The Coen Brothers' True Grit (2010)

[Morris Schæffer]

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=24434

It'll be a different take on the novel though.

[MadMan]

So far my only question is who the hell they'll get to play John Wayne's part. They better at least get "Fill your hands you sons of bitches" right.

[Sycophant]

I should probably watch the original film before I see this, but okay!

[Fezzik]

So far my only question is who the hell they'll get to play John Wayne's part. They better at least get "Fill your hands you sons of bitches" right.

Wasn't that line from Rooster Cogburn?

As for who should play him...well, its a shot in the dark, but the Coens seem to like Tommy Lee Jones...

[ledfloyd]

are they doing this before Yiddish Policeman's Union?

[MadMan]

Wasn't that line from Rooster Cogburn?

As for who should play him...well, its a shot in the dark, but the Coens seem to like Tommy Lee Jones...Nope, that line is from True Grit. He says it before enacting his famous gun wielding, rein between his teeth, riding charge into the valley against the outlaws.

PS: My mistake, its actually "Fill your hands you son of a bitch."

[Grouchy]

Strange. It might work.

[Saya]

Damon, Brolin Have "True Grit" for Coens (http://weblogs.variety.com/bfdealmemo/2009/10/damon-brolin-have-true-grit-for-coens.html)


Matt Damon and Josh Brolin are in discussions with Joel and Ethan Coen to join Jeff Bridges in “True Grit,” the re-imagining of the iconic 1969 Western that Paramount Pictures will put into production next March for late 2010 release.

The Coens, who previously attached their “Big Lebowski” star Bridges to play U.S. marshal Rooster Cogburn, are in talks with Damon to play the lawman (played by Glen Campbell in the original) who teams with Cogburn and a 14-year old girl to track her father’s killer into hostile Indian territory.

In a turnabout, Brolin is in talks to play the killer. The actor’s recent rise was greatly helped playing the good guy in the Coens' Oscar-winning contemporary Western “No Country for Old Men.” Jeff Corey played the killer in the original, and Robert Duvall and Dennis Hopper also played outlaws.

They haven't yet cast the young girl.

The Coens are producing with Scott Rudin and Steven Spielberg. The Coens wrote a script which is more faithful to the Charles Portis novel that inspired the original.

Though their current pic "A Serious Man" isn't chock full of stars, the Coens continue to draw top actors who want to work in their films.

Damon just wrapped the Clint Eastwood-directed “Invictus” and is shooting the George Nolfi-directed “The Adjustment Bureau.” He's also set to re-team with Eastwood in “Hereafter.” Brolin is shooting the Oliver Stone-directed “Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps,” and then will star in the Asger Leth-directed drama “Cartel.”

[Ezee E]

What other actors should be in a Coen film? I'd like to see Meryl Streep and/or Kevin Spacey.

[Sycophant]

I'd love to see the Coens direct 21st century Nicolas Cage.

[chrisnu]

What other actors should be in a Coen film? I'd like to see Meryl Streep and/or Kevin Spacey.
Jeremy Irons, Daniel Day-Lewis, Jude Law, Cate Blanchett

[Spaceman Spiff]

True Grit is awesome. Coens are awesome.

Merge of the awesome?

[megladon8]

I'd like to see Robert De Niro in a Coen film.

[EyesWideOpen]

I'd like to see Robert De Niro in a Coen film.

I wouldn't. I don't think he's even capable of being a good actor again.

[megladon8]

I wouldn't. I don't think he's even capable of being a good actor again.


That's why I'd like to see him in Coen film. To prove statements like this totally ridiculous.

[Spun Lepton]

I wouldn't. I don't think he's even capable of being a good actor again.

:|

[MadMan]

The current planned cast sounds good to me. The Coens Brothers know what they're doing, and the original was merely a good movie, not a great one.

[EyesWideOpen]

That's why I'd like to see him in Coen film. To prove statements like this totally ridiculous.

I'm only going by ten to twelve years worth of films where he's basically sleepwalked.

[Wryan]

Well this is queer news.

[Sycophant]

Well this is queer news.

That's what she said.

[Dukefrukem]

Posting to say I don't approve of this project.

[Sycophant]

Posting to say I don't approve of Dukefrukem's opinions.

[megladon8]

All the talk of this remake has me seriously hankering for a rewatch of the original.

I like John Wayne movies.

[Wryan]

All the talk of this remake has me seriously hankering for a rewatch of the original.

I like John Wayne movies.

I think his best acting performance was She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAIcTFumZKE) or Red River. I like his movies too.

[Sven]

I think his best acting performance was She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAIcTFumZKE) or Red River. I like his movies too.

I just wrote a paper on Wayne and mentioned how laughably unbelievable his performance in Yellow Ribbon is. Just terrible. The definition of unconvincing. His Genghis was more impressive.

[Qrazy]

I think his best performance is either The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance or Stagecoach.

[megladon8]

I was actually a bit underwhelmed with The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. It was good, but I wouldn't consider it a favorite, not even of Wayne's films.

I love The Searchers, Rio Bravo and Red River, though.

[Ezee E]

Liberty Valence and The Searchers are perfect John Wayne movies as far as his performance is concerned.

[MadMan]

Huge John Wayne fan. Having not yet seen the Calvery Trilogy that he did with John Ford or Red River yet, I think his best performance (and the one he should have won the Oscar for instead) is Ethan Edwards.

[B-side]

http://www.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/true_grit_set_photo_hailee_ste infeld_jeff_bridges_02.jpg

This just feels right.

[Sven]

Rooster Cogburn, as written in the book, was practically written for Bridges. In fact, the whole thing feels extremely fit for the Coens (sense of humor and all). It will likely be excellent.

[MadMan]

That picture completely smacks of awesome. Bridges in the role should be great.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Yes! :pritch:

[Dukefrukem]

i like this.

[Wryan]

I just wrote a paper on Wayne and mentioned how laughably unbelievable his performance in Yellow Ribbon is. Just terrible. The definition of unconvincing. His Genghis was more impressive.

Wow. I missed this the last time around. We must have watched different films. How unfortunate. But I liked his performance in that a great deal.

[Sven]

Wow. I missed this the last time around. We must have watched different films. How unfortunate. But I liked his performance in that a great deal.

Hey, got an A on the paper, so I couldn't've been too far off the mark. :)

[Wryan]

Hey, got an A on the paper, so I couldn't've been too far off the mark. :)

Tho you said the paper was on something else and just mentioned the perf... :D

[Sven]

Tho you said the paper was on something else and just mentioned the perf... :D

The paper was on Wayne As Movie Star. Basically, my thesis was that his appeal did not rely on actual "talent." My professor, a fellow Wayne-hater, appreciated the sentiment. However, I served him a yin to go with that yang by writing my final paper on Jerry Lewis, whom he despises and said should be "executed without trial."

[Wryan]

I think Cagney said something about how the only real truth in acting is looking at the person you're acting with and saying your lines, but meaning them. I'd say Cagney has talent in that regard, and a lot of it. I think Wayne has similar talent, but not as persuasive, though I'm sure others would argue.

[Grouchy]

I just want a trailer for this.

Wayne has presence. He wasn't nearly as good an actor as his co-stars, certainly not as good as Cagney, but he made his presence count.

