True Grit 2010-5 stars

[teamnelson]

Me, I thought the girl was an amazing actress. Very likable. Damon and Bridges are supposed to be unlikeable, at least initially. Damon is a fool, and Bridges is a high functioning alcoholic. Then we learn that they have attributes that counter the initial impressions. Went a little downhill in the 2nd half. Then I thought about it later, especially about the ending, and it made a lot of sense. She ends up becoming a very ordinary, and somewhat unlikeable person. Which is a bit of a letdown. But it makes sense given what she went through in her childhood, that she did not have a lot of trust and love left. The gang gets lot of positive comments. Apparently because they are true to the book, which I never read.

Just got home from seeing it with my wife, and I have to agree with your review wreckhog. My wife and I also noticed the lack of contractions, and the comparative eloquence with which everyone in the movie spoke. As a lifelong western history buff and former resident of Tombstone, it was refreshing to watch a no kidding period western film that sought accuracy in every detail, and integrity to the original book. I am a John Wayne fan, don't get me wrong, but the original True Grit was filmed at a time when "westerns" were caricatures ... myth, larger than life. This was a good film, and stands apart from John Wayne's True Grit in the same way Tombstone stands apart from Wyatt Earp.

[slim rem 7]

 well you guy have got me to the point of wanting to go see it.. even if i have to pay ..

[saddlebum]

Me too, but there are few, if any, decent writers antmore. Look at primetime tv, if you dare. Nothing but trash. POWDERMAN.  

There's still good stuff on TV.  Anybody wanting an absolutely, positively amazing viewing experience should go back and watch the first season of AMC's "The Walking Dead" if you haven't already.  HBO's "True Blood" has got a great storyline too, though with it's nudity and profanity levels it's definitely not for the prudish types.

ABC's Lost which just went off this year certainly wasn't bad either.

Your joking ,.......right?........"The Walking Dead"??

Sorry. Not attacking you or anything. Everybody has their own taste but that stuff doesn't even LOOK good to eat, to me.  
I admit that I'm the oddball on this topic since I don't seem to like most of the movies and TV others like it seems. No bashing intended.
For example, Tombstone. Everyone seems to like that movie and just love Kilmer in it. Personally I could never get past that phony looking  mustache on  the guy playing Earp. I have tried several times to watch that movie and have never made it all the way through. I thought Cosner's "Wyatt Earp" was better, but not a movie I would watch over and over. Any western with Robert Duvall is great. The Turner produced movies with Selleck and Elliot were all good. Still place the old Lee Marvin version of, ''Montie Walsh", near the top of my list. My favorite Wayne movies are from the '30s and'40s. They are corny old time westerns, but I like them anyway.
Guess I'm a weirdo. But you probably already knew that! 

[williamlayton]

In High school we were taught to write with ink---had to write with ink in English class and history as I recall.
I used the old lever action type pens---there were actually no decent ball points in those days---that sucked up the ink. It was necessary to have a bottle of ink for refills---therefore the inkwells---we had to supply or own Schaeffer ink.
The personalities of characters outside of the picture does not effect me--but then again I don't keep up with their personal lives.
I have seen a few Matt Damon things and think he is a pretty good actor.
The first and second movies were pretty authentic to period speech---read things written by authors of that period.
Folks used very little varnish in their speech--to borrow a line from the movie--and slang was not the norm---but it was far from Victorian speech---words tended to mean what was said.
I am a real fan of both movies and draw good from both.
The two most recent re-makes of Tombstone is/are much the same way for me. I really do enjoy both, and, much for different reasons---one for action and entertainment and one for historocity + it had some good action also.
Blessings

[MGMorden]

Your joking ,.......right?........"The Walking Dead"??

Sorry. Not attacking you or anything. Everybody has their own taste but that stuff doesn't even LOOK good to eat, to me.  

