** ********SPOILERS SPOILERS******** ********SPOILERS SPOILERS********
Oh, I forgot – Andrew, you said you didn’t see the opening, right? The new one opens with a shot of Mattie’s father lying in the street, illuminated only by the single light of the boarding house shining on him and Mattie in voiceover telling what happened to him. Then it jumps to her arriving in Fort Smith, and that part plays out pretty similarly to the 1969 version. The part at the ranch before Mr. Ross heads out isn’t in the Coen version at all. The voiceover at the end makes more sense as a parallel to the opening.
Definitely the tone of Coens is slightly darker and of course it’s shot better. I think I mentioned at some point in our audio review that this was going to be one of those cases that in which whichever one you see first you’ll probably like better.
One thing I liked about the original better actually is that river crossing scene. I like how you actually could see the ferry and how it works in the Wayne version. In the Coens, it felt a little lazier – it wasn’t even really clear how they were able to get across since there isn’t a fairly to be seen. I’m anxious to watch them both again soon.
it wasn’t even really clear how they were able to get across since there isn’t a fairly to be seen. I’m anxious to watch them both again soon.
It had already returned back across the river.
I understand how it works. Point is they never show it. Not a big deal at all, but I kept looking for it and it was never there. Cheap.
I don’t understand what you mean by “cheap.” By the time Mattie had arrived, they had crossed and the ferry had already been pulled back. We didn’t need to watch the two cross on the ferry, we all know how it works – not to mention, we are watching events go on from Mattie’s perspective and she simply hadn’t arrived yet. Sounds like you’re just looking for something to be nitpicky about.
That’s what I was afraid of. Truth is, I don’t care at all. Jandy brought it up, not me. But it is something I noticed at the time – was wondering where is the nice big set piece with the ferry and the rope et. al.
But I’ll indulge… What I like about the original is that Cogburn and LeBeouf are forced to wait on the ferry as Mattie crosses (nearly) right along with them. There’s a sense of urgency for her. In this one, they simply wait for her on the other side. Again, not a big deal and I don’t really care one way or another in the grand scheme of things. But it is one small detail I liked better about the original.
I did like seeing the ferry in the old one, but I didn’t need it. Not having it in the new one didn’t bother me (but I did see the new one first so I wouldn’t have missed it). I actually liked that they were waiting on the other side instead of still crossing. It made what she was doing more impactful, like they couldn’t believe she was trying that and had to wait to see if she made it. The early one may have had more urgency in the racing them to e other side sense, but I never felt, despite the comment that the river was running higher than usual, that she was in any physical danger. In the new one, it seemed she could be swept away by the current at any second. Interesting that the new one didn’t have the mention of the river being flooded, IIRC – they showed that rather than told it. That was one of my favorite scenes in the Coen film (why I brought it up), and it scarcely registered with me in the Hathaway one, except as a comparison.
I like Jandy’s point about the river scene in relation to the two men waiting and watching her cross – it really does emphasize the true grit of Hattie. I know your “cheap” comment was somewhat offhand Andrew, but I don’t think the Coens cared about the ferry – showing it on the close shore isn’t necessary to any story point. So it isn’t them being lazy or forgetful.
I have the opposite reaction to the film as Mike does – it only really took off for me just as they left the town on the chase. Up until then, nothing particular sparked – seemed all very rote (including those scenes of Hattie sleeping next to a snoring elderly woman as well as what seemed a generic score). I could see the Coen-esque style of Hattie’s dialog and delivery, but it wasn’t working until she really started to interact with both Cogburn and LeBeef. And then the film kept getting better. Deakins’ long shots of the vistas, etc. are certainly gorgeous, but I loved some of the closeup work too – in particular when Hattie is watching Cogburn’s final confrontation with the gang. And the score started to make more sense too.
The end felt a bit flat for me as well, but looking back I think it works far better than an ending like the original would – for this particular film anyway (I haven’t seen the original and its ending sounds tailor made for a Wayne exit). Showing Hattie in her latter day guise feels right for the likely arc of her character.
As for Wayne, I think many of us who grew up after he had already been a movie star (say the 70s onward) know him first as the larger than life celebrity that everyone imitated. One too many Rich Little impersonations kinda puts a damper on wanting to see his films…Fortunately, one can get past that. He’s terrific in stuff like Rio Bravo and Red River, but it’s a bit harder to watch him in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance – a great film, but he’s the most stereotypically “John Wayne” in it. That’s not his fault or the film’s, but you’ll see all the trademarks that made it to standup routines years later in that film.
i lucked into finding a cheap copy of the new blu ray of True Grit so i’ll at least be able to chime in with a comparison soonish.
I can’t name a single thing that is better about the original. This is no “Let Me In” syndrome, everything from the performances and characterizations to the dialogue, cinematography, the Coens have it trumped in every regard.
