The Coen Brothers' True Grit (2010)

[transmogrifier]

I thought the symbolism of the gunshot followed by the fall was pretty clear.


Yes, groan-inducingly clear, and quite poorly done, that whole sequence. It was almost as if they were trying to rescue some sort of thematic resonance for the story that isn't really there at all up to that point (the directors or the author of the original book, which I haven't read), and it pretty much fails miserably.

[transmogrifier]

For the record:

1. Miller's Crossing (89)
2. Blood Simple (84)
3. Fargo (78)
4. The Hudsucker Proxy (72)
5. A Serious Man (70)
6. The Big Lebowski (66)
7. Barton Fink (66)
8. Burn After Reading (66)
9. No Country For Old Men (65)
10. The Man Who Wasn't There (58)
11. O Brother, Where Art Thou? (57)
12. True Grit (55)
13. Intolerable Cruelty (49)
14. Raising Arizona (48)
15. The Ladykillers (28)

[Winston*]

How did you see this trans? (Or are you not in NZ)

[Dead & Messed Up]

The epilogue also seemed tacked on, and certainly didn't add anything to the overall emotional experience - Hattie was such a single-minded character that the fact that she never married or anything like that in the years afterwards carries no impact, because it is hardly a surprise given the way she was presented from the very first scene. Thus the impact of the events are necessarily muted and almost inconsequential.

I'd agree that the epilogue feels more like a formality than a necessity. Maybe if the elder Mattie betrayed more emotion. That would feel sappy, but at least it would indicate that what happened truly meant something to Mattie. On the other hand, maybe the point is that now Mattie is the person she thought she was (cold and determined, full a' grit) through and through.

Hell, now I'm not sure.

[baby doll]

For the record:

1. Miller's Crossing (89)
2. Blood Simple (84)
3. Fargo (78)
4. The Hudsucker Proxy (72)
5. A Serious Man (70)
6. The Big Lebowski (66)
7. Barton Fink (66)
8. Burn After Reading (66)
9. No Country For Old Men (65)
10. The Man Who Wasn't There (58)
11. O Brother, Where Art Thou? (57)
12. True Grit (55)
13. Intolerable Cruelty (49)
14. Raising Arizona (48)
15. The Ladykillers (28)

1. A Serious Man (2009)
2. Blood Simple (1984)
3. Burn After Reading (2008)
4. The Big Lebowski (1998)
5. Barton Fink (1994)
6. The Man Who Wasn't There (2001)
7. Fargo (1996)
8. No Country for Old Men (2007)
9. Raising Arizona (1987)
10. Miller's Crossing (1990)
11. True Grit (2010)
12. O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)
13. Intolerable Cruelty (2003)

(I need to rewatch The Hudsucker Proxy, and I haven't seen The Ladykillers.)

[Wryan]

The Bear Man was the best part. Pretty good movie. Weakest link was the obnoxious girl, whose line delivery, despite a few bright moments, was patterned and unvaried. It's like they cast her for her ability to maintain a fixed, open-mouthed stare. Also I hated the stupid CG.

Stupid CG. Why's it gotta taint so many good movies?

Which CG? Please refresh. And I liked Hattie/Mattie/whatever.

[Spun Lepton]

I knew it was a matter of time before somebody had to pull out their list and waggle in front of everybody else. Of course, the thread then turns into a list-waving contest.

[Watashi]

I didn't even know there was CG in the film.

[Ezee E]

I'm guessing he didn't like the Night of the Hunter homage, which I thought was a little weird myself, but not enough to make a deal out of it.

[transmogrifier]

I knew it was a matter of time before somebody had to pull out their list and waggle in front of everybody else. Of course, the thread then turns into a list-waving contest.

While those with paltry, shrivelled lists are left to sneer bitterly, enviously on the sidelines....

[Sven]

CG: the scene where Blackie is shot and the snakes in the pit are the two most egregious examples, though there are other moments where the CG stands out, like when it is used to make their old-timey city look bigger and bustlier.

Loved the ride at the end, though, E, with its cool back projection and dreamy tableaux.

[Watashi]

I couldn't tell that the snakes were CG at all. It's not as noticable as something like the breath in The Social Network.

[megladon8]

Yeah I definitely noticed that the snakes were CGI, but it didn't really bother me. They were darkly lit enough that it didn't detract from the scene.

I liked the obvious back-projection in the horse ride scene at the end. I thought it was really stylish and cool.

[Rowland]

I suppose I probably figured in the back of my mind that the snakes were CG, but it didn't leave a negative impression. Otherwise I didn't notice any, nor did I notice the infamous CG-breath in The Social Network. [/fail]

[Sven]

I couldn't tell that the snakes were CG at all. It's not as noticable as something like the breath in The Social Network.

Haven't seen TSN, but if you couldn't tell about those snakes, I don't know what to say...

Also, the violence. Point blank shot to the face, digital red gun blast on the wall, digital fingers sliced off--it was all so shiny and bendy and too-clearly enhanced with computers.

[Watashi]

What's your LeBoeuf with CG anyway? Most of the examples you are citing are pretty seemless not to really take away from the entire film. It didn't bother me from enjoying the film in the slightest.

[Sven]

I saw the seams. They opened up my eyes and I am happy now living without them.

[Duncan]

Apparently they originally tried filming with real snakes, but it didn't work at all. They just sort of sat there or slithered aimlessly.

[transmogrifier]

Apparently they originally tried filming with real snakes, but it didn't work at all. They just sort of sat there or slithered aimlessly.

Like real snakes tend to do. Another reason why that whole sequence rings false - it's so cliched and movie-ish. A pit of snakes! A last minute rescue! Drama!

[baby doll]

Like real snakes tend to do. Another reason why that whole sequence rings false - it's so cliched and movie-ish. A pit of snakes! A last minute rescue! Drama!Well, it is a western. I wish it had more excitement, and less portentous Oscar-baiting.

[transmogrifier]

Well, it is a western. I wish it had more excitement, and less portentous Oscar-baiting.

But it didn't fit at all with the film up to that point, and seemed totally inorganic within the context it was presented. I mean, it fails as both an "action" sequence because it is pretty hokey and poorly constructed as such, and it fails thematically because, if the Coens were trying to show the consequences of seeking revenge, it is far too literal and on the nose, plus the eventual effects on the main character is totally obscured by the fact that her older self acts exactly as you might expected her younger self to grow up like even without any trauma during her formative years.