[Philosophe_rouge]

TEASER

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/paramount/truegrit/

I is excite.

[Ezee E]

I was hoping for a teaser when I saw this updated. Can't wait.

[Henry Gale]

Somehow I had no idea Damon was in this. But more importantly, it looks just as good as I could have imagined.

This autumn/winter movie season seems to be stepping up big time to make up for the lackluster months we've had so far this year.

[megladon8]

Looks great but I'm iffy on the girl.

She will make or break the movie.

[Dukefrukem]

Can I take back my Inception bets?

[Qrazy]

Can I take back my Inception bets?

No.

[Dillard]

What were the inception bets?

[number8]

What were the inception bets?

Duke hilariously made actual money bets two months ago in the Inception thread that it's going to win Best Screenplay, Director and Picture.

[Derek]

What were the inception bets?

That it wins at least 2 out of 3 Oscars for Pic, Director and Screenplay. Qrazy caught Duke on tilt.

[Watashi]

Goddamn I love the Coens.

[Boner M]

They're becoming so consistently great that it's almost boring.

[Watashi]

I want the Coens to do a sci-fi film.

[B-side]

TEASER

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/paramount/truegrit/

I is excite.

Fantastic.

[Grouchy]

That's incredible. I didn't remember what it was like to feel actually monkey brain excited about watching an upcoming film.

[megladon8]

I want the Coens to do a sci-fi film.


Me too!

I'd love to see what they'd do with brainy sci-fi.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Looks amazing, as expected.

[B-side]

I don't see how this won't be among the 5 best films of the year.

[Rowland]

I'll use this as an excuse to catch up with the remainder of the Coen oeuvre I haven't yet seen, and rewatch those I haven't seen in many years. I'll make this my goal before the release of their latest. I just recently watched Blood Simple for the first time, which was the teeniest bit disappointing given its reputation, but still a distinct, exciting vision that sheds light on how they've matured over the years.

[Sxottlan]

Looks pretty good. Never saw the original in its entirety; just fragments here and there.

[Morris Schæffer]

And finally the trailers can say "Academy Award Winner Jeff Bridges"

This movie will probably be unmissable.

[MadMan]

I didn't know that Matt Damon, Barry Pepper, and Josh Brolin were also going to be in this. This could be my most anticipated movie of the holiday season. Thank you Coens Brothers for giving me a western to be really excited about-the last one that I saw from the last decade (Appalosa) was merely solid.

[Ezee E]

Are there any directors that are as consistently great as the Coens that also put out a movie nearly every 1-2 years?

[Rowland]

Just watched the Coens' warm-hearted submission to the 2007 anthology film To Each His Own Cinema, World Cinema (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMYAtgapMro). The purpose of the project was for participating filmmakers to express what cinema personally means to them in short form; considered as such, the Coens' work here is strikingly sincere and optimistic.

[dreamdead]

Are there any directors that are as consistently great as the Coens that also put out a movie nearly every 1-2 years?

Intolerable Cruelty? Their highs are magnificent, and they usually do enough to elicit favorable scores, but like trans notes, their consistency doesn't necessarily translate to greatness. Burn After Reading and A Serious Man are interesting works that deviate from their adaptative and generic/genre tendencies, but I can't think of them as great. They shoot a marvelous West, though.

I'm excited for the film, but the uniformity of greatness lavished on them is a tad much.

[Raiders]

I used to not be a big believer after the run from O Brother (a film I now like more than before) through The Ladykillers, but with their last three efforts (their most recent probably being my absolute favorite of theirs) I must admit, I'm back in the fold.

To answer E's question, I imagine some would name Kim Ki-duk, though obviously I would vehemently disagree, and a few other Eastern filmmakers as well (Miike, Hong Sang-soo among them). In general, the Coens are rather unique in their consistency and ability to keep churning them out. Still though, it says something that one quality film a year is viewed at as "prolific" when you have classic directors like Anthony Mann (FOUR noteworthy films in 1950) and many early-cinema directors who turned out multiple quality films in one year. The system has changed, no doubt about it.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, outside of Miike, I can barely think of any directors that are able to put out more then one a year. The process, despite being easier to transport, edit, shoot, etc, takes much longer. It's really all in the advertising I'd like to think.

This is actually an interesting idea now that I think about it.

[transmogrifier]

To answer E's question, I imagine some would name Kim Ki-duk, though obviously I would vehemently disagree, and a few other Eastern filmmakers as well (Miike, Hong Sang-soo among them). In general, the Coens are rather unique in their consistency and ability to keep churning them out. Still though, it says something that one quality film a year is viewed at as "prolific" when you have classic directors like Anthony Mann (FOUR noteworthy films in 1950) and many early-cinema directors who turned out multiple quality films in one year. The system has changed, no doubt about it.

Yeah, I noticed a couple of days ago that Sam Peckinpah, in the midst of alcoholism, managed to make and release 8 movies between 1969 and 1975. And some pretty friggin awesome ones as well.

[Grouchy]

Just watched the Coens' warm-hearted submission to the 2007 anthology film To Each His Own Cinema, World Cinema (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMYAtgapMro). The purpose of the project was for participating filmmakers to express what cinema personally means to them in short form; considered as such, the Coens' work here is strikingly sincere and optimistic.
YES, I also watched that recently on YouTube (it wasn't in the theater cut when I went to see the anthology) and found it a warm and perfectly made little story.

[Morris Schæffer]

http://www.empireonline.com/images/uploaded/grit-bg.gif

[number8]

The placement of the blood is awkward, but I love it anyway.

[MacGuffin]

Ugh... I still need to see A Serious Man.

[Ezee E]

The new-new trailer can be seen in the theater. Not as great as the one that's posted, but still sweet. Looks like there's a lot of Searchers-esque stuff going on.

[Sxottlan]

Yeah I think I actually like the shorter trailer better, but still looks pretty good.

One always roots for Roger Deakins, but the work here looks just solid. Then again, I go for the painterly looking movies like TAOJJBTCRF.

[Sven]

TAOFFBTCRF

Fred Flinstone?

I am personally slightly disappointed that it looks like a straightforward brooding Western. However, I am positive it will be excellent, so there's no use fretting.

[Sxottlan]

Fred Flinstone?

:lol:

The Assassination of Fred Flintstone by the Coward Barney Rubble.

He was getting so sick of him taking his pebbles.

[Wryan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGKac6-tRQM

That new-new trailer...until it gets taken down or whatnot.

[Grouchy]

I think I've already seen enough of this movie.

I swear, sometimes it's like the Coens live in my head. I've long felt that Johnny Cash's "God's Gonna Cut You Down" was perfect for a western.

[number8]

I swear, sometimes it's like the Coens live in my head. I've long felt that Johnny Cash's "God's Gonna Cut You Down" was perfect for a western.

You're not the only one. Then again, it's kind of obvious, really.

[Grouchy]

Yeah, ok, that wasn't the most original idea in the world.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I was actually less impressed with that trailer, but I have all the faith in the world in the Coens.

[Barty]

New trailer is better than life.

[Grouchy]

New trailer is better than life.
Eh, the movie looks incredible, but I preferred the teaser in this case.

Less is more.

[MadMan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGKac6-tRQM

That new-new trailer...until it gets taken down or whatnot.Really good, but yeah the teaser was much better.

