True Grit (2010)

[Flick James]

BoyScoutKevin:

I really liked your point-counterpoint analysis. Well done. I still haven't seen it, but I will. I'm sure it will be worth seeing. Being a Coen Brothers film makes it unlikely to be crap. In any case I appreciated the style of your post.

[Dan]

This looks so good, I'm going to see it on Sunday.

[BoyScoutKevin]

BoyScoutKevin:

I really liked your point-counterpoint analysis. Well done. I still haven't seen it, but I will. I'm sure it will be worth seeing. Being a Coen Brothers film makes it unlikely to be crap. In any case I appreciated the style of your post.

Thank-you. He does try. Actually, he's very trying.

But, I don't want anyone to think it was a crap film. It's not a crap film. The Coen Brothers are too good of filmmakers to make a crap film.

But, does it surpass the 1969 version? No.

Does it surpass the book? No. I've read the book. It's a wonderful book. Wonderful characters. Wonderful dialogue. Wonderful pacing. Wonderful scenes.

So what happened?

The 1969 filmmakers were smart enough to follow the book.

The 2010 filmmakers were not as smart. They started screwing around. They subtracted scenes, that added to the film, such as the shooting of Mattie's father, and instead, they started adding scenes that added nothing to the film, such as the high hanging.

That is why (IMHO) as much as some viewers hate the ending, that is my favorite part of the film, because that is the nearest thing to the book in the film. It may make Mattie's character more unlikable, but it is honest to her character.

The other weakness of the the 2010 film is the acting. No, not that of the stars, which compares with that of the 1969 version, but of the acting of the supporting cast. None of whom were surpass their counterparts in the 1969 film. Some of them equal their counterparts in that film, but alot of them turn in a worst performance than those in the 1969 film. I don't know whether that is the fault of the Coen Brothers, the fact that most of the 2010 supporting actors are lesser talented than their 1969 counterparts, or both.

But the 2010 film is not a crap film.

[Dan]

Well I loved it. I've never read the book, though.

[Killer Bees]

I saw this movie just last night.  My partner Sean had seen the original and loved it and was fanging to see the new one.  I haven't seen the original and didn't want to before I saw this version.

Jeff Bridges did a good job as the grizzled old marshall, but I had enormous trouble understanding what he was saying.  I usually don't have trouble with accents - I even understood Brad Pitt's Irish gypsy accent in Snatch.  That kinda ruined it for me.  If you can't understand what people are saying, the movie is a bust.

The Mattie Ross character was very well done.  But I even had trouble with her speaking - she spoke way too fast on occasion.  I don't get what the guy in the bear suit was all about - it seemed like he was just a time filler.  And I found the movie dragged on a little too long.  When they finally caught up with Tom Chaney, it was a bit of an anti climax for me.

I'm not a huge western movie fan anyway, but I went becuse Sean was keen for me to see it.  It didn't help that on the way home from the movie, he waxed lyrical about how good the original one was and how the new one could have been better 

I wouldn't see this one again and I definitely wouldn't buy it on DVD.  I also would caution anyone going to see it that it's not a hugely entertaining movie either way. 

For me, I came away thinking "meh"