So it is pretty much a wash.

[Sven]

Like real snakes tend to do. Another reason why that whole sequence rings false - it's so cliched and movie-ish. A pit of snakes! A last minute rescue! Drama!

The book is better at suggesting that the story is being bolstered by the older woman's imagination. The reason the girl is so obnoxiously precocious is because it is the recollection of a boorish old maid. This doesn't read in the film very well. But I think the whole heavy, mythic snake pit/suddenly noble and agile Rooster/ride to safety stuff would have played better with a stronger sense of projection, as opposed to having played out like a fairly standard western up to that point.

[transmogrifier]

The book is better at suggesting that the story is being bolstered by the older woman's imagination. The reason the girl is so obnoxiously precocious is because it is the recollection of a boorish old maid. This doesn't read in the film very well. But I think the whole heavy, mythic snake pit/suddenly noble and agile Rooster/ride to safety stuff would have played better with a stronger sense of projection, as opposed to having played out like a fairly standard western up to that point.

I haven't read the book, but that's interesting. You're right, it doesn't come through in the film at all. The more I think about the ending, the more annoying it is.

[Sven]

I haven't read the book, but that's interesting. You're right, it doesn't come through in the film at all. The more I think about the ending, the more annoying it is.

Book is way better. Read it in one sitting. This one is on its way to being my least favorite Coen film, even though I saw it in one sitting as well.

[Rowland]

What I grooved on more than anything here was the dialogue. On a scene-to-scene basis, this was probably the year's funniest, most linguistically stimulating film, helped in no small part by the deadpan comedic timing of the Coens and their ensemble, of whom I'd single out Damon as the MVP. Only the closing fifteen minutes or so struck me as a bit off, enough so that I initially wavered between *** and ***½ before shakily settling on the latter. I've had my doubts with the closing passages of the last three Coens films, only to have my misgivings proven unfounded and then some with repeat viewings, so I hope that streak continues unabated here.

[Sven]

Even given my reservations about it, I think the ending is one of the stronger passages in the film.

[Derek]

What I grooved on more than anything here was the dialogue. On a scene-to-scene basis, this was probably the year's funniest, most linguistically stimulating film, helped in no small part by the deadpan comedic timing of the Coens and their ensemble, of whom I'd single out Damon as the MVP.

My reaction as well. The dialogue and delivery is top-notch and makes up for most of the film's dramatic shortcomings.

[Duncan]

My reaction as well. The dialogue and delivery is top-notch and makes up for most of the film's dramatic shortcomings.

My feelings as well. Was really disappointed in the last half hour. No rhythm, no tension. Had a connect-the-dots kind of feel between plot points. Even the geography of the climax didn't make sense to me. Felt like distances were covered way to quickly in that valley.

One scene I really loved was the heart to heart between Mattie and LaBeouf. The dialogue is pretty sentimental, but I was cracking up at Damon's performance. His fumbling over words because of his tongue doesn't destroy the sentiment, but it does add an extra layer either ironic distance, or, if you prefer, an opportunity to believe in that sentiment all the more in the midst of our comic place in the world. I think it works both ways.

[endingcredits]

As Melville mentioned, the bull-headed whipper-snapper and grumpy ol' man pair up and go riding to kill the bad guy was pretty cliche. I also thought Steinfeld was irritating. She's far to rigid emotionally and calculated in speech to be believable.

[Spun Lepton]

Well, it is a western. I wish it had more excitement, and less portentous Oscar-baiting.

Because the guys whose entire Oscar acceptance speech for No Country was "Thank you," are Oscar baiters. Uh huh.

[baby doll]

Because the guys whose entire Oscar acceptance speech for No Country was "Thank you," are Oscar baiters. Uh huh.Whether or not they made a big speech, No Country for Old Men cleaned up at the box office (170 million dollars worldwide, according to Box Office Mojo), and after A Serious Man (31 million worldwide), they probably felt they needed another big hit.

[Derek]

Whether or not they made a big speech, No Country for Old Men cleaned up at the box office (170 million dollars worldwide, according to Box Office Mojo), and after A Serious Man (31 million worldwide), they probably felt they needed another big hit.

And nothing guarantees big box office bucks more than a western these days!

[megladon8]

The success True Grit has had came as quite a surprise to me, actually.

I thought it would kind of fall by the wayside.

[baby doll]

And nothing guarantees big box office bucks more than a western these days!It worked for No Country for Old Men, and it seems to be working here (it's already made something like 130 million domestically; I forget the exact figure).

[megladon8]

It worked for No Country for Old Men, and it seems to be working here (it's already made something like 130 million domestically; I forget the exact figure).


No Country for Old Men is a western now?

[Sycophant]

So no one else wastes their time looking it up out of curiosity, No Country made $74.3 million domestically.

[baby doll]

No Country for Old Men is a western now?Yeah, of course.

[Sycophant]

No Country for Old Men is a western now?

In a broader sense, I definitely see it.

[Ezee E]

Definitely is a western. Pretty much all the folks who love Westerns were wanting to see it also.

I'd like to think babydoll was thinking worldwide, but it made $171 million worldwide. babydoll's numbers are as accurate as his criticisms.

EDIT: D'oh. He mentioned the worldwide number a few posts earlier.

[megladon8]

Have to admit I never thought of it as a western.

Was always a thriller set in the South, similar to a lot of their other work.

[Sycophant]

Western has associations that go far beyond setting and cowboys.

[baby doll]

I'd like to think babydoll was thinking worldwide, but it made $171 million worldwide. babydoll's numbers are as accurate as his criticisms.

EDIT: D'oh. He mentioned the worldwide number a few posts earlier.Ergo, my criticisms must be pretty darn accurate.

[megladon8]

Western has associations that go far beyond setting and cowboys.


I know this.

I've championed Vampires as one of the best westerns of the '90s.

[Ezee E]

Ergo, my criticisms must be pretty darn accurate.
Nice response.

[megladon8]

It's not that I don't see No Country For Old Men as having a lot of western sensibilities, particularly when analyzed thematically.

I see it, I do.

What I'm saying is that, to the average Joe Moviegoer (you know, the people who make up like 99% of the financial success the movie had) I can't see them saying "I went to see No Country For Old Men because I love westerns"

While we, the analytical MatchCut movie snobs, are able to look at the film and say that thematically (and very much stylistically, too) it was a western, the average moviegoing public do equate westerns with cowboys and desert settings.