[Boner M]

Eh, the movie looks incredible, but I preferred the teaser in this case.

Less is more.
Better than Barty's life, perhaps.

[Dillard]

First Impressions (http://www.thewrap.com/awards/column-post/showdown-time-draws-near-%E2%80%98true-grit%E2%80%99-22853) are good.

[Spun Lepton]

As we approach the release date, I'm anticipating it more. These last few weeks are gonna kill me.

[Irish]

As we approach the release date, I'm anticipating it more. These last few weeks are gonna kill me.
I'm nervous, but Westerns always make me nervous.

Still dumbfounded by the level of balls it takes to step into one of John Wayne's more iconic roles.

Good for Bridges, good for the Coens ... I like the ambition, I just hope they don't completely fuck it up.

[Spun Lepton]

I'm nervous, but Westerns always make me nervous.

Still dumbfounded by the level of balls it takes to step into one of John Wayne's more iconic roles.

Good for Bridges, good for the Coens ... I like the ambition, I just hope they don't completely fuck it up.

Well, I'm a drooling fanboy of the Coens. IMO, their worst is better than some directors' best. It also seems too good to be true that they're making a Western not long after I developed a love for Westerns. Plus, the cast is top-notich.

[Ezee E]

Good for Bridges, good for the Coens ... I like the ambition, I just hope they don't completely fuck it up.

Have they ever fucked up?

No. They haven't. Maybe a slight detour, but they've never fucked up.

[Irish]

IMO, their worst is better than some directors' best. It also seems too good to be true that they're making a Western not long after I developed a love for Westerns. Plus, the cast is top-notich.
Agree, agree, and agree.


Have they ever fucked up?

No. They haven't. Maybe a slight detour, but they've never fucked up.
"Fuck up" might be too strong a phrase.

These guys are a little bit weird about genre. On one hand, I feel like they have a deep understanding of it. On the other hand, sometimes their need for humor or intellectual fireworks overrides their sense of narrative and gets in the way of what they might be trying to accomplish (Miller's Crossing, Barton Fink, O Brother Where Art Thou, Intolerable Cruelty).

My fear comes that they'll try too hard and end up doing some kind of pastiche, another close-but-different kind of project.

True Grit is also an adaptation of a book and a well known movie, and arguably the Coen's are at their best when they're writing their own stuff.

[Sven]

These guys are a little bit weird about genre.

So it's not just you, then?

:)

[Robby P]

Is anyone else surprised this is PG-13? The trailers looked pretty graphic to me.

[DavidSeven]

Yeah, that's odd. You wouldn't think something with this story and this title would be the moment where the Coens decide to get sanitized. Kinda disappointing, especially with the weak buzz coming out on this one right now.

[Watashi]

Kinda disappointing, especially with the weak buzz coming out on this one right now.

Link?

I've heard nothing but great things.

[DavidSeven]

Link?

I've heard nothing but great things.

True Grit: Coen Brothers Movie a Misfire (http://www.opposingviews.com/i/true-grit-coen-brothers-movie-a-misfire)

True Grit: The Coen Brothers Remake May be One Bullet Short of Oscar (http://www.showbiz411.com/2010/12/06/true-grit-the-coen-brothers-remake-may-be-one-bullet-short-of-an-oscar)

True Grit has more in common with Treasure Island than No Country for Old Men (http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2010-12-01-coens01_ST_N.htm)

True Grit isn't quite the masterpiece some were expecting (http://blog.moviefone.com/2010/12/01/true-grit-review/)

True Grit Remake Surprisingly Humorless (http://www.theusdaily.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=1277930&type=EntertainmentFil)

Haven't read any of these reviews, and they might not be the most reputable, but these are what come up immediately in a Google News search. And I'm not seeing any links popping up praising the film to high heaven. It's also underperforming on the awards circuit and on critics' list. That's not to say that I think the film will be terrible, but just that the buzz has been considerably weaker for this than there other recent output.

EDIT: I'm predicting a strong Tomatometer for it because it seems more accessible than just about anything they've done, but I'm guessing the "in favors" wont as emphatically in favor as they were for their other efforts. Hope I'm wrong.

[Sycophant]

Only two of those are really reviews, and only the first is negative. The others say that it may not be the Oscar shoo-in that was expected or that it's too short and stuff. Strangely, the headlines are different than the link titls for most of them. Nothing too damning.

EDIT: I don't think that fifth one was there before. Ok. Two negative reviews.

[Watashi]

One review called it a "a cold and mannered "art" western" and the other called it a "family film".

So which one is it?

[DavidSeven]

Well. the second link starts off talking about the Oscar stuff but then says...


Unfortunately, this may now all come to naught, ‘for “True Grit” has finally started screening. And while it’s fine, it’s not exceptional, and falls maybe a bullet short of an Oscar nomination.

The first half hour or so: brilliant and inventive. The rest of it: a little dull and drawn out.

Yeah, not that damning, but hardly high praise. The other two aren't outright down on the film, but still lukewarm enough to be disappointing. And it's like I said, I'm not saying this film is getting beat up on. Just that the buzz for it seems quite tempered compared to their recent efforts.

As for the link titles, I was grabbing lines out of the review (except for the first and last, which were the only outright pans).

[Sycophant]

Fair.

[DavidSeven]

The weak buzz thing is just my perception of it. And I'm disappointed that the "grit" seems watered down judging by the MPAA rating. Hope I'm wrong because I love both trailers. The second plays especially well in the theater.

[DavidSeven]

One review called it a "a cold and mannered "art" western" and the other called it a "family film".

So which one is it?

Well, I guess it would be possible for the film to be both cold and mannered (emotionally distant or perhaps, cerebral), but also family friendly (not explicitly violent, father-daughter themes).

[MadMan]

True Grit Remake Surprisingly HumorlessWhy the hell would a serious, dramatic western have humor in it? This isn't supposed to be a comedy. What a stupid headline. Sure the book may have had humor, but that doesn't mean it has to make it into the Coens' remake.

[Ezee E]

I think since it's Coen Brothers that people assume it has to have the Coen wit to it.

[MadMan]

Those people must have completely erased No Country For Old Men from their memory.

[DavidSeven]

No Country for Old Men was pretty funny.

[Boner M]

Probably worth noting that the Coens have never quite been the surefire critical darlings that everyone thinks they are - only Blood Simple, Fargo and No Country have had across-the-board raves.

[Irish]

Is anyone else surprised this is PG-13? The trailers looked pretty graphic to me.

Hm. Sorta. But then I'm surprised stuff like Ladykillers, Intolerable Cruelty, and Lebowski warranted "R" ratings.

The original film didn't strike me as terribly violent, at least not shockingly so (like, say, throwing a guy in a wood chipper).

[Sycophant]

Intolerable Cruelty

PG-13

[DavidSeven]

Probably worth noting that the Coens have never quite been the surefire critical darlings that everyone thinks they are - only Blood Simple, Fargo and No Country have had across-the-board raves.

True enough. But considering the return to (presumably) violent genre work, the re-team with Bridges and a promising trailer, I was hoping for mouth-watering raves. Maybe they'll still come as more trickle in, but the hype for NCFOM seemed pretty immediate.