Eh, as you said, everyone has their opinions.  IMHO, "The Walking Dead" is the best show I've seen in at least 10 years.  Zombie films and stories tend to be hit or miss, and this one hits everywhere where it counts.  The makeup effects are spectacular, the atmosphere is maintained perfectly (the panicked sense of something always being around the corner), and the character development is superb.  It's pretty much kicking butt and taking names with ratings right now, which is a nice relief as often time good shows end up getting cancelled due them just not having a broad appeal ("Firefly" for example).

[nw_hunter]

  say what ya want, but the acting in the original was horrendous.  now i know they made movies back then with men in them, and they could act, too.   i have damn near every one of clint's westerns.   you believed his roles when you watched his movies. 

I have to agree with you MM. The original was a B western and the remake was even less!
John Wayne was a B movie actor and Glen C. was a great singer picker, but terrible excuse as an actor.

I expected more from Jeff Bridges and Damon, but I guess they did the best they could given the material they had to work with.

Compared to say...........Outlaw Josey W. (Clint E.) and Lonesome dove, Quiggley Down Under.......All #10's. I give True Grit a 3 at best. JMO,

[littlecanoe]

I took my daughters to see it yesterday.  As a fan of the original movie I was a bit apprehensive not knowing whether I would be able to give the movie a fair chance or just make endless comparisons to the original.

My conclusion is that I like each movie for what it is.  The original is a typical John Wayne film with a bit of drama and fighting and a good bit of whimsical humor.  I don't expect more from his movies and like them for what they are without expecting them to be what they are not.

As for the new film?  I was never given a chance to start a comparison to the old film because it was right into the story.  The level of detail to period and eloquent use of language was a great touch.  The actors looked period and looked and sounded the part.  Movies from the original films era usually held on to horrible hair cuts and modified wardrobe styles.  They would not visually take you into the film.  A film doesn't need to be sold by special effects to make me happy and this film made me happy.  The new film was a straight forward telling of a story.  No emotional highs and lows but a feeling of really watching a story unfold to the  point that a book can be unfolded within a 2 hour time frame of film.

To those who would hesitate because it might spoil your view of the original I'd say "don't worry."  I'm picky about such things but can say that I'll watch both again in the future and enjoy each.

[hillbill]

i liked it. i dont go see a lot of movies and it wasnt a total waste of cash like the last few ive went and seen over the years.

[no guns here]

Okay, I know I'm late to the party... real late.  However, I just finally got around to watching this and I have to say... I was EXTREMELY dissapointed.  The acting was poor and seemed quite forced.  I thought Matt Damon's character was ludicrous and the girly-girl was a mere shell of the original.  Rooster's speech was so thick and slurred that it took away from the character.  Maybe thick and slurred are the wrong words.  Rooster's speech as affected by Bridges was comically poor.  Sounded like someone's dad trying to impersonate a western pirate or something like that.  Sounded like he had some kind of implants or devices in his mouth he had to try to talk through.

All in all, I'd give it a solid 2 out fo 10.  Not nearly as enjoyable as Eastwood's spaghetti westerns.  Not even in the same class as Josey Wales, Unforgiven, Pale Rider, Quigly or any of JW's westerns.

I guess the western is truly dead...



NGH 

[Swampman]

Fantastic movie....10 times better than the original.

[OldSchoolRanger]

I used the old lever action type pens---there were actually no decent ball points in those days---that sucked up the ink. It was necessary to have a bottle of ink for refills---therefore the inkwells---we had to supply or own Schaeffer ink.

Blessings

williamlayton -  I still have a couple of the old, Schaffer fountain pens somewhere in the house.  Wonder what their worth today?  My mom bought me a new newfangled cartridge fountain pen from Parker Pen Co. for my birthday.
But your right, both movies are good in their own way.
saddlebum - MGMorden is correct, "The Walking Dead" is a great series.  I didn't watch it when it was shown on TV, but my nephew was raving about it, so when he pick up the DVD's, I borrowed them.  After watching the show, I was hooked.  Not your everyday Zombie movie.