So I don't think it's accurate or fair to say that the Coen brothers wanted to ape the success of that other western, No Country For Old Men, when it's not as recognizable as a western as True Grit, the movie with cowboys and deserts.

[baby doll]

It's not that I don't see No Country For Old Men as having a lot of western sensibilities, particularly when analyzed thematically.

I see it, I do.

What I'm saying is that, to the average Joe Moviegoer (you know, the people who make up like 99% of the financial success the movie had) I can't see them saying "I went to see No Country For Old Men because I love westerns"

While we, the analytical MatchCut movie snobs, are able to look at the film and say that thematically (and very much stylistically, too) it was a western, the average moviegoing public do equate westerns with cowboys and desert settings.

So I don't think it's accurate or fair to say that the Coen brothers wanted to ape the success of that other western, No Country For Old Men, when it's not as recognizable as a western as True Grit, the movie with cowboys and deserts.Wasn't much of No Country for Old Men set in the desert on the border between Texas and Mexico? And doesn't Woody Harrelson's character wear a stetson?

[Spun Lepton]

Whether or not they made a big speech, No Country for Old Men cleaned up at the box office (170 million dollars worldwide, according to Box Office Mojo), and after A Serious Man (31 million worldwide), they probably felt they needed another big hit.

Flawless psychology.

[MadMan]

Of course any director wants their movie to make money. It is a business, after all. Shocking!

I thought this was a pretty good film, and slightly better than the original. While I'm heavily biased in favor of The Duke being better in the role than The Dude, I thought Bridges was great in the part, and of course Damon (as usual) gave a fine performance. The humor was really strong, and I liked that element the best, along with the typical serious western style violence that accompanies modern westerns and is now a stample of the genre these days. Look, westerns don't get made too often, but in the end I'm glad because usually the ones that do come out are as good as this one, or actually better.

[baby doll]

Flawless psychology.In any case, the movie is so lifeless and sombre (as opposed to the John Wayne original, which is as virile as this movie is depressed) that Oscar-bait seems a pretty good description for it.

[Spinal]

This is not my favorite Coens film, but I do not question their sincerity in making it. It seems very much like a story and a project for which they have passion. Oscar bait seems way off the mark. Apart from the casting of Matt Damon, I don't really see much to support that accusation.

[Spun Lepton]

In any case, the movie is so lifeless and sombre (as opposed to the John Wayne original, which is as virile as this movie is depressed) that Oscar-bait seems a pretty good description for it.

"Because I found the film "lifeless and sombre" means the Coens made Oscar-bait."

[Robby P]

When have the Coens ever pandered to any specific type of audience? They pretty much march to the beat of their own drummer.

[baby doll]

This is not my favorite Coens film, but I do not question their sincerity in making it. It seems very much like a story and a project for which they have passion. Oscar bait seems way off the mark. Apart from the casting of Matt Damon, I don't really see much to support that accusation.Can't a film be sincere and Oscar-bait at the same time?

[DavidSeven]

If the Coens cared about Oscars, they would have met the festival screening deadlines like they were originally supposed to. They didn't. The fact that they didn't finish their cut by those deadlines basically eliminated any real chance of the film building any real awards buzz. They've been doing this long enough to know this. It's really that simple.

[baby doll]

If the Coens cared about Oscars, they would have met the festival screening deadlines like they were originally supposed to. They didn't. The fact that they didn't finish their cut by those deadlines basically eliminated any real chance of the film building any real awards buzz. They've been doing this long enough to know this. It's really that simple.Again, I don't claim to be an expert on the Academy Awards, but when a film opens on Christmas day in wide release, isn't that some sort of sign that the studio considers it a possible Oscar contender?

[Sycophant]

"Oscar bait" implies pandering. It's a derogatory film term. You get that at least, right?

[baby doll]

"Oscar bait" implies pandering. It's a derogatory film. You get that at least, right?Yes, and I meant it in a derogatory way, because this is much more of an Oscar-y western (for instance, the aggressive sepia-toning) than the original, which was more of a rootin'-tootin' kinda movie.

[megladon8]

Again, I don't claim to be an expert on the Academy Awards, but when a film opens on Christmas day in wide release, isn't that some sort of sign that the studio considers it a possible Oscar contender?


Yeah, I think Fox was totally hoping for some Oscars with Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem.

[Spun Lepton]

Again, I don't claim to be an expert on the Academy Awards, but when a film opens on Christmas day in wide release, isn't that some sort of sign that the studio considers it a possible Oscar contender?

So, we're shifting our accusations to the studio, now?

[Watashi]

I'm pretty sure most directors have zero control of when their film is to be released.

[Sycophant]

Yes, and I meant it in a derogatory way, because this is much more of an Oscar-y western (for instance, the aggressive sepia-toning) than the original, which was more of a rootin'-tootin' kinda movie.

So, a Western with sepia toning, a more reserved (but really, not that reserved) pace, and more straight-faced violence = pandering (insincere?) Oscar bait?

You guy.

[Spun Lepton]

It's a derogatory film.

Huh?? You mean a derogatory term?

[Sycophant]

Huh?? You mean a derogatory term?

Oh, yeah, I do.

[megladon8]

With those guidelines in mind, it sounds like Zack Snyder could make one hell of an anti-Oscar western.

[baby doll]

So, a Western with sepia toning, a more reserved (but really, not that reserved) pace, and more straight-faced violence = pandering (insincere?) Oscar bait?

You guy.They basically took the old movie and sucked all the fun out of it. And the Coens are usually fun guys (A Serious Man is, despite the title, a lot of fun). So why is it that whenever they make a western (and I count No Country for Old Men as a western) suddenly the fun stops?

[Sycophant]

I thought there was quite a bit of fun and humor in True Grit. I laughed quite a bit, anyway.

[megladon8]

No fun = Oscar bait?

I am really not following your arguments, baby doll.

[baby doll]

Incidentally, what I was thought was seriously pandering was all the Jesus stuff. Okay, maybe Americans at that time did talk like that, but how about the opening quotation and the gospel song at the end? It's like after getting their Jew-on in A Serious Man, they wanted to make one for the Real America.

[megladon8]

I thought there was quite a bit of fun and humor in True Grit. I laughed quite a bit, anyway.


Seconded.

Something both Jen and I commented on after seeing it was how unexpectedly funny it was.

Dynamite dialogue. If you didn't laugh at the scene with Mattie negotiating for the horses, I don't know what to tell you.

