True Grit (B or 3/4 stars)
1969 gave us 'True Grit', starring John Wayne; & the role of Rooster Cogburn gave him an Academy Award. Now, the Coen Bros. are back with their own adaptation (based on a Charles Portis book). This film follows the book more closely than the original film did. And though I highly commend the acting & craftsmanship of this 2010 version, I was left slightly underwhelmed & more emotionally detached than anticipated. Okay, on with my review. This movie tells a tale of vengeance. The setting: Oklahoma, 1878. The first image we see onscreen is that of 14 yr. old Mattie Ross' (Hailee Steinfeld) murdered father; with snow gently falling on his corpse. The killer is a drifter named Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin); and in the wake of the crime, he flees to the not-so-near Indian Territory to join up with a cutthroat gang led by Lucky Ned Pepper (Barry Pepper, in one of my favorite roles of the film).
Refusing to be dismissed by the local law enforcement (who thinks a 14 yr. old girl should go back home to her mama), the stubborn Mattie seeks out a man with 'True Grit' - the one-eyed U.S. Marshall, Ruben "Rooster" Cogburn (now, Jeff Bridges) to act as her hired bounty hunter. Cogburn is some character: trigger-happy, tough as nails, morally adrift, crude & perpetually drunk. Although he initially turns Mattie down, Cogburn changes his tune when she offers him $50 to help track down her father's murderer - she's desperate to bring him to justice. Also accompanying them is LaBoeuf (Matt Damon), a vain Texas Ranger hunting Chaney for his own reasons. This unlikely trio encounters danger & surprises out in the wilderness. Can their combined 'grit' get them through some trying times? Will Tom Chaney really meet his demise at the hand of a sloth-like Marshall & a 14 yr. old girl?
Let's get the 1st item of business out of the way: comparing & contrasting the 1969 film version & this film version is like comparing apples & oranges. They are Westerns, but different in tone & execution. And so, that makes any notion of this being a great or not-so great "remake" a moot point. If pressed, I would say that John Wayne & Jeff Bridges give slightly different variations of the role of Rooster Cogburn. Both of them are great in different ways; most notably in the cadence with which they speak their dialogue. Bridges is funny because: through most of his drunken rants & agitated mumblings, I could barely make out what he was saying half of the time! That kinda added to his portrayal, believe it or not. Hailee Steinfeld is comparable in performance to Kim Darby (but Steinfeld is more impressive given that she was 13 for the filming, Darby was 20). And I much prefer Matt Damon to Glen Campbell.
The writing, here, is better (a no-brainer when you've got the Coen Bros. at the helm). I enjoyed some very Coen-esque spurts. i.e., Rooster & Mattie encountering a bearskin clad witch doctor in the middle of the woods. The tone of this new film is darker & wittier. The violence is more graphic. In 1969, the point-of-view of the narrative was Rooster's. Here, it's definitely Mattie's point-of-view; as it is in the book. And I think it's a shame that Hailee Steinfeld is getting campaigned in the supporting actress category for the Oscars. This is Mattie's story. Steinfeld's in nearly every scene. But because she's only 14, precedents set by the likes of Tatum O'Neal (in 'Paper Moon') deem is acceptable for a youngen to be relegated to the supporting category. If she's nominated in Supporting, she could contend for the win. But she's rightfully lead, and would not make my ballot for that category.
The production values of this film (Roger Deakins' wonderful landscape cinematography, the sets, costumes, make-up & sound design) are superior to the 1969 film, as well. So you might say, 'OK, this new film seems a hell of a lot better than the 1969 film'. Not so fast. It is better in its particulars. But I wonder if I preferred the whole of the '69 version, more so. I know I liked the beginning of the '69 version better. And in this 2010 version, I did not care for the cold, matter of fact epilogue. It did not add to the proceedings in a cinematic way or made for a satisfying conclusion -- at least, not for me. Furthermore, I never thought (during the movie), 'wow, this movie is something else'. I was satiated, but rarely scintillated. Also, while none of the characters are detestable - and some are arguably endearing - I didn't really care for what happened to them, either. You hope for the best for these folks, but that's about it.