[Old Fart]

I also finally got around to watching this.
Paid a dollar at Redbox.

I have to say the cinematography <sp?> was far superior to the original.
Other than a few shots of the Rockies Mountains it looked like it might have been filmed in Oklahoma.
The first two thirds weren pretty solid.
Unfortunately I thought the acting lacked quite a bit throughout.
I may have been prejuduced by my dislike for Jeff Bridges.

It was worth a dollar. Probably won't watch it again.

[SHOOTALL]

I also finally got around to watching this.
Paid a dollar at Redbox.

I have to say the cinematography <sp?> was far superior to the original.
Other than a few shots of the Rockies Mountains it looked like it might have been filmed in Oklahoma.
The first two thirds weren pretty solid.
Unfortunately I thought the acting lacked quite a bit throughout.
I may have been prejuduced by my dislike for Jeff Bridges.

It was worth a dollar. Probably won't watch it again.

Other than I don't care one way or the other about JB good post , the acting was substandard in this day and time other than the girl .

[kinslayer1965]

Just purchased the new one when it hit the shelf at Sam's Club. Can't say I liked the new movie very much. The girl was amazing. Jeff and Matt were forgettable. What in the world was up with the guy with the bear head hat?

As someone said John Wayne played the same charachter in every movie he made...John Wayne. That was always good enough for me.
 
I loved the oneliners from the original movie as well. "he has a scar on his upper lip where I shot him. His upper lip? What were you aiming for? His lower lip" 

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Robert Duvall play Lucky Ned in the original?

[SHOOTALL]

The part was made for John Wayne anyone else was playing 2nd fiddle .

[Old Fart]

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Robert Duvall play Lucky Ned in the original?

Yup, he made a couple with him.

[oldandslow]

I watched it on DVD the other night and enjoyed it. I didn't think much of Matt Damon's performance and was surprised as he usually does a good job. He was about on a par with Glen Campbell in the original. I still prefer the John Wayne version.

[hillbill]

i actually thought the acting was pretty good. rooster was a typical period dont give a crap drunk.i think he played the drunk thing better than john wayne.not as much personality as JW but still good. damon played a pompus full of him self texas ranger pretty well. and he did shoot well when the chips were down. the girl did well also and the outlaws were typical of the period. greasy, unbathed, stupid and without remorse.ill watch it again when it comes to tv.

[saddlebum]

OldSchoolRanger said,
saddlebum - MGMorden is correct, "The Walking Dead" is a great series.  I didn't watch it when it was shown on TV, but my nephew was raving about it, so when he pick up the DVD's, I borrowed them.  After watching the show, I was hooked.  Not your everyday Zombie movie.


Maybe should have been a cowboy zombie series instead! John Wayne back from the dead!   

[yellowtail3]

I thought True Grit (recent) was pretty good. I like Jeff Bridges. John Wayne was... well, just John Wayne, almost like Jeff Goldblum usually plays the part of Jeff Goldblum. Clint Eastwood's films were better than Wayne's, IMHO - and Eastwood far more talented than Wayne.

The western isn't dead.

I thought Deadwood was the best western (wide genre, here) I'd seen on TV, and the best TV in the history of TV.

[Cabin4]

Thw wife and I saw Jeff Bridges last night and it was pretty darn good. He tours with a country band and they put on a good show. I was surprised. He did mostly songs from the movie Crazy Heart.
 
And I agree that Deadwood was the best tv show ever.

[ratdog]

i liked the new true grit. go see aliens and cowboys see what you think of that

[Swampman]

I saw Aliens & Cowboys.  I liked it.
 

[Foggy]

5 stars for the new True Grit  is was easy to sleep though and not think you missed something
 

[Spirithawk]

Kim Darby circa 2004  (when she was under 60...)

Gee! I didn't know she was in Harry Potter!