[baby doll]

No fun = Oscar bait?

I am really not following your arguments, baby doll.Yes, that's exactly my argument! No fun = Oscar-bait. Thanks.

[DavidSeven]

Again, I don't claim to be an expert on the Academy Awards, but when a film opens on Christmas day in wide release, isn't that some sort of sign that the studio considers it a possible Oscar contender?

I think they saw an opportunity to release a smart, somewhat family-oriented drama on a day that entire families uncharacteristically go to the multiplexes together. It was a pretty shrewd business move that appears to have worked in establishing box office momentum for the film.

[Sycophant]

Incidentally, what I was thought was seriously pandering was all the Jesus stuff. Okay, maybe Americans at that time did talk like that, but how about the opening quotation and the gospel song at the end? It's like after getting their Jew-on in A Serious Man, they wanted to make one for the Real America.

I reckon the Old West was pretty Christian. And plenty of Coen films have engaged Christianity (see O Brother, The Ladykillers, probably others I can't summon right now). I hardly thought it was pandering to American Christian audiences. That strikes me as a weird observation/allegation to make.

[megladon8]

Yes, that's exactly my argument! No fun = Oscar-bait. Thanks.


Well that's what you seem to be boiling things down to, here.

[baby doll]

Seconded.

Something both Jen and I commented on after seeing it was how unexpectedly funny it was.

Dynamite dialogue. If you didn't laugh at the scene with Mattie negotiating for the horses, I don't know what to tell you.That scene, like every other scene, just seemed to go on and on and on. It takes the Coens so long just to get through every single sequence, and the film is so talky--and yet, a lot of points still aren't clear (the significance of the gold coins, for instance, is much better established in the original film, which had a lot more energy).

[baby doll]

Well that's what you seem to be boiling things down to, here.Seriously though, that's really what I've been trying to get at. Take a fun western, slow it down and make it more violent, and voilÃ*, instant Oscar-contender.

[baby doll]

I reckon the Old West was pretty Christian. And plenty of Coen films have engaged Christianity (see O Brother, The Ladykillers, probably others I can't summon right now). I hardly thought it was pandering to American Christian audiences. That strikes me as a weird observation/allegation to make.It just seems odd since they didn't harp so much on the Jesus-y stuff in the original. It's like they're trying to send signals to different constituencies: The Jesus talk (and finger-chopping violence) is a signal to one group that this is a more realistic western than the original, while it signals to the Michael Medved crowd that this is a movie that embraces core American values.

[Spun Lepton]

Oh, yeah, I do.

:)

[Ezee E]

I'm not sure what kind of remake you want out of this babydoll.

[baby doll]

I'm not sure what kind of remake you want out of this babydoll.One that doesn't take an eternity to get through even the simplest scenes.

[Russ]

One that doesn't take an eternity to get through even the simplest scenes.
So we can assume you don't like Kubrick's films either?

:)

[baby doll]

So we can assume you don't like Kubrick's films either?

:)There's a difference between taking your time, and having to get through a lot of boring exposition.

[Spun Lepton]

This thread has veered into Derp territory.

[Adam]

There's a difference between taking your time, and having to get through a lot of boring exposition.

The whole raison d'être of the film is the talking. The intention is that the cadence of speech or turns of phrase or actorly machinations are in and of themselves colorful/interesting/funny/meaningful

[Spaceman Spiff]

Not a single mention of

That asian man high on opium on the Dude's bed?

Scene of the movie.

[Spinal]

Dynamite dialogue. If you didn't laugh at the scene with Mattie negotiating for the horses, I don't know what to tell you.

Hmmm, that was probably my least favorite scene in the film. It just came across as really phony and forced.

[Raiders]

Hmmm, that was probably my least favorite scene in the film. It just came across as really phony and forced.

On the whole, yes I'd agree, but the comic timing of Dakin Matthews in those two scenes in sensational.

[DavidSeven]

"Are we trading again?" definitely got the biggest laugh at my showing.

[Dukefrukem]

http://www.hellomuller.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Coenfographic_Muller.jpg

[Boner M]

Rooster kicking the kids off the porch was my favorite bit.

Otherwise it's just OK. Didn't get as much pleasure out of the linguistic aspects as most people here.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I don't even know what "the linguistic elements" even mean. Did you guys get a kick out of their syntactic structures and phonological features? Because I certainly wasn't listening with intent as to what type of [i] Rooster was using as opposed to Mattie, nor whether or not The Beef was playing around with direct object placement, or using unnecessary auxiliary verbs.

[Sycophant]

I don't even know what "the linguistic elements" even mean. Did you guys get a kick out of their syntactic structures and phonological features? Because I certainly wasn't listening with intent as to what type of [i] Rooster was using as opposed to Mattie, nor whether or not The Beef was playing around with direct object placement, or using unnecessary auxiliary verbs.

Oh, you!



lin·guis·tic
adj.
Of or relating to language or linguistics.
lin·guisti·cal·ly adv.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I was being slightly facetious, but I still don't exactly know what makes this movie so linguistically interesting or amusing. People talk like that in a lot of westerns.

[Spinal]

I was being slightly facetious, but I still don't exactly know what makes this movie so linguistically interesting or amusing. People talk like that in a lot of westerns.

I thought that, on the contrary, it was one of the Coens' weakest films in this regard. Apart from some moments from Bridges and Pepper, I thought it lacked a lot of the pitch-perfect tone of some of their better films.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I think that has more to do with the writing than the performance/delivery of the cast, but this was played a lot more straight than most of their other movies, so it was always going to have a slightly less Coeny tone.

[Dukefrukem]

It was hard for me to like this movie having liked the original so much. I can appreciate the adaptation for what it was, but is it weird that I prefer the Duke?

[Spun Lepton]

It was hard for me to like this movie having liked the original so much. I can appreciate the adaptation for what it was, but is it weird that I prefer the Duke?

Blaspheme.

[Dukefrukem]

It also followed the first adaptation down to the tooth. Was expecting at least some deviation.

[Raiders]

It also followed the first adaptation down to the tooth. Was expecting at least some deviation.

No, it didn't. It was different in several ways, though pretty much all of them were in being more faithful to the novel.

[Dukefrukem]

No, it didn't. It was different in several ways, though pretty much all of them were in being more faithful to the novel.

Enlighten me please.

[Raiders]

Enlighten me please.

