PDA

View Full Version : True Grit



Pages : [1] 2

Icetalavista
01-04-2011, 03:21 AM
Apologies if I missed an already-posted thread, but I saw none...

Anywho. So. We have a nice, solid western. Engaging characters. Good script. Good actors. Good performances. Drama. Scenery. A great scene-stealing newbie teen actress who'd be a terrific role model for any young woman.

And then those darn violence-liking Coen brothers have to wreck it with at least one gratuitous ultra-violent scene. I just don't get these guys. WHY do they do this? Are they tone deaf re/ violence? They managed to not put any violence in "A Serious Man". Why could they not have left this bit out so a person could feel good about taking a teenager to this movie?

Anyone else seen the movie? Trivia note: I didn't recognize Barry Pepper till I saw his name in the credits.

Buzz
01-04-2011, 03:39 AM
No one is recognisable in that movie as far as I am concerned. But I do want to see it however. Looks like a nice movie. It is one of the few adult movies out this time of the year.

michiruwater
01-04-2011, 04:17 AM
I honestly just thought this movie was boring, although the acting was top-notch.

mikey
01-04-2011, 03:09 PM
Hailee Steinfeld did a nice job, but other than that, I thought the movie was boring. I am not a huge fan of westerns anyhow, but I hoped this modern one would feature epic "Ang Lee"-like scenery, and was disappointed again. I am surprised it is getting so many accolades, honestly.

Satellitegirl
01-04-2011, 03:10 PM
My friend loved it, and I can't wait to see it. The violent scenes don't bother me and I think they usually fit well with the story.

taf2002
01-04-2011, 03:22 PM
Apologies if I missed an already-posted thread, but I saw none...

Anywho. So. We have a nice, solid western. Engaging characters. Good script. Good actors. Good performances. Drama. Scenery. A great scene-stealing newbie teen actress who'd be a terrific role model for any young woman.

And then those darn violence-liking Coen brothers have to wreck it with at least one gratuitous ultra-violent scene. I just don't get these guys. WHY do they do this? Are they tone deaf re/ violence? They managed to not put any violence in "A Serious Man". Why could they not have left this bit out so a person could feel good about taking a teenager to this movie?

Anyone else seen the movie? Trivia note: I didn't recognize Barry Pepper till I saw his name in the credits.

The original movie was pretty violent. Plus it had John Wayne.

rfisher
01-04-2011, 03:40 PM
Candace Hinkle is a friend of a friend. :) She plays the "older woman" and has been an integral part of the local theater scene in Little Rock for years. I was so pleased she got the part and good reviews. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I will just to see her.

Wyliefan
01-04-2011, 04:38 PM
I'm partial to the original -- it has sentimental value for me, because my dad loves it, but I also love it for its own sake. It's got one of Wayne's best performances, and Kim Darby was amazing too. I may see the new one eventually, but I'm not in any hurry.

taf2002
01-04-2011, 04:39 PM
Candace Hinkle is a friend of a friend. :) She plays the "older woman" and has been an integral part of the local theater scene in Little Rock for years. I was so pleased she got the part and good reviews. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I will just to see her.

Do you mean the boarding house lady? That's the only older lady I can remember.

danceronice
01-04-2011, 04:42 PM
I'm curious to see it, because while John Wayne IS Rooster Cogburn I have heard this is closer to the book and focuses more on Mattie (the girl), plus Jeff Bridges does seem to be on a roll lately.

Rock2
01-04-2011, 05:11 PM
Bridges is a little hard to understand in the movie. I enjoyed it and am impressed that Damon can transform himself as well as he can. I'm becoming more impressed with the guy.

taf2002
01-04-2011, 05:12 PM
I'm curious to see it, because while John Wayne IS Rooster Cogburn I have heard this is closer to the book and focuses more on Mattie (the girl), plus Jeff Bridges does seem to be on a roll lately.

I read the book before I saw the 1969 movie & it was really close to the book. I can only think of 2 changes from the book & IMO they both improved the movie. I really like Jeff Bridges but I'm a little resistant to seeing the remake. I can think of very few remakes that I've liked.

Changes: In the book Mattie loses her arm & LeBoeffe doesn't die as in the 1st movie. Also the book starts out as Mattie as an older woman looking back & the 1st movie leaves that out. Otherwise the 1st movie is pretty factual.

rfisher
01-04-2011, 05:51 PM
Do you mean the boarding house lady? That's the only older lady I can remember.

Yes.

ArtisticFan
01-04-2011, 06:31 PM
I am in no way a fan of Westerns, but I did enjoy the film. The young Mattie, as well as the grown up, were both well cast and did terrific jobs. Matt Damon was also very good in his role.

Bridges was the surprise to me, as I have found him to be lacking in many of his roles. I expected this to be the same, but I enjoyed his portrayal more than I thought I would on first glance. He did not play the role as a caricature, which it could have easily become.

Overall I enjoyed the experience.

Matryeshka
01-04-2011, 06:38 PM
I think it's very vogue to give praise to Jeff Bridges and all non-Disney teen actresses. Not saying they didn't deserve it in this movie, but I don't think they deserved as much as they got. i'm going to extend Rock2's praise for Damon and say he was the best thing in the movie. Damon's a great actor, but he's so high-profile, even when he's giving a scene his all, I'm aware that it's Damon. This role is one of the two of his where I just saw the character (the other was The Informant!, totally robbed of an Oscar). For the violence, I expect it in a Western, but the one violent scene in this movie just kind of bored me. It wasn't like There Will Be Blood, where the blood finally appearing had as much metaphorical meaning as it did literal. Also, the ages didn't add up. I know most people let details like that go, but I think it's the history major inside me, and dates count :P There's NO WAY Cogburn would have just died at the end of the movie. There was at least a forty, probably closer to fifty, year age difference between Mattie and Cogburn. She's in her fifties in the last scene, meaning Cogburn at his youngest would have been 90. A hard living, hard boozing, slightly mad gunslinger would have been long-dead. For that scene to be remotely believable, IMO, the oldest Mattie could have been was early thirties. This is trivial I know, but it bothered me.

I liked the movie OK, but I'd have rather have seen it at home. It's one of those movies where you can get up, make a phone call, return, go to the bathroom, return, get a snack, return, and you haven't really lost anything. It's an interesting movie in a forgettable way. Not even close to There Will Be Blood, and not on the same planet as No Country for Old Men.