Why doesn't the review address the issue whether there was actually a point to making this remake/adaptation?



The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford was a much better western than True Grit, yet it received nowhere near as much attention, simply because it didn't have the Coen brand attached to it. I doubt True Grit would have got so much fawning praise if it were a debut film by an unknown director.



The Coen's creative peak was a decade ago already and yet the hype continues to grow with each new film. It's starting to become a bit annoying.

I think the reasoning for not addressing whether this remake is needed (such as with Let Me In) is because the first adaptation was made over 40 years ago. I don't see how anyone could consider this a cash-in as the original wasn't exactly a sensation so there isn't much good will or fandom to trade-on. These must be the reasons as to why the good doctor did not pose this question. Having not seen Jesse James, I cannot comment upon which is better, but for once actually having seen a new movie, I can say that I thoroughly enjoyed True Grit.

@ Vincent Kane



I take it you weren't overly impressed with A Serious Man then, which I find both thematically intriguing, yet annoying in its self indulgence and low percentile humour, in equal measure.

QUICK NOTE: I THINK I MANAGED TO AVOID GIVING ANYTHING AWAY IN TRUE GRIT, BUT JUST IN CASE; HERE'S A SPOILER WARNING...



WARNING! POSSIBLE SPOILERS ABOUNDING!... Okay...



I liked your review of True Grit, Mark. It wasn't as fun as your review for 'Just Go With It', though. But Chris Freleng's (sorry if I misspelled the name) theory of 'Why True Grit' is doing well in America is COMPLETELY off base.



It's not doing well "because the Mattie Ross character is young and plays well to a younger audience". That would mean Scott Pilgrim should have REALLY playe well here because there was an abundance of young actors in that one. It's not the young that are making the film a hit. In both screenings that I attended, the majority of the crowd were much longer in the tooth than normal.



The second part of his theory was even further off target and I will venture to say that his assessment of the Coens' version of True Grit was erroneous. While the first film was a 'tale of vengeance' that may have played to an American audience in the midst of the Vietnam War (I'm betting the fact that John Wayne was starring in it had more to do with its success), the second version is CLEARLY a tale that casts a harsh light on the idea of seeking revenge as a viable and moral option.





The film even begins with a Biblical quote (and I'm surprised you didn't give this one of your 'may contain religious content warnings', Mark) ‘The wicked flee when no man pursueth…’ from Proverbs 28:1. The last half of that is ‘but the righteous are bold as a lion’, which they left out. Adding that last bit actually puts the meaning in a different context, but I got the idea that the Coens’ meaning didn’t apply just to the villains in the story.



What happens in what you referred to as the 'sucker punch' of the film, clearly is a rejection of the idea of revenge as a reasonable course of action. Or at least the distinction between justice and vengeance is being made. There is a heavy penance for the person who pulls the trigger on the killer Tom Chaney and it is immediate.



The 'sucker punch' IS set up from the opening quote and there is much to support it throughout the film. I wouldn't even call it that. Million Dollar Baby was a sucker punch. The symbols used in the film are traditionally recognizable ones, also. Snakes. Venom. The dark. A hole. Etc. It's all properly set up before we get there, at least in my humble opinion.



The real reasons why this is doing well in America is that the Coen brothers are well liked here. They have a great track record. I personally think their only misstep has been the remake of The Ladykillers. The main reason why the film is doing well, though, is that it's a very good film. AND it's a western. How often do we get good westerns anymore. Obviously a lot of the older folks in the audiences grew up on westerns and probably have a soft spot in their heart for the genre.



Aaannnd, sorry for being long.

And @ Vincent Kane



I agree TAOJJBTCRF was a GREAT film. I don't think it's quite as good as the True Grit remake, though. TAOJJBTCRF owes more of its appeal to cinematographer Roger Deakins (who also filmed True Grit) than to director Andrew Dominik, IMHO.



Not to be Mr. Correction, either, but it was at least Dominik's second film (Chopper).

I just couldn't get engaged with this film: yes, it does look beautiful, and yes it's made by the Coen brothers, but does that mean I have to like the film anyway?

I thought it was slow, boring and very very predictable and quite unbelievable (and I haven't even seen the original) but more than that I just didn't buy into Hailee Steinfeld's character at all (and she was annoying as hell!). Finally, I couldn't understand most of the dialogue from Jeff Bridges.

And don't tell me that's good acting... It could have worked for Benicio Del Toro in the "Usual Suspect".. but not here! Don't get me wrong, I do love Jeff Bridges, but in this one I just thought he was overacting all the way! I didn't care about any of the character, in fact I hated them all.

Sorry, it just didn't work for me.

More details here: https://wp.me/p19wJ2-8E

While I've only seen the original but assuming the roles of Matty Ross are not much different she clearly is a lead and to be nominated in a supporting role is just plain wrong by the Acadamy.



That said it is also true of Geoffrey Rush in The Kings Speech. It is Actor in a Leading Role and his role is clearly a dual lead with King Bertie. If a woman had of played that role (just an example, I not suggesting altering history, OK) would she have nominated for a supporting role?