- It is told pretty exclusively from Mattie's point of view and is narrated by (and ends with) Mattie as an adult, middle-aged "old maid"
- Mattie loses her arm (and the pit is full of snakes, not just one)
- La Beouf doesn't die from the blow to the head
- Mattie and Cogburn never see each other again after he saves her
- The setting actually looks like Oklahoma, not mountainous Colorado

That's off the top of my head. There may be more.

[Dukefrukem]

- It is told pretty exclusively from Mattie's point of view and is narrated by (and ends with) Mattie as an adult, middle-aged "old maid"
- Mattie loses her arm (and the pit is full of snakes, not just one)
- La Beouf doesn't die from the blow to the head
- Mattie and Cogburn never see each other again after he saves her
- The setting actually looks like Oklahoma, not mountainous Colorado

That's off the top of my head. There may be more.

I didn't take the ending into account because the story was pretty much over at that point. Little details like the pit was FULL of snakes instead of one, might be more true to the book, but doesn't do anything for me during my experience watching the whole movie. I did like seeing Mattie as an adult at the end. I also forgot La Boeuf dies in the first.

[Raiders]

I didn't take the ending into account because the story was pretty much over at that point. Little details like the pit was FULL of snakes instead of one, might be more true to the book, but doesn't do anything for me during my experience watching the whole movie. I did like seeing Mattie as an adult at the end. I also forgot La Boeuf dies in the first.

I wasn't using any of those as qualitative evidence that this is the better film, just notable differences. The POV shift and the bookending adult Mattie narration are pretty big changes.

[Raiders]

I could be mistaken, but I also thought in the original film La Boeuf was part of the scene in the cabin and part of the stakeout when Rooster and Mattie try to ambush Lucky Ned outside the cabin; whereas in this version La Boeuf comes later and doesn't kill any of them himself.

[Dukefrukem]

No you're correct on that. I stand corrected about the "down to the tooth" comment. BUt the scenes are not really that different. Same results.

[Spun Lepton]

I didn't take the ending into account because the story was pretty much over at that point.

:|

Her adventure was done, story was not.

[Bosco B Thug]

This movie drags its feet a lot, with a middle section that seems grossly lackadaisical for the Coens, but it gains its footing again for a rousing - but also unusual - final twenty or so minutes. I also think it has more on its modernist plate than given credit for, as the revelation of the Josh Brolin character and that whirlwind, elegiac final night ride that leaves an ever-growing series of dead or tired out bodies behind it (never again seen in the film) are prime bits of Western deconstruction. Also thought the epilogue was of an exquisite wryness and absolutely integral to the film's power.

Steinfeld was good, but certainly, noticeably green. Loved Bridges. Haven't seen the original.

[Grouchy]

It just seems odd since they didn't harp so much on the Jesus-y stuff in the original. It's like they're trying to send signals to different constituencies: The Jesus talk (and finger-chopping violence) is a signal to one group that this is a more realistic western than the original, while it signals to the Michael Medved crowd that this is a movie that embraces core American values.
Mattie's Christian beliefs are a constant through the novel and one of the defining aspects of her character. In fact, my guess is that the original film didn't stress her Bible spouting so much precisely to avoid alienating a part of the audience. Same reason why they didn't follow the novel in portraying her becoming a lonely, crippled, embittered woman.

I don't like Christians any more than you do, maybe even less, but if you think that was some attempt by the Coens to gain the heart of mainstream America, you're very much mistaken. It was just part of following the source material more closely than Henry Hathaway did.

The quote at the beginning was also perfect for the themes of the film, regardless of where it came from.

Also, the Coens made a movie that's 18 minutes shorter than the original, which I still like a lot, but it arguably has a lot more "fat" in its screentime and takes much, much longer to get going than the new ones.

[MadMan]

After seeing it a second time in theaters, I'm 100% convinced its quite better than the original. Although I still think The Duke>The Dude in the title role. Matt Damon is better than Glenn Campbell, Barry Pepper is only equal to Robert Duvell's performance because neither movie requires them to do much, and Josh Brolin as Channey> whoever the hell played him the 1969 version. Not to mention the lead girl is actually a good actress, and not at all annoying like the girl in the John Wayne film, which is a huge plus.

My rating for it went up a small amount, although it still doesn't crack my top 10 for the year. Really good western, though, and I loved the humor the most.

[StanleyK]

A fine tale, but a very basic one, told in a manner which struck me as safe and conventional- most un-Coen-like. All I could detect of their 'touch' is in the contrast between Rooster's crude speech and everyone else's fancy vocabulary, which frankly was more annoying than amusing. Strange to know that the original is the Coens' favorite film and that this is a personal project for them, because none of that passion translates on the screen. Good performances and there were some laughs to be had, but on the whole it was unengaging.

[Raiders]

Watched this a second time over the weekend, this time with my dad, and I stand by it as superb film-making and delivery. Does it reach the heights of A Serious Man or Raising Arizona? No, but for a classic western, it's beautifully told.

In other words, y'all crazy.

[baby doll]

Watched this a second time over the weekend, this time with my dad, and I stand by it as superb film-making and delivery. Does it reach the heights of A Serious Man or Raising Arizona? No, but for a classic western, it's beautifully told.

In other words, y'all crazy.I dunno, for a classic western, this was severely lacking in energy. There's no masculine virility, no get-up-and-go. When did American men turn into such pussies?

[elixir]

I dunno, for a classic western, this was severely lacking in energy. There's no masculine virility, no get-up-and-go. When did American men turn into such pussies?

Really? You want there to be more macho? That would make the film better?

I'm with you Raiders. I mean, I didn't full out love it and don't see it as top-tier Coens, but I found it consistently engaging.

[baby doll]

Really? You want there to be more macho? That would make the film better?It might make it more fun and less lethargic, like the original.

[elixir]

It might make it more fun and less lethargic, like the original.

I haven't seen the original, but I didn't find this lethargic and I did find it fun.

[baby doll]

I haven't seen the original, but I didn't find this lethargic and I did find it fun.The original is more of a rousing, rootin' tootin' kinda western with an upbeat score and landscapes that are majestic rather than menacing. Even with an eye patch, John Wayne still looks like he could get it up, whereas Jeff Bridges looks like he can barely get out of bed. It's also the more accomplished film as storytelling. For one thing, it opens with a sequence establishing the relationship between the girl and her father, and her father and Tom Cheney, so that when Cheney refers to her as the accountant or the bookkeeper (I forget the exact word he uses), we actually know what he's talking about. There's less dialogue generally, and the ending is as upbeat and cheerful as the new film is elegiac. In short, it's a western.