[Boner M]

True enough. But considering the return to (presumably) violent genre work, the re-team with Bridges and a promising trailer, I was hoping for mouth-watering raves. Maybe they'll still come as more trickle in, but the hype for NCFOM seemed pretty immediate.
NCFOM had 'return-to-form' value, though.

[DavidSeven]

NCFOM had 'return-to-form' value, though.

Very true.

[Rowland]

D'Angelo gave it a 68, which is a really solid score on his scale. That said, he also gave the great A Serious Man a 48 and their comparatively good Burn After Reading an 82.

[jamaul]

Saw this last night. Here are a couple of observations:

--It's an interesting exercise for the Coens, as if they intended to try their hands at a more conventional film and do it successfully. In that sense, the film works exceedingly well: it's surprisingly old-school, actually really quite funny, superbly acted and written. For those leery on the PG-13: this isn't a terribly violent film, but the times it does foray into violence, it doesn't shy away. If you recall in No Country, all of the violence was performed in an exacting, realistic way--never gratuitous. The Coens do not betray that tactic here. There were a couple of moments I found myself surprised that they got by the MPAA with this rating (Coen-Clout??)
--The Coens employ an ending this time around! Although the ending is still the one part I'm mulling over trying to figure out if it's a strength or a weakness. In that sense, even in mainstream 'family' fair, the Coens continue to confound in their conclusions.
--This is not a 'family' film. It is more of a 'family' film though than No Country.
--All of the characters have very Coen-esque quirks about them, and none of them are nearly as conventional as they are portrayed in the trailer.
--Bridges=TheShit. But it's Hailee Steinfeld who really blew my mind. She is really quite wonderful in this film, in a part that could have easily been reduced to trite precociousness by a lesser actress (Dakota Fanning?)
--If No Country alluded to the Western genre, the Coens make up for any allusions or suggestions here ... this is as much a Western as Unforgiven, although it is not so much a revisionist one: it doesn't aim for grand statements or reevaluations.
--Surprisingly enough, this film fits finely in the Coen's ouevre. There are moments that contain so much of the humor, darkness and cynicism we're used to with these guys. The surprising part though is their restraint of that cynicism in the film's better moments: the Damon/Bridges/Steinfeld trio, at its best, is an oddball mix of personalities that reminded me slightly of Rio Bravo (if not as extensively or successfully). The relationship between the three is never sentimentalized, which makes it all the more emotionally resonant when the film ends.

[Thirdmango]

I get to see this on saturday. I'm so excited. Coens are if not my favorite directors, definitely in the top three.

[Spaceman Spiff]

This is PG-13? That's incredibly disappointing.

[Sycophant]

So, there's not gonna be a lot of fuck-words and the violence won't be too grisly (though Jamaul indicates that it's still pretty boldly presented). I can cope with that.

[Adam]

Miller's Crossing is probably the best Coens movie and that was a very soft R. I expect this one to be a lot of fun

[Spun Lepton]

This is PG-13? That's incredibly disappointing.

Because a film's quality is always directly related to the rating.

[Pop Trash]

Hm. Sorta. But then I'm surprised stuff like Ladykillers, Intolerable Cruelty, and Lebowski warranted "R" ratings.


Lebowski has a shit-load of fucking cursing.

[Qrazy]

Lebowski has a shit-load of fucking cursing.

And trampoline nudity.

[Raiders]

Because a film's quality is always directly related to the rating.

It's not, but the Coens' brand of foul-mouthed, humorous nihilism and bouts of brutal and bleak violence don't lend themselves to a rating preserved typically for bloodless action films and adult romantic comedies. Perhaps it is knee-jerk, but for many it gives the impression they may have "watered" themselves down a little. More likely this is simply a less brutal and profane throwback, so I do agree that concerns seem unwarranted until proven otherwise.

[number8]

The only directors that I would throw a fit when they make a PG-13 movie are Eli Roth and George Romero. Everyone else, feel free.

[DavidSeven]

It's not, but the Coens' brand of foul-mouthed, humorous nihilism and bouts of brutal and bleak violence don't lend themselves to a rating preserved typically for bloodless action films and adult romantic comedies. Perhaps it is knee-jerk, but for many it gives the impression they may have "watered" themselves down a little. More likely this is simply a less brutal and profane throwback, so I do agree that concerns seem unwarranted until proven otherwise.

I basically agree with this. I was expecting it to be this thing that I know the Coens do well, but it turns it out it might not be that thing. A little disappointing. That doesn't preclude it, however, from be terrific as something else.

[Irish]

Lebowski has a shit-load of fucking cursing.

I thought it might have been for "scenes of amputated toes and cock doodling."

I never notice ratings anymore, unless it's a PG-13 horror.

[Thirdmango]

I saw this at a pre-screening last night. It was amazing, the Coen's are just so good at getting good performances out of their actors and having fantastic dialogue. My whole group was interested about the PG-13 thing, but from what I could tell, the Coen's made the movie they wanted to make and didn't care what rating it had. There were moments which did make us surprised it didn't get an R.

[kopello]

My fiance scored free passes for a screening here in Little Rock Tuesday night, which just happens to be the night of my last final. :frustrated:

[Ezee E]

I missed my free screening. Showed up twenty minutes too late and it was filled.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Because a film's quality is always directly related to the rating.

Fuck that shit. I want to see blood and tits.

(Although I'm sure this'll be great anyways.)

[jamaul]

I missed my free screening. Showed up twenty minutes too late and it was filled.

You lose.

[DavidSeven]

So, uh, anyone see this yet?

(Truthfully, just trying to mix up the top threads in the subforum).

[Sxottlan]

If anyone cares, Walter Chaw called it a great comedy on his FB page.

[MadMan]

Midnight showing of the movie tonight. I'm excited.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Midnight showing of the movie tonight. I'm excited.

Thoughts? I'm watching this with a few friends tonight.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Hurm. It's certainly exquisitely well made (the Coens really are master craftsmen), but it feels just a little too... neat and safe (?) After the formally stunning and creepily atmospheric No Country, the bat-shit wacky Burn After Reading, and the deliciously caustic and jewy A Serious Man, a very simple story done very simply is just a tad of a let-down.

I did however enjoy this (don't get me wrong), but unlike their last three films my socks remained very much on my feet by the end credits.

[Spaceman Spiff]

There's this one shot (or a series I should say) very late in the movie, which I'm wondering how people will react to. I think it's pretty tongue-in-cheek (in terms of framing it comes across as quite jarring), but it certainly looks off, for lack of a better word.

There were also 2 very funny moments in the film. One of them is a line that is said fairly early on. The delivery is excellent. You'll know it when you hear it, I think.

[jamaul]

Hurm. It's certainly exquisitely well made (the Coens really are master craftsmen), but it feels just a little too... neat and safe (?) After the formally stunning and creepily atmospheric No Country, the bat-shit wacky Burn After Reading, and the deliciously caustic and jewy A Serious Man, a very simple story done very simply is just a tad of a let-down.

I did however enjoy this (don't get me wrong), but unlike their last three films my socks remained very much on my feet by the end credits.

Neat and safe until the abrupt, unexpected coda. Everything before it played out so intriguingly old-school--splashed with very Coen-esque humor--until that ending came in and completely de-romanticized the experience. Talk about an ending that truly examines the consequences of what preceded it. That hit me, hard, and I thought about these contrasts for days afterward.