The problem is the Award campaigns put people in the category they are most likely to get nods not where they actually should be.

I have NEVER been a fan of the "Western" genre. In fact, you have to drag me kicking and screaming to see one and I still protest throughout. There are very exceptions and I can honestly say that I own only four westerns (three of which are comedies, rathern than Westerns). That said, I was intrigued to see the Coen Brothers 'True Grit' and have to admit that I did enjoy the movie.



I concur that at times, Jeff Bridges' mumbling was completely incomprehensible. However, the two stand out roles for me were Matt Damon, who was indeed creepy enough, but funny enough in his 'dandification' as the Texas Ranger. And Hailee Steinfeld was outstanding in her role as the young girl looking for justice for her father. As she is the main female character in the movie, she should have been nominated for the main role, rather than the supporting one. But I agree that if she is going to win an Oscar for her performance, she has a better chance in the supporting category.



Now having seen the remake, I have been given the original movie with John Wayne to view and look forward to watching it and trying not to compare the two movies too much.

@Vincent Kane I really don't understand what your point is, there's room in the world for more than one good Western isn't there. As for saying that "Assassination" didn't get much attention, well that's not true. It was critically acclaimed and nominated for two Oscars, one for Deakin for Cinematography and one for Casey Affleck as supporting actor. Since then it has gained momentum with many citing it as a perfect example of a great Western. True Grit has gained acclaim because, to put it simply, it is a stunning movie. Fair enough though if you didn't get anything from it.



@Moviegeek I completely disagree with your view of Hailee Steinfeld who for me shows some real acting chops, with a skill way beyond her years. The Coen's may have created a little bit of a tribute to Megan Wheeler from Eastwood's Pale Rider in the way that she looks too. Matty and Megan Megan like Matty is also the character that calls for help from an outsider. Interesting!



Once again, another perfect review Dr K. Just got back from seeing True Grit and couldn't agree more with your thoughts. I was absolutely blown away by this wonderful movie. Bridges is perfect as the grubby, drunken but utimately moral Rueben "Rooster" Cogburn. Hailee Steinfeld is outstanding as Matty Ross, the driving force behind the whole movie and whose relationship with Rooster provides it's beating heart. I would also agree that Matt Damon is really rather good as the vain, posturing LaBoeuf (labeef!). The band of villains are suitably rotten toothed and dirty. The script sparkles with wit and humour, even though I admit to missing a couple of Bridges lines. It looks stunning in a bleak way and has to be seen on a really big screen where you feel that you are transported into the landscape.

***Caution Spoilers***

I agree about the bear suit scene being very Coen-like and also some of the last scenes as Rooster rides and walks with Matty, which have a dreamlike, visionary quality to them.

***end of spoilers***

All in all a really great film with some truly sympathetic and likeable characters. By the end I cared deeply for both Matty and Rooster and didn't want their story to end. Now, that's the sign of a good movie don't you think?

I took a lot of incidental pleasure out this movie, firstly off the back of seeing Matt Damon in Hereafter (2010) and The Talented MR Ripley (1999) early in the same week. I continue to be by impressed Matt Damon who is seems to be able to take on anything thrown at him with great ease. Whilst Hailee Steinfeld seems to be a star in making the crispness of her delivery was a joy to behold.



As for the Coens and the Film itself as much as I enjoyed it, it doesn't break my Coen top 3 Lebowski, No Country, and The Man Who Wasn't There. The Coen’s seem to be in one sense admiring and flexing their own talent muscles in True Grit, which is in the end is like an extremely well done one-off Western venture they'll probably never do again.

Like others have said, I am not a huge fan of Westerns but unlike others, this film is not going to change that. I felt utterly bored throughout the film. That's not to say I was looking for action (my favourite film of last year was Of Gods and Men) I just felt the story lacked any sense of perel whatsoever. There was nothing at stake. It was about a young girl and two guys walking about then stumbling upon what they were looking for. The tension felt completely manufactured. For example - Hailee Steinfeld shoots her gun and falls down a hole, the same hole she was told to look out for before... lazy and boring.

‘For example - Hailee Steinfeld shoots her gun and falls down a hole, the same hole she was told to look out for before... lazy and boring.’



Then again, that ‘shoots her gun and falls down a hole’ scene (and what results) is in both the original novel and in the ‘old’ John Wayne movie version.



Why is the film enjoying success; I’d say nostalgia helps; in a recession and an uncertain world people tend to hark back to imagined better times. Also nostalgia for the classic western genre perhaps?



True Grit was one of the last of the classic westerns before the blood and grime of the Wild Bunch and historical revisionism of Little Big Man, Soldier Blue, A Man Called Horse etc began questioning the mythology surrounding the old west and the distinctions between the good and bad guys became blurred or even, as with Custer in Little Big Man, reversed.

Great review Mark. Not sold on your Rooster Cogburn accent though!

Here's my take... https://tomsmovies.blogspot.com/2011/02/review_16.html

I did write a more detailed review but forgot to post it! Here is is: https://rogueshark.tumblr.com/