[megladon8]

So little of what you just wrote makes any sense to me.


Even with an eye patch, John Wayne still looks like he could get it up, whereas Jeff Bridges looks like he can barely get out of bed.

So you fault the film for different interpretations of the characters?

Bridges' Cogburn was supposed to be a rather pathetic drunkard who was long past his prime. This was his final adventure.



For one thing, it opens with a sequence establishing the relationship between the girl and her father, and her father and Tom Cheney, so that when Cheney refers to her as the accountant or the bookkeeper (I forget the exact word he uses), we actually know what he's talking about.

So the dialogue with Mattie's negotiations for the horse, or Mattie's discussion of her father's affairs and the family money, was not enough to establish this part of her character?



There's less dialogue generally, and the ending is as upbeat and cheerful as the new film is elegiac. In short, it's a western.

What???

Upbeat and cheerful = a western?

What???

[Raiders]

The original is more of a rousing, rootin' tootin' kinda western with an upbeat score and landscapes that are majestic rather than menacing.

This is true.


Even with an eye patch, John Wayne still looks like he could get it up, whereas Jeff Bridges looks like he can barely get out of bed.Eh, no? Not sure how to argue this, but Bridges seems to have quite a bit of virility in his character. He is sloppier and even more of a drunkard, but he doesn't seem feeble in the least.


It's also the more accomplished film as storytelling. For one thing, it opens with a sequence establishing the relationship between the girl and her father, and her father and Tom Cheney, so that when Cheney refers to her as the accountant or the bookkeeper (I forget the exact word he uses), we actually know what he's talking about.Did Cheney call her that in this film? I don't remember it. Also, the opening sequence in this film sets up the story exceptionally well, giving us the narrations details while zooming on a nostalgic, sepia shot which nicely gives way to the fact that this is a story being told to us.


There's less dialogue generally, and the ending is as upbeat and cheerful as the new film is elegiac. In short, it's a western.Good grief man. Have you seen like, five westerns?

EDIT: I checked, and yes her calls her "the bookkeeper." I'm not going to harp on such a small detail, though it seems to me Mattie sufficiently sets up that he, Cheney, was involved enough with her father to know of her. He didn't seem to intimately know her, just that she was an accountant-type.

[baby doll]

So little of what you just wrote makes any sense to me.I'm sure that's nothing new.


So you fault the film for different interpretations of the characters?

Bridges' Cogburn was supposed to be a rather pathetic drunkard who was long past his prime. This was his final adventure.I can't abide masculine self-pity. Just be a man.


So the dialogue with Mattie's negotiations for the horse, or Mattie's discussion of her father's affairs and the family money, was not enough to establish this part of her character?That's another problem: Everything has to be established through the dialogue, and the Coens take forever to make the simplest point. The original makes establishes the girl's character fairly quickly and gets on with it, whereas in this film, the negotiations for the horse, and the scene where Rooster testifies at the trial, just seem to go on and on and on. (In the original, we actually see Rooster bringing in the suspects so that we have a better sense of what the trial is all about, whereas seeing the new film before the original, I wasn't sure at first who was actually on trial, whether it was Rooster or somebody else.)


What???

Upbeat and cheerful = a western?

What???As I said in my blog post on the film, I think Unforgiven has seriously poisoned the Hollywood western.

[megladon8]

Westerns were never happy, cheery movies.

Have you watched the Leone films?

[baby doll]

Eh, no? Not sure how to argue this, but Bridges seems to have quite a bit of virility in his character. He is sloppier and even more of a drunkard, but he doesn't seem feeble in the least.He doesn't look like he's in any condition to fuck Angie Dickinson is all I'm saying.


]Did Cheney call her that in this film? I don't remember it. Also, the opening sequence in this film sets up the story exceptionally well, giving us the narrations details while zooming on a nostalgic, sepia shot which nicely gives way to the fact that this is a story being told to us.It gives us the information through the narration. This whole movie is talk, talk, talk. Sometimes it can be effective to tell rather than to show, but in this case, it's just boring.


Good grief man. Have you seen like, five westerns?I've seen a few, and in my experience, they tend to be more fun when they have real men in them: The Iron Horse, The Searchers, Rio Bravo.

[baby doll]

Westerns were never happy, cheery movies.

Have you watched the Leone films?Leone didn't make classic westerns. Also, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is seriously bloated and uninteresting.

[megladon8]

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/3385/facepalmni.jpg

[Raiders]

He doesn't look like he's in any condition to fuck Angie Dickinson is all I'm saying.

I didn't see Angie Dickinson in this movie, so I'm assuming, correctly, that this point is irrelevant.


It gives us the information through the narration. This whole movie is talk, talk, talk. Sometimes it can be effective to tell rather than to show, but in this case, it's just boring.I already established the opening scene conveys as much through the visual as it does the dialogue and the whole film is extremely well-paced and well shot. I won't argue that it is a bit talky, but all Coen films are. I would ask why you even bothered watching it.


The SearchersA film that ends on a far more somber note than this one.

[baby doll]

Just to clarify, when I say Leone didn't make classic westerns, that's not to say his films aren't considered classics by some people (just not me). I mean, that he came after John Ford, Howard Hawks, and Henry Hathaway, and did something different than those guys.

[Raiders]

I would like to clarify as well that when I say "classic western" I don't mean it is a carbon copy of Ford, Hawks or anyone. I mean to say it has more, or at least as much, in common with those films than a typical Coen film.

[baby doll]

I didn't see Angie Dickinson in this movie, so I'm assuming, correctly, that this point is irrelevant.I'm just saying he lacks the virility of a classic western hero. His movements tend to be slower and less graceful than Wayne's in the original film, and his dialogue is so garbled that I only got every other word.


I already established the opening scene conveys as much through the visual as it does the dialogue and the whole film is extremely well-paced and well shot. I won't argue that it is a bit talky, but all Coen films are. I would ask why you even bothered watching it.Notwithstanding its obvious pictorialism, I would argue that it doesn't convey much of anything. We obviously understand that Tom Cheney killed this girl's father and ran off with his horse, but the significance of the gold pieces is much better established in the original film, which has a less showy but more functional opening sequence.


A film that ends on a far more somber note than this one.But the film still has moments of excitement, and there's an energy and forward-momentum in the storytelling that's lacking from the Coens' film, which seems to plod from one episode to the next.