That said the original is fine, its just no better than a 3/5 from me and something I would not watch again.
without seeing it I can say John Wayne just being John Wayne is ten times the presence of Jeff Bridges, who I didn’t care for in this one.
On technical merit of course the new one is ten times the movie the ’69 version is. Technologies have changed, techniques have changed and then of course there is the budget factor… and Roger Deakins. It isn’t so much that the original is “better” per se, it’s more the fact that this is a relatively similar film. There isn’t that much of a difference to me. It’s simply that the Coens could be doing something so much more original or taking a movie that was bad in the first place (like Ladykillers?) and trying to improve upon it.
Again, I like this movie quite a bit, but how anyone can look at this and say it’s that much better (from a direction and script point of view) is beyond me. I’ll have to think about it more, but as of now I’d say this is probably the most overrated movie of the year. If the Coens had done this first and without anything else to compare it to (and copy in a lot of respects) I’d appreciate it a lot more.
Whoa…”Ladykillers” was “bad” in the first place? Bite your tongue young man! Were you sipping at the NYE champagne a bit early when you posted that? The original is one of Ealing Studios best loved comedies starring the awesome Alec Guiness, Peter Sellers and Herbert Lom. It’s not my fave by the studio (Man In The White Suit or Lavender Hill Mob probably take that prize), but there’s no way it’s a bad film…
I hadnt seen any John Wayne films since I was in like, grade 9 and they showed a few in class for some reason. If this was his Oscar perfromance, its probably safe to say I’m not much of a John Wayne fan. I thought he was just doing what I consider his John Wayne-isms and felt detached from everyone else on screen.
btw the Ladykillers is good! its the one Coen film I initially really disliked but have changed my mind since
Sorry Bob, I should’ve been more clear. I put the question mark after the Ladykillers comment because I actually haven’t seen the original. The Coen version is easily my least favorite in their filmography, but still a solid film.
But if original version is as good as you say (and I have no doubt of that), then it lessens my opinion of the Coen version even more. We’ve all had the “is a remake a good or bad idea” discussion before. But once again, the Coens took something great and made it essentially mediocre. It isn’t a big deal in most cases, but with the Coens it’s different (at least in my eyes as I hold them in such high, high esteem). When they have things like Fargo, No Country, Lebowski, Miller’s Crossing, Serious Man, etc etc etc etc etc etc in their filmography it’s just frustrating that they feel the need to redo something that’s already pretty great. We get one Coen brother movie per year and when I know they are capable of SO MUCH more, it gets frustrating.
I feel like the disappointed parent of a gifted child who got a B- in history class.
You’ve got a friend in Outlaw Vern:
http://outlawvern.com/2010/12/29/tg10/
Good content but the dude’s site is like an optical illusion. I still can’t see straight after reading three paragraphs.
Vern has some of the best movie-review content on the net.
Just ran across an interesting article on Film School Rejects (I generally love the Culture Warrior column over there): http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/culture-warrior-two-grits.php
After watching the original True Grit, it seems out of place with its time – as Palmer mentions in that article, 1969 is the year of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Wild Bunch, Midnight Cowboy, and he didn’t mention this one, but also Once Upon a Time in the West. The classic western had all but already faded away, so thinking about the Coen’s version as being such a classic western (though I’d argue with enough of a darker tone and elegiac ending that it’s edging toward revisionist in tone if not in content) after so many years of revisionist westerns is interesting in relation to the original True Grit being almost a throwback to earlier western styles itself, as 1969′s westerns generally blew the lid off classic westerns as a genre.
Vern has some of the best movie-review content on the net.
True. More than that he might be the only movie critic worth a damn.
So I finally caught the original and I would have to say, all in all, The Coen version is better, but not by much, and really my complaint is that both versions are largely hit and miss uneven pieces of work. As I expected I so much prefer John Wayne to Jeff Bridges, and in the original there seems to be more Rooster monologues than in the Coen version, and to me, that is exactly what I want.
Other observations: Matt Damon and Glen Campbell are dead ringers for one another, and Barry Pepper is not merely imitating Harry Dean Stanton he is nailing the Duvall performance
I caught the JW version on TV recently after seeing the Coen Brothers film and while I am a young person and recognize I might be biased toward more “modern” film stylings, I really resonated with the Coen’s version a lot more. The acting in the JW version seemed campy at times, and I dont know what I’m seeing that others are not, but I thought Hailee Steinfeld was fantastic! When she was onscreen I couldn’t stop watching her. She handled the unique rhythm of the dialogue like it was nothing. The river crossing was inspirational, if I can be so cliche. Mad props to Hailee for holding her own. To say she doesn’t deserve an Oscar nomination is blasphemy. Feel free to disagree, but I’m sticking to it.