True Grit

[in_the_blue]

So we went to see True Grit last night. I guess it just goes to show there are some films that shouldn't be redone. Honestly, Coen Brothers, I expected better from you. Some of your trademark quirkiness, some of that pervasive disbelief, that I can't believe what you're doing here sort of seduction, and you didn't do it. You told a story, and it wasn't told all that convincingly. Sure, you retained Mattie's speech patterns from the book which really -- that's the trademark of the whole story -- but didn't do it in a new or engaging or ingenious sort of way.

Okay, let's step back and look at the cast: Jeff Bridges, one of my favorites, an actor who can do just about anything and everything, and you evoke drunken Bad Blake from Crazy Heart? Come on, guys, it's Rooster Cogburn, a great character in his own right, and you didn't need to make everyone sound just like Mattie, kids. Mmm. Okay. Matt Damon, whose character could have been played by anyone, he didn't bring anything interesting to the role. Josh Brolin, who had all of about five minutes of screen time and he was okay, but didn't have much to work with, and poor little Hailee Steinfeld, who did a yeoman job with Mattie, but she was... well, I know Mattie's only fourteen, but there was nothing particularly passionate about her character. Just a lot of talk, and I'm sure she played it exactly as directed. So all in all, this movie took the book, which I remember loving, and made a film that was more or less nap-inducing. Eh. Gah. I could have pocketed the $30 we spent and done something fun.

Now for the good. I have a real soft spot for period pieces -- this definitely qualifies -- and the settings, the scenery, the costuming, the makeup, are all top-notch. The cinematography is pretty exquisite. There are vast distant camera angles that soften or toughen or lend lenience or urgency to the scenes. The bit players are all really good, when given good stuff to work with. My favorites: Barry Pepper and Domhnall Gleeson (whose character broke my heart more than any other). The music is lovely and doesn't overwhelm.

The bad: There's such a cardboard, one-dimensional feel to the film that left me restless watching and glad when it was over. It didn't really retain any of the humor of the original or the innovation of the book. The violence is incredibly graphic and disturbing even when that was completely unnecessary. We know it was the old west. We know things were tough. Violence shouldn't be played for laughs unless that's a consistent trademark of the film, and it wasn't. Let me backtrack: at least in Fargo when Steve Buscemi's character went into the wood chopper, it made sense. Yes, it was disgusting, but it was part of the story. I guess you could argue that the violence here was an equal part of the story, but it all felt unnecessary. We know people get shot and die. We don't need to see their heads exploding when they hit sharp rocks too.

All in all, I give it a C-. That's a C-minus, and that sucks because I really, really wanted to love this adaptation for Jeff Bridges alone. But I couldn't, and if you really want to see it, you might want to wait until it's out on DVD and save yourself some $$.

Comments

[jules1278.livejournal.com]

Wow, that is really sad. I love the John Wayne adaptation, although I'd never read the book, and so many people have been saying that this new remake is awesome (maybe they never saw the original?)

[in-the-blue.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I hardly even remember the original except, you know, John Wayne, who has the capacity to make every character so much larger than life and that's what Rooster needs. I just know that this was really disappointing to me. If someone else loves it, hey! So much the better. It did have its moments! but felt so much heavier than it needed to be, despite how pretty it was, despite the cast.

[kit-the-brave.livejournal.com]

Oh, shoot, I'm sorry. It stinks when you're hoping for a good movie and you get a lame one.

[in-the-blue.livejournal.com]

Well, I mostly just wish we hadn't spent the $30 on it. If I'd watched it at home, I probably would've started multitasking and not paid it much attention. It was that kind of movie for me.

[kriscynical.livejournal.com]

(http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v434/kriscynical/Random/?action=view&current=1a301779.jpg)

[in-the-blue.livejournal.com]

PERFECT!

[stupidclever.livejournal.com]

I'm starting to feel like I should see the other True Grit at some point so I can compare. And read the book.

[in-the-blue.livejournal.com]

I wonder if we still have the book somewhere. Hmm.

[acusa-dora.livejournal.com]

I really liked the original because I was 12 when I saw it and Mattie was my hero. My biggest beef with the film was that it wasn't like their usual film. It was also quite brutal. I probably need to read the book as well. I do recommend the original film.

[in-the-blue.livejournal.com]

What I remember most about the original film (aside from John Wayne with an eye patch) was that it had at least a little of the sense of humor from the book, or am I making that up? It's been a long time since I saw it. This film did not.

I did just order myself a copy of the book again, since I can't find mine, I assume it's long gone in that way books have of getting up and moving along. But now I really want to reread it to see why I remember liking it so well.

[acusa-dora.livejournal.com]

I think the movie was funny. The scene I remember is the spanking scene. Glenn Campbell spanked Kim Darby more in the Ricky and Lucy vein. In the new film, Matt Damon is beating the crap out of the kid. I really didn't approve. I found Matt Damon stiff. At least Glenn Campbell had an excuse. He was a singer, not an actor. Turner Classic plays True Grit every now and then and so does AMC. See if it's coming up.