[megladon8]

Hawks and Ford made some pretty somber, downer westerns too.

But I imagine those wouldn't be qualified as "classic westerns" either for some arbitrary reason.

[baby doll]

Hawks and Ford made some pretty somber, downer westerns too.

But I imagine those wouldn't be qualified as "classic westerns" either for some arbitrary reason.There's a difference between sombre and lethargic.

[Raiders]

Notwithstanding its obvious pictorialism, I would argue that it doesn't convey much of anything. We obviously understand that Tom Cheney killed this girl's father and ran off with his horse, but the significance of the gold pieces is much better established in the original film, which has a less showy but more functional opening sequence.

By "convey," I wasn't speaking narratively.


But the film still has moments of excitement, and there's an energy and forward-momentum in the storytelling that's lacking from the Coens' film, which seems to plod from one episode to the next.

A tangent, but you a Boetticher fan? I imagine you would really take to his no-nonsense, highly efficient plotting and Randolph Scott's manly-man man.

[megladon8]

Similar to much of what you've written in the Black Swan thread, many of your criticisms are unfair and seem more about comparing the films to to others and claiming it fails because it's not like them.

[baby doll]

A tangent, but you a Boetticher fan? I imagine you would really take to his no-nonsense, highly efficient plotting and Randolph Scott's manly-man man.I haven't heard of him, but I'll look him up.

[baby doll]

Similar to much of what you've written in the Black Swan thread, many of your criticisms are unfair and seem more about comparing the films to to others and claiming it fails because it's not like them.In this case, it's like they took the original and sucked all the fun out of it in order to make it Art.

[megladon8]

In this case, it's like they took the original and sucked all the fun out of it in order to make it Art.


That's absurd.

[baby doll]

That's absurd.Is it?

[Morris Schæffer]

Boy this was a major dissapointment. Yes, it looks mighty purdy, which was in line with expectations. The story was meandering, boring though. I get that the killer has fled and that therefore we won't get to see him until the later half, but when the alternative is getting a few laughs from Jeff Bridges' scenery-masticating Marshall, the loss of a more interesting substitute was regrettable.

So there were some laughs, but the dude's performance was veering agonizingly close to caricature to the extend that it damaged the movie for me. The script is kinda a mess during the chase for Chaney, seemingly content to let Damon and Bridges annoy the heck out of each other period.

I wish Pepper had been more to and fro in this movie. He could have made a terrific villain as even the few moments of screen time seemed to really have added a boost of energy to the picture.

[Spun Lepton]

Similar to much of what you've written in the Black Swan thread, many of your criticisms are unfair and seem more about comparing the films to to others and claiming it fails because it's not like them.

The Armond White School of Film Review.

"I did not like True Grit because I liked Transformers 2."

[Spaceman Spiff]

Is it?

http://operatorchan.org/k/arch/src/k121908_jizzinmypants.jpg

[lovejuice]

A small yay from me. This is weird since it might be the Coen's that I most enjoy, but in term of quality, it falls behind a lot of their recent work.

I generally like Coen's solid film-making which is almost to the point of perfection. In many parts, True Grit is shaky. For example, I know it has been mentioned, but the snake pit feels out of the blue. When Jeff Bridges starts ranting about his past, isn't that a bit in contrast with what we have been shown of his character?

This is more a statement to how I value their craft rather than how I depreciate this particular movie.

[Grouchy]

When Jeff Bridges starts ranting about his past, isn't that a bit in contrast with what we have been shown of his character
How so?

[lovejuice]

How so?
Earlier he seems like a cool but cranky devil-may-care. Ranting about his part appears to me more a behavior of a foolish old man.

[Grouchy]

Earlier he seems like a cool but cranky devil-may-care. Ranting about his part appears to me more a behavior of a foolish old man.
Or a drunk, which is also established that he is.

[megladon8]

All the gorgeous cinematography in this film, dozens of beautiful images, and the DVD cover is FOUR PEOPLE POSING.

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/6127/truegritv.jpg

[Watashi]

I like how Josh Brolin gets billed over Hailee Steinfeld.

[elixir]

I like how Josh Brolin gets billed over Hailee Steinfeld.

Well, she is a supporting actress after all.

[eternity]

Hailee Steinfeld got a fucking Oscar nomination and that's not enough to get her name on the DVD cover? I thought that would guarantee her name on the cover along with the cover of every movie she does for now on. :/

[Ezee E]

Hailee Steinfeld got a fucking Oscar nomination and that's not enough to get her name on the DVD cover? I thought that would guarantee her name on the cover along with the cover of every movie she does for now on. :/
It's in the contracts before the movie even starts.

[Spinal]

The billing is to sell the product. No one is buying a DVD because of Hailee Steinfeld.

[baby doll]

The billing is to sell the product. No one is buying a DVD because of Hailee Steinfeld.Maybe pedophiles.

[Boner M]

Maybe pedophiles.
14-year-olds, dude.

[soitgoes...]

Finally saw this. Many things work great in it, but there's something missing to elevate it up to that next level, which is disappointing considering the run the Coens have been on of late. Steinfeld is great, as a lead actress. My favorite part of the film is the characters's diction. It reminded me of Guys and Dolls in how the Coens avoided the use of contractions. I love the way it sounds.

[MadMan]

I'm not surprised that the DVD and Blu Ray covers ended up being terrible. With that many famous actors (and one Oscar winner) in the cast, you can expect that everyone wants to be featured on the cover. Meh.

Still doesn't change the fact that its a really good movie, and better than the original.

[BuffaloWilder]

14-year-olds, dude.

Not exactly pedophilia there, guys.

[Ezee E]

Not exactly pedophilia there, guys.
...

[Winston*]

Not exactly pedophilia there, guys.

...

[ThePlashyBubbler]

Not exactly pedophilia there, guys.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://blog.tomgrover.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/walter.jpg&imgrefurl=http://blog.tomgrover.net/%3Fp%3D231&usg=__rFe5yU7gKmSD51s7h1oOXEsu wKw=&h=357&w=321&sz=30&hl=en&start=6&zoom=1&tbnid=TCb2tiQfXTvCtM:&tbnh=121&tbnw=109&ei=Uu3sTdnNLOrf0QHuw9CcAQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dwalter%2Bsobchak% 26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dof f%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla :en-US:official%26biw%3D531%26bih% 3D696%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&biw=531&bih=696 ...