I still think the Coen Roll continues: gorgeously mounted, exhilarating, always entertaining, and up there with any of their second-tier work (Man Who Wasn't There, O' Brother, Burn After Reading). However, I will agree, this is no masterpiece ... this is no Serious Man.

[Spaceman Spiff]

The experience was thoroughly de-romanticized far earlier. That's what makes the deaths at cabin so shocking, as prior to that the movie really seemed like a family film. So I don't know if I totally buy that.

I was also a little disappointed with Brolin's character. I was hoping they'd flesh him out more, maybe make his motives clear or at least make him an interesting character in some way, but he's hardly in it and doesn't transcend beyond "stupid bad guy".

[Sxottlan]

Holy smokes! That opening shot!

Highly entertaining. The epilogue continues an interesting theme this year of..

Main characters with amputations. This, How to Train Your Dragon and 127 Hours. Some kind of "post" Iraq War commentary?

[Derek]

There's this one shot (or a series I should say) very late in the movie, which I'm wondering how people will react to. I think it's pretty tongue-in-cheek (in terms of framing it comes across as quite jarring), but it certainly looks off, for lack of a better word.

I'm not one for charades, but I'll give it a guess:

The shots as Cogburn rides Mattie back after she's bit? The sky appears almost like a backdrop - that sequence reminded me of Night of the Hunter in its use of artifice.


There were also 2 very funny moments in the film. One of them is a line that is said fairly early on. The delivery is excellent. You'll know it when you hear it, I think.

I thought there were a lot of funny moments in the film, so I can't wager a guess on this one. I'm particular to Bridges delivery via close-up of "You're not LeBeouf."

This is nothing spectacular, but this isn't exactly the standard Western fare I was beginning to fear it'd be. Visually and structurally, the Coen's have done much better, but they were particularly focused on language, word play and the actor's pacing and delivery of their dialogue here and in that respect, it's damn impressive. I found it added a lot of humor (I could listen to Bridges say "LeBeef" all day) and was a very playful way of toying with the period aspect of the film. Much of the film's charm comes simply from Mattie's precocious, mature delivery playing off Bridges drunken drawl and Damon's thick Texan accent (even moreso after the tongue incident). Never reaches the heights the fantastic trailer suggests, but score another one for Coens.

[Watashi]

The whole hoopla over this being PG-13 was meaningless. I have no idea how this did not get a R.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I'm not one for charades, but I'll give it a guess:

The shots as Cogburn rides Mattie back after she's bit? The sky appears almost like a backdrop - that sequence reminded me of Night of the Hunter in its use of artifice.

You got it. A very deliberate wink, I thought. I'm pretty sure I've seen that exact shot in 3 different Hawks' movies. Possibly Johnny Guitar as well.


I thought there were a lot of funny moments in the film, so I can't wager a guess on this one. I'm particular to Bridges delivery via close-up of "You're not LeBeouf."


If you would like to sleep in a coffin. That would be all right. /FADE OUTI thought that was hilarious.
I also loved Rooster being very drunk and that long shot of them on horses and him drunkenly humming.

[Fezzik]

Just got in from seeing this. I loved the hell out of it.

I'd wondered about Bridges in the Cogburn role, admittedly. After seeing this, though, I think he was the ONLY choice for the role.

Deakins is at the top of his game, here, and I agree the "sky as backdrop" shots are nothing more than an homage. And although they don't have the same gritty feel as most of the other shots in the film, I think they add a dream-like quality to the sequence, which is somewhat fitting considering the hallucination.

And yeah, this was funnier than I expected.

Also...Hallie Steinfeld? Where did SHE come from? I've never seen her before and she was pretty damn good, especially considering she had to hold her own against Bridges and Damon.

[Spaceman Spiff]

She was okay I guess. I mean, it's not that hard to act sassy nowadays. She was good if only because she didn't deliver a terrible child performance which made me want to strangle her.

I hate kids.

[Spun Lepton]

Good golly what a wonderful movie. It shouldn't surprise anybody that I loved it. Gorgeously shot as expected. I love the Coens' dialogue. They always milk the best performances from their cast. I barely recognized Jeff Bridges, I saw only Rooster. Brilliant. Matt Damon seems like a good fit for the Coens, he was as good as always. And congrats to Hallie Steinfeld for being a total natural. Good kid actors are hard to find, and Coen bros. dialogue can't be easy for somebody that young.

Josh Brolin's part in the movie was unexpectedly brief. Chaney is remarkably different from Llewellyn Moss. The man is a chameleon. At first I'd wished they'd given him more character time, but then I realized that by making him inconsequential, and almost comic relief, the audience would care less about him.

The film's focus is shifted to Mattie murdering another man. She pays for it anyway, and for the rest of her life she's cold inside. True grit.

And congrats to Barry Pepper for crawling out from under that rock. I didn't even recognize him.

Has anybody read the book? Is it all told strictly from Mattie's point-of-view like in the movie?

[Raiders]

Immaculately crafted, tonally terrific, stellar comedic timing... ho hum. It's another Coen Brothers film.

I think the funniest moment for me was Stonehill's "wait, are we trading again?" Tremendous comedy beat.

[Henry Gale]

Really good stuff, everyone is doing seemingly effortlessly good jobs here, whether it's the actors (highly billed or not) or the Coens and their regular people like Deakins and Burwell on the other side of things. For me though, it's just not quite up there with their last few for whatever reason. Maybe it's just because it feels less unique than those last three, but even the fact that this is their fourth film in four years even half as stellar as they've all been is pretty much an achievement in itself. They're in a very good groove right now, arguably as good as they've ever been, and I hope they keep it up.

Many have already pointed this out, but its consistently oddball humour (which I'll admit, had only me and a couple of my friends laughing throughout and the rest of the audience doing so more intermittently) is definitely one of the things that makes this a movie very much one by the Coens, instead of just a better version of other straight-faced westerns like The Missing, and in the end one that I'm really able to get on the side of.

***½

[Spaceman Spiff]

It's pretty much the Coens taking a crack at Classical Hollywood. I appreciate it more now than I did before, even if I'd still prefer their subversive weirdness.

[Robby P]

Well, I guess I'll cast the lone dissenting vote. I thought this was Coens on autopilot. Not nearly as memorable or provocative as their last few creations.

Leaving the theater, I was simply left wondering why the Coens chose to make this movie in the first place. It really didn't seem like their heart was in it.

[Pop Trash]

Strong work. The first half-hour I thought it might get a bit cutsie with the girl, but luckily that never happened.

The PG-13 is Temple of Doom level absurdity. This has as much violence as Fargo, minus cursing and sexuality. But I guess the Coens discovered the Spielberg trick that if you leave out cursing and sex/nudity, you can practically throw all kinds of violence in there and still get your PG/PG-13.

I like the Coens in classic Hollywood mode. I don't think a little sentimentality is going to kill them. I admit I was a little choked up by the end.

This also had some Assassination of Jesse James (still the superior Western) in the irony of gunslingers becoming basically irrelevant as the industrial age set in and being forced to traffic in nostalgia for a bygone era.

[ledfloyd]

(which I'll admit, had only me and a couple of my friends laughing throughout and the rest of the audience doing so more intermittently)
the entire audience i saw it with (and the theater was pretty much full) was in hysterics from pretty much the beginning until the end. it was a fun viewing experience.