There was little emotional investment (then again, that's never been a Coen Bros. trademark). A bond occurs btwn. the initially mismatched Rooster & Mattie; as would be expected. He grows to admire her persistence. She grows to see past his whiskey ways. But their bond still feels slightly underdeveloped; as if it exists only because the plot tells us so. You know, I don't want to make it sound like I didn't like this 'True Grit' - I did. I just thought it would be better than good. Something intangible was missing. I loved the acting choices by the great actors. The action is intense. There is low-key humor along the way (usually in light of a grim situation). Stellar filmmaking, all around. I suppose it's just a nagging feeling that a story well-told could have been a story emphatically-told.
Refusing to be dismissed by the local law enforcement (who thinks a 14 yr. old girl should go back home to her mama), the stubborn Mattie seeks out a man with 'True Grit' - the one-eyed U.S. Marshall, Ruben "Rooster" Cogburn (now, Jeff Bridges) to act as her hired bounty hunter. Cogburn is some character: trigger-happy, tough as nails, morally adrift, crude & perpetually drunk. Although he initially turns Mattie down, Cogburn changes his tune when she offers him $50 to help track down her father's murderer - she's desperate to bring him to justice. Also accompanying them is LaBoeuf (Matt Damon), a vain Texas Ranger hunting Chaney for his own reasons. This unlikely trio encounters danger & surprises out in the wilderness. Can their combined 'grit' get them through some trying times? Will Tom Chaney really meet his demise at the hand of a sloth-like Marshall & a 14 yr. old girl?
Let's get the 1st item of business out of the way: comparing & contrasting the 1969 film version & this film version is like comparing apples & oranges. They are Westerns, but different in tone & execution. And so, that makes any notion of this being a great or not-so great "remake" a moot point. If pressed, I would say that John Wayne & Jeff Bridges give slightly different variations of the role of Rooster Cogburn. Both of them are great in different ways; most notably in the cadence with which they speak their dialogue. Bridges is funny because: through most of his drunken rants & agitated mumblings, I could barely make out what he was saying half of the time! That kinda added to his portrayal, believe it or not. Hailee Steinfeld is comparable in performance to Kim Darby (but Steinfeld is more impressive given that she was 13 for the filming, Darby was 20). And I much prefer Matt Damon to Glen Campbell.
The writing, here, is better (a no-brainer when you've got the Coen Bros. at the helm). I enjoyed some very Coen-esque spurts. i.e., Rooster & Mattie encountering a bearskin clad witch doctor in the middle of the woods. The tone of this new film is darker & wittier. The violence is more graphic. In 1969, the point-of-view of the narrative was Rooster's. Here, it's definitely Mattie's point-of-view; as it is in the book. And I think it's a shame that Hailee Steinfeld is getting campaigned in the supporting actress category for the Oscars. This is Mattie's story. Steinfeld's in nearly every scene. But because she's only 14, precedents set by the likes of Tatum O'Neal (in 'Paper Moon') deem is acceptable for a youngen to be relegated to the supporting category. If she's nominated in Supporting, she could contend for the win. But she's rightfully lead, and would not make my ballot for that category.
The production values of this film (Roger Deakins' wonderful landscape cinematography, the sets, costumes, make-up & sound design) are superior to the 1969 film, as well. So you might say, 'OK, this new film seems a hell of a lot better than the 1969 film'. Not so fast. It is better in its particulars. But I wonder if I preferred the whole of the '69 version, more so. I know I liked the beginning of the '69 version better. And in this 2010 version, I did not care for the cold, matter of fact epilogue. It did not add to the proceedings in a cinematic way or made for a satisfying conclusion -- at least, not for me. Furthermore, I never thought (during the movie), 'wow, this movie is something else'. I was satiated, but rarely scintillated. Also, while none of the characters are detestable - and some are arguably endearing - I didn't really care for what happened to them, either. You hope for the best for these folks, but that's about it.
There was little emotional investment (then again, that's never been a Coen Bros. trademark). A bond occurs btwn. the initially mismatched Rooster & Mattie; as would be expected. He grows to admire her persistence. She grows to see past his whiskey ways. But their bond still feels slightly underdeveloped; as if it exists only because the plot tells us so. You know, I don't want to make it sound like I didn't like this 'True Grit' - I did. I just thought it would be better than good. Something intangible was missing. I loved the acting choices by the great actors. The action is intense. There is low-key humor along the way (usually in light of a grim situation). Stellar filmmaking, all around. I suppose it's just a nagging feeling that a story well-told could have been a story emphatically-told.