[Spinal]

I'm not sure if the film appeals to pedophiles. All I know is that little girl spent an awful lot of time alone with LaBoeuf.

[Robby P]

I liked this much more the second time around. It's much more humorous and playful than what I remembered. The exchanges between Bridges and Damon are priceless.

[Irish]

Thought this was a flat, unnecessary remake of an unnecessary film.

The dialogue is terrible, most of the conversations never go anywhere and nobody sounds anything close to authentic. (this is the first time I've ever seen Matt Damon give a bad performance; he's completely out of his depth.)

My main issue, though, is with the pacing. The Coen Bros have never been great with structure, but here they're particularly terrible. The movie is 1:45 minutes long or so. It takes a full 30 minutes for them to hit the trail, and then once the main plot is resolved, the movie keeps going for another 20 minutes. Wtf?

The main plot is dull. The protagonist states her goal ... And the just goes and achieves it. There are no real surprises or reversals and at the end of the main story, nobody is changed (which forces an odd, disjointed epilogue).

Portis's story seems to be going for some kind of morality play, but the Coen's interpretation falls flat. In this movie, it's not character choice thhat decides things but random chance. Damon shows up randomly in two key moments, the girl stumbles across her goal by chance, and she pays for her revenge again, by random chance. I guess you could interpret all that as the "God's grace" referenced in the opening VoiceOver, but to me it"s just bad storytelling.

I kept trying to figure out what the Coens were trying to say with this patch of dialogue or that characterization, until it occurred to me that maybe they weren't trying to say anything and, worse, this story had nothing to say.

[Morris Schæffer]

And even Bridges, man, I just dunno. He was imposing when sitting in that splendidly lit courtroom, but as the movie wore on, his performance just became a bore of a caricature.

[Dukefrukem]

I am with Irish on this one. I really hated the recreation of the famous scene with Cogburn wielding two guns and the reins in his mouth. It was rollseyes worthy. THis was nominated for 10 OScars btw.

[Grouchy]

The Coen Bros have never been great with structure.
Aha. Ok.

[Spun Lepton]

The Coen Bros have never been great with structure ...

:|

[Yxklyx]

I am with Irish on this one. I really hated the recreation of the famous scene with Cogburn wielding two guns and the reins in his mouth. It was rollseyes worthy....

Well, the movie wasn't meant to be serious - or was it? That's one of the problems I had with it - it has a serious subject matter that is occasionally treated too lightly. If it was going for dark comedy it didn't do well in that regard either. Burn After Reading had similar issues in tonality for me.

[Kurosawa Fan]

This was fairly disappointing. I enjoyed Bridges' incarnation of Rooster, and thought his rapport with Damon was solid, but the film lacked that Coen touch. It had a fairly bland second act, and Steinfeld was grating. Wasn't a bad film by any stretch, just sort of middling and forgettable.

[transmogrifier]

That is the correct analysis, I think. Though I would chuck in that the ending was super-silly and not cohesive with the rest of the film.

[Kurosawa Fan]

That is the correct analysis, I think. Though I would chuck in that the ending was super-silly and not cohesive with the rest of the film.

Yeah, it was definitely an awkward postscript. Not sure what purpose that was attempting to serve.

[Spinal]

Steinfeld was grating.

Where were you a year ago?

See Pg.6 of this thread.

[Watashi]

A lot of babydoll wrongness in this thread.

And some Spinal/KF/trans wrongness.

[Ezee E]

Oh yeah, they made this movie. Weird.

[Watashi]

Oh yeah, they made this movie. Weird.
It was their last movie....

[Ezee E]

It was their last movie....
It sure was.

[Derek]

It was their last movie....

Weird.

[Kurosawa Fan]

She struggles with the language. Her line readings are dull and unconvincing. She has little to no emotional depth. There is very little going on beyond the surface. Her character has no internal life. She's not embarrassingly bad because she's well-directed, but she clearly has not yet learned how to act. And the film suffers when she is asked to carry it.

Yeah, this couldn't be more spot on. She's all slick with no substance, and it's very tiresome.

[Spinal]

Yeah, this couldn't be more spot on. She's all slick with no substance, and it's very tiresome.

Oscar-nominated. Still don't get it.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Oscar-nominated. Still don't get it.

Never underestimate the power of a "charming" performance from a precocious youth.

[Watashi]

Abigail Breslin was nominated for Little Miss Sunshine.

Now that's a grating, shrill performance.

[Spinal]

Abigail Breslin was nominated for Little Miss Sunshine.

Now that's a grating, shrill performance.

Well, I don't disagree with this.

[Winston*]

I think the overall point here is that children just shouldn't be given prizes.

[Kiusagi]

The first time I saw this I was underwhelmed. I watched it again and enjoyed it a lot more, which is something that happens to me with a lot of Coen films.

You know what scene gets a lot of praise that I don't get? Mattie negotiating for the horse. I felt it was unfunny and dragged on for way too long.

[transmogrifier]

I think the overall point here is that children just shouldn't be given prizes.

Or even encouraged, really, to do anything.

[Raiders]

The first time I saw this I was underwhelmed. I watched it again and enjoyed it a lot more, which is something that happens to me with a lot of Coen films.

You know what scene gets a lot of praise that I don't get? Mattie negotiating for the horse. I felt it was unfunny and dragged on for way too long.

Uh, my favorite scene in the film. Dakin Matthews is awesome. The timing in that scene is perfect.

[MadMan]

I'll defend the girl's performance in this movie partly because I still have flashbacks to how terrible Kim Darby was in the original. Remove her and the original gets a much higher rating. John Wayne said she was the worst actress he ever worked with, and I don't blame him.

A second viewing caused me to raise my rating of this film. Roger Deakin's brilliant as usual cinematography and the great performances elevate what is rather standard modern western material.

[Spinal]

John Wayne said she was the worst actress he ever worked with

Always a class act.

[Watashi]

All the Coen threads is making me excited for their remake of Gambit coming out this year. Granted, they are not directing it, but writing, so it will be interesting to see what another director does with the Coen's unique vernacular.

Has anyone seen the original? I saw it a few weeks ago. Very twisty and fun. It's ripe for a remake. Though I can't imagine Cameron Diaz replacing Shirley McClaine.

[Morris Schæffer]

I don't even think bridges was that good. A bit of a caricature.

[MadMan]

Always a class act.Hey the guy might have been racist and a grumpy old man at times, but he was right about Kim Darby. She was awful.