[Pop Trash]

the entire audience i saw it with (and the theater was pretty much full) was in hysterics from pretty much the beginning until the end. it was a fun viewing experience.

The "doctor" with the bear on his head killed me, but I think I was the only one laughing. The biggest laugh with my aud. was the cornbread shoot-off.

[Ezee E]

If it weren't for the Coen goofball humor/dialog and the performance from Hailee, I would probaby nay this, but alas, they are there, and it elevates the movie. Hailee is especially good in the first twenty minutes of the movie, handling very tough dialog while showing good emotional range at the same time. Why isn't she getting pushed for awards?

The goofball nature of it has already been mentioned. The "that'd be alright" is pure Coen, and I'll still sadly say that there wasn't enough of the Coen-touch in this, especially in the second half of the movie. You got the brutal bits of violence and Barry Pepper spitting everywhere, but that's about it.

Slightly disappointed, even if I did like it. Maybe it's just because the Coen Brothers were on such a roll that I had higher expectations then I should have.

[Pop Trash]

One question:

Who was the guy that Mattie called "trash" at the end of the movie? Was that Josh Brolin with old dude make-up? Or someone else?

[Raiders]

One question:

Who was the guy that Mattie called "trash" at the end of the movie? Was that Josh Brolin with old dude make-up? Or someone else?

No, it's Frank James (the other guy was Cole Younger). She calls him that because he didn't stand up, essentially disrespecting her.

[Pop Trash]

No, it's Frank James (the other guy was Cole Younger). She calls him that because he didn't stand up, essentially disrespecting her.

So it's implied Josh Brolin died from that blow to his head?

[Raiders]

So it's implied Josh Brolin died from that blow to his head?

I would say it is more than implied he died from the shotgun blast to his chest and falling down the cliff.

[Pop Trash]

I would say it is more than implied he died from the shotgun blast to his chest and falling down the cliff.

Hmmm...not remembering that part...but thanks!

[Raiders]

Hmmm...not remembering that part...but thanks!

Seriously? It's the climax of the scuffle on top of the hill/cliff between Mattie, LaBoeuf and Chaney. Not sure how you forget that, but glad to help.

[Ezee E]

I would say it is more than implied he died from the shotgun blast to his chest and falling down the cliff.
haha. That's hilarious.

[Spun Lepton]

Hmmm...not remembering that part...but thanks!

Do you often suffer from blackouts?

[Pop Trash]

Do you often suffer from blackouts?

I think I tend to watch movies differently than other people. My thoughts were probably lingering on a choice of music or camera movement or something.

[Ezee E]

I think I tend to watch movies differently than other people. My thoughts were probably lingering on a choice of music or camera movement or something.
So in 127 Hours, you realized that James Franco did indeed get his arm trapped between a rock and a hard place right? :)

[Yxklyx]

Well that was disappointing. The Coens just don't do it for me anymore.

[Mysterious Dude]

So at the end of the movie, a quarter of a century later, Mattie says that La Boeuf must be closer to eighty than seventy. Wouldn't that make him in his early fifties in the main story? Seems a bit old.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Yeah, that bugged me too.

[megladon8]

Yeah, I definitely noticed that age thing, but it didn't bother me that much. Though I suppose it does make it even creepier that he had wanted to kiss her.


Anyways, yeah, that was a pretty great movie. I thought they lost it a bit with the ending, but everything up until the flash-forward in time was stellar.

I was particularly impressed by Hailey Steinfeld. I would not be surprised (or opposed) if she received an Oscar nomination.


Typical of the Coen's the dialogue is unmatched, and they showed great control when it came to anything involving gunplay. The few (and brief) scenes of any kind of action were more about the tension than the actual shooting, which is certainly very much in keeping with the western formula.

Great stuff!

[SirNewt]

I really liked this and definitely think it's better than the original (which I was never much impressed by). I agree about the end though. The flash forward just felt wrong. I'm not sure why. Maybe because the film went from a sprint to leisurely walk in 2 seconds flat.

[Spinal]

As a cumulative experience, it makes an impact. But I have more reservations than I normally have with a Coen Brothers movie. It takes nearly halfway through the film for things to really get going. The first half is plodding and awkward, largely due to the fact that young Hailee Steinfeld is asked to carry most of the scenes and, unfortunately, her Mattie Ross never quite registers as a plausible human being. She is so clearly a fictional creation that it is hard to feel much investment in her quest. Matt Damon doesn't fare much better. There is little about his performance that screams authenticity. Fortunately, Jeff Bridges' lead performance and his character's growing admiration for his employer lends the film a much-needed soul. Barry Pepper also excels in a captivating supporting role that steals much of Josh Brolin's thunder. When it's good, it's very, very good. It's just a shame that we have to wait for the bullets to start flying before the film raises our pulse.

[Spinal]

If it weren't for the Coen goofball humor/dialog and the performance from Hailee, I would probaby nay this, but alas, they are there, and it elevates the movie. Hailee is especially good in the first twenty minutes of the movie, handling very tough dialog while showing good emotional range at the same time. Why isn't she getting pushed for awards?



Whoa, really?

[Watashi]

Yeah, Steinfield's performance is by far my favorite aspect of the film.

With her and Jennifer Lawerence, it's a good year for strong young female characters.

[Spinal]

You guys, she's pretty bad.

[Watashi]

You guys, she's pretty bad.
Uh.... no.

[Raiders]

Uh.... no.

Yeah, that's just bizarre.

[Ezee E]

You guys, she's pretty bad.
I don't see it myself.

[Spun Lepton]

You guys, she's pretty bad.

Strongly disagree.

[Mysterious Dude]

Though I know in my head that no 14-year-old would be able to dominate every conversation she has with an adult the way Mattie Ross does, I never doubted her or found her character implausible.

[Robby P]

Yeah, I thought Steinfeld was the best part of the movie. Agree with your other criticisms, though. Glacial pacing from the get-go, failed to grasp my interest until the climactic action sequences and even those were handled awkwardly.

I thought Barry Pepper was ridiculous in this. He watched one too many Yosemite Sam cartoons if you ask me.

[Yxklyx]

You guys, she's pretty bad.

I'll back you up here.

My main problem I think with this film (as with other recent Coen's) is the jarring disjoint between tone of dialogue and subject matter. The dialogue came across as too flippant given the story so that most of the characters didn't fit in with the story being told - her's being one of them. I could not invest myself in any of these characters which I think is needed with such a serious story. She would have fit right in, in say The Big Lebowski.

[Spinal]

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.

[Raiders]

She struggles with the language. Her line readings are dull and unconvincing.

Yeah, I didn't see one iota of this. Sorry, I can't even argue because it is so far removed from the way I saw her carry herself in the film.


She has little to no emotional depth. There is very little going on beyond the surface. Her character has no internal life.Again, it is pretty shocking how different we viewed this. Her determinism, that is to say her monotonous, headstrong delivery and attitude were precisely the character she wanted to show everyone. This is her way of dealing with the death of her father; her entire existence becomes her mission to find his killer. I think the awkwardness of her character is very much a product of your next comment, the great direction, that we don't get to see her emotional side (I believe she has one). She's only 14, but she is determined to be as mature as possible, to stand in for her mother and family, to be the voice of their pain. She is burdening a lot, and I find that her character is so monotone to be very emotional in itself.

[Watashi]

I also love that despite her sterness and over-determination, she still remains a kid at heart, and I thought Hailee pulled off both sides beautifully.

[Fezzik]

In fact, had she not had that monotone, rat-a-tat, veiled "maturity" in her readings, her scenes with the trader would not nearly have been as effective, especially the aforementioned punchline "wait, we're not trading again, are we?"

Her manner, her tone, her too-much-for-her-age assuredness is what flustered people. And when the movie called for it, she was also clearly 14 or 15. Her reactions (usually just facial expressions) to Cogburn's acts or the violence were pretty perfect. Dumbfounded, scared but trying oh so hard to remain "mature."

[Spaceman Spiff]

I'm guessing Spinal just doesn't like kids, which is fair enough.

[Russ]

He doesn't like God or kids. The commie bastard.

[megladon8]

Yeah, Spinal's New Years resolution should be "stop being nuts".

[Spinal]

Sorry. It's an empty, one-note performance for me. A place holder. Serviceable, but not enough to drive the film.

[D_Davis]

So this movie was really super good. Loved it.

[Milky Joe]

So this movie was really super good. Loved it.

Agreed. I thought that the girl who played Mattie, in particular, was really good. :)

Didn't much care for the music, however. Too generic, too Hollywood. Particularly in the scene where she crosses the river on her horse. How much better would that have been without the overblown 'inspiring' music?

[D_Davis]

Didn't much care for the music, however. Too generic, too Hollywood. Particularly in the scene where she crosses the river on her horse. How much better would that have been without the overblown 'inspiring' music?

I agree. It's one area in which no American-made western will ever compare with the Italian ones.

I was thinking the entire time how lame the music was. I think it would've been a cool choice to have some anachronistic music in this.

[D_Davis]

And damn it was good to see Barry Pepper in this. He's so good.

Loved that first explosion of violence. That was a fantastic scene.

[bac0n]

Wow, breathtakingly great film. Best western I've played in ages. Makes me wanna throw in Red Dead Redemption, jump on a horse, and poke around in the hills NW of Blackwater.

[megladon8]

Wow, breathtakingly great film. Best western I've played in ages. Makes me wanna throw in Red Dead Redemption, jump on a horse, and poke around in the hills NW of Blackwater.


Glad you liked it, bac0n.

PS...

Check your FaceBook messages, duder!!

[B-side]

And damn it was good to see Barry Pepper in this. He's so good.

Loved that first explosion of violence. That was a fantastic scene.

Him and Steinfeld were the highlights for me. While I did enjoy Bridges as Cogburn, I gotta say he did come off like a goofy impersonation at times. I don't think I feel strong enough about that to really criticize his performance, though, so maybe I shouldn't have said anything.:P

[D_Davis]

Wow, breathtakingly great film. Best western I've played in ages. Makes me wanna throw in Red Dead Redemption, jump on a horse, and poke around in the hills NW of Blackwater.

I almost bought Red Dead on the way home. :)

[Derek]

Leaving the theater, I was simply left wondering why the Coens chose to make this movie in the first place. It really didn't seem like their heart was in it.

Late on this one, but as True Grit is the brothers favorite film, I can´t imagine they´d only put a half-hearted effort into remaking it.

[DavidSeven]

This was really good. I think what separates it from their first tier work, however, isn't necessarily a lack of substance. Narrative engagement could have compensated for that, but I sort of feel this story was more "good enough" than truly great. The final scenes weren't the dramatic knockouts they could have been. The relationships among the leads could have been better developed. As is, the ending was well-executed, but it failed to deliver an emotional wallop because the "family" ties seemed barely forged by the time we got there. The film is otherwise handsomely mounted, engaging, and supremely well-acted. It's a sort of wonderful little film in its own right, even if there was potential for it to be something more.

[DavidSeven]

So at the end of the movie, a quarter of a century later, Mattie says that La Boeuf must be closer to eighty than seventy. Wouldn't that make him in his early fifties in the main story? Seems a bit old.

I got the impression that the circus visit and the grave visit were two different periods of time; the grave visit occurring years later. I believe she referred to herself as an old maid or old hag or something along those lines in the latter scene.

[megladon8]

I got the impression that the circus visit and the grave visit were two different periods of time; the grave visit occurring years later. I believe she referred to herself as an old maid or old hag or something along those lines in the latter scene.


I didn't think they were two different periods of time, and I don't see what gave that impression.

She referred to herself as an old hag because, in that time, an unmarried woman of 39 would be kind of an old hag.

[Duncan]

I didn't think they were two different periods of time, and I don't see what gave that impression.

She referred to herself as an old hag because, in that time, an unmarried woman of 39 would be kind of an old hag.

Pretty sure that, after the circus scene (which was 25 years after the body of the film), the voice over continued to explain how people thought it odd that she continued to visit the grave over the years--ie. years beyond that initial 25 year jump.

[megladon8]

I think the fact that we're having this discussion proves that the Coen's didn't make it very clear, no?

I thought she mentioned Matt Damon's age around the same time she went to the circus. And I thought to myself "that would have made him at least 45-50 during the events when she was younger".

[Watashi]

I think the fact that we're having this discussion proves that the Coen's didn't make it very clear, no?

I thought she mentioned Matt Damon's age around the same time she went to the circus. And I thought to myself "that would have made him at least 45-50 during the events when she was younger".

It's pretty clear she has visited the grave over and over. Her mention of LaBeouf was the last line in the movie.

[Watashi]

Plus, Matt Damon is 40. Being in his late 40's is not a stretch.

[D_Davis]

I got the impression that the circus visit and the grave visit were two different periods of time; the grave visit occurring years later.

That was the impression that I had as well.

[Melville]

Just saw it. It was made very clear that the narration was occurring significantly after the visit to the wild west show: she says explicitly that she continued to visit the grave for years. As for the movie, I thought it was meh. The characters didn't seem much more than their cantankerous-old-man-with-a-good-heart and feisty-young-girl cliches. The relationships and humor seemed easy and cute. The climax seemedtoo sudden and too suddenly ended, awkwardly extended by the bad-guy-gets-back-up-when-you-least-expect-him moment and then the fall into the snake pit, rather than making the capture and shootout feel full in themselves.I mostly liked the shots of snow falling, especially the opening shot and the twilit ride.

[eternity]

Steinfeld is awesome. Otherwise, I'd wager that other than The Ladykillers, this is the Coen's weakest film. It's well made, but unlike most of their films where their ideas dominate, this film doesn't seem to have ANYTHING behind it. People talk, things happen on screen, but none of it carries any weight.

[Wryan]

Loved it. Not as much as No Country, but this felt incredibly real. I saw this shortly after I watched Robert Duvall on Charlie Rose say that the Coens presented Southerners in a silly way (based on, cough, Oh Brother), when I think the Coens present Southerners pretty damned honestly and frankly, with the obvious cartoonish exception in OB (which has its own kind of truth). I thought damn near everything in this movie rang true. I loved the unexpected characterizations of Brolin and Pepper (who I think had possibly the hardest job in the movie). Steinfeld was fantastic and dead-on. Bridges was as strong as I expected, as was the cinematography. The twilight race back to town was breathtaking. I didn't think anyone could capture an expanse like that with as much honesty.

The panning shot after Brolin flies away to the open field and the impending combatants gave me such a chill and a thrill.

EDIT: Oh and the sky shots during the cornbread target practice were gorgeous.

[baby doll]

I think this is a good example of the purely negative influence that Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven has had on the western. It is so slow and talky and sepia-toned and elegiac, and I was all like, "Dude, I thought I payed to see a western?" More Rio Bravo, less Oscar-baiting, please.

[Raiders]

I think this is a good example of the purely negative influence that Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven has had on the western. It is so slow and talky and sepia-toned and elegiac, and I was all like, "Dude, I thought I payed to see a western?" More Rio Bravo, less Oscar-baiting, please.

So the problem is with you and not the film as it did not meet your restrictive genre expectations. OK.

[baby doll]

So the problem is with you and not the film as it did not meet your restrictive genre expectations. OK.Exactly.

But seriously folks, if you're going to go the western elegy route, you probably shouldn't include scenes where the male lead or his sidekick (and this happens more than once) turn up out of nowhere at precisely the most dramatically opportune moment to save the heroine from certain death.

And speaking of Barry Pepper, he gave a much better performance in a much better western called The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada.

[Mysterious Dude]

And speaking of Barry Pepper, he gave a much better performance in a much better western called The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada.
You dislike slow, talky, elegiac westerns, but you like Three Burials? You are weird.

[Ezee E]

Three Burials is better though...

[B-side]

Three Burials is better though...

Truth.

[Spun Lepton]

Took #1 on its third week, after being at 2nd place for two weeks. Nicely done, Coens.

[Henry Gale]

Took #1 on its third week, after being at 2nd place for two weeks. Nicely done, Coens.

Not to mention it's now their highest grossing flick ever. Looks like it all came together nicely as everyone with common sense's main alternative to Little Fockers during the holiday stretch.

[Ezee E]

Black Swan is also performing nicely. $8 million four weeks in a row now. Up to $60 million. Go figure.

[Henry Gale]

Black Swan is also performing nicely. $8 million four weeks in a row now. Up to $60 million. Go figure.

Equally surprising. But then again, so is the range of people I know that I've heard mention they've seen it. It's nice to see that sometimes word of mouth can still do wonders, even if it's a movie as weird and seemingly hard to market as Black Swan.

[D_Davis]

I think this is a good example of the purely negative influence that Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven has had on the western. It is so slow and talky and sepia-toned and elegiac, and I was all like, "Dude, I thought I payed to see a western?" More Rio Bravo, less Oscar-baiting, please.

Huh. I thought this was the exact opposite of Unforgiven. As a huge fan of the western, I always find myself at odds with other western fans because I don't like Unforgiven - at all. To me, that film was completely devoid of humanity. I felt nothing from the movie; it didn't register any emotions from me. True Grit, however, was full of humanity and emotion; it resonated with me a great deal. I felt many things while watching it; it had a ton of heart and warmth.

[Ezee E]

True Grit might be the most "classic western" this decade now that I think of it.

[NickGlass]

It's handsomely mounted, so apparently calculated in its filmmaking excellence, and brutally dull. Also, for all the Coens' well-known intelligence when it comes to moral quandary, they simply have one line about the "right" of vindication and working outside the law to achieve what's right; not that I wanted any more overexplicit dialogue, but there's no real ethical dilemma set up here. It's essentially inherent to the story, I suppose, but I just found everything about to be surface-y. And the surface is so tasteful yet so transparent and unmoving; I felt nothing but apathy. Nice final shot, though, even if it's--once again--more pretty/surface clever than it is meaningful.

[Spun Lepton]

Also, for all the Coens' well-known intelligence when it comes to moral quandary, they simply have one line about the "right" of vindication and working outside the law to achieve what's right; not that I wanted any more overexplicit dialogue, but there's no real ethical dilemma set up here.

It's an adaptation. Have you read the book? Are you calling out the Coens for not doing something that wasn't in the novel??

No ethical dilemma??
Mattie murders a man and the gun she uses kicks her into a snake pit, where she's bitten. She loses that arm. Seems like a pretty strong statement against "the right of vindication."

[baby doll]

No ethical dilemma??
Mattie murders a man and the gun she uses kicks her into a snake pit, where she's bitten. She loses that arm. Seems like a pretty strong statement against "the right of vindication."Seems like a pretty strong statement against getting bit by snakes.

[Spun Lepton]

Seems like a pretty strong statement against getting bit by snakes.

Of course, how foolish of me to consider there might be some symbolism in the way the events unfold in the movie.

[baby doll]

Of course, how foolish of me to consider there might be some symbolism in the way the events unfold in the movie.There's symbolism, and there's reading a random event as God's divine punishment, when really she should've been more careful about where she was standing (Matt Damon even pointed it out to her) and carried a lighter gun.

[Spun Lepton]

There's symbolism, and there's reading a random event as God's divine punishment, when really she should've been more careful about where she was standing (Matt Damon even pointed it out to her) and carried a lighter gun.

You're arguing about these events like they're reality ...

[baby doll]

You're arguing about these events like they're reality ...I just don't think everything has to mean something.

[megladon8]

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

Spun - 1, babydoll - 0

[baby doll]

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

Spun - 1, babydoll - 0Just because you see something, that doesn't mean it's there.

[megladon8]

Just because you see something, that doesn't mean it's there.


Just because you arbitrarily decide that something doesn't have a deeper meaning (even when it's fairly surface-level metaphor stuff) doesn't mean it's not there.

[baby doll]

Just because you arbitrarily decide that something doesn't have a deeper meaning (even when it's fairly surface-level metaphor stuff) doesn't mean it's not there.I think we're really abusing the term metaphor here. Just on the level of basic inference-making, we can reasonably assert that she didn't realize she was standing in front of the hole, and it was the force of the gun going off that knocked her down, even though this is going beyond the letter of the text, so to speak. However, to infer that this fits some larger abstract design, in which justice is meted out to all the characters by the hand of God, the question becomes: What would the film have her do instead? Not go in search of revenge?

[megladon8]

I just don't understand the point you're trying to make.

The film has her on a journey of revenge against the man who murdered her father.

In killing the man, she hurts and ultimately disfigures herself, showing the film's main theme of the quest for revenge through violence as being a flawed and selfish one. That killing a killer does more harm than good.

Where is the problem?

[Ezee E]

She was basically screwed to begin with. Getting your papa killed is some f'd up stuff man.

[baby doll]

I just don't understand the point you're trying to make.

The film has her on a journey of revenge against the man who murdered her father.

In killing the man, she hurts and ultimately disfigures herself, showing the film's main theme of the quest for revenge through violence as being a flawed and selfish one. That killing a killer does more harm than good.

Where is the problem?But if she hadn't gone after him, he probably would've gotten off free (and there would be no movie).

[megladon8]

Plus, Rooster Cogburn himself is an embodiment of the theme of vengeance being at first attractive and enticing, yet at face value being sad, pathetic, and leading to a life of solitude.

[BuffaloWilder]

I - I can't believe baby doll is even trying to argue this.

Mind-boggling.

[Ezee E]

But if she hadn't gone after him, he probably would've gotten off free (and there would be no movie).
Fairly sure he'd have gotten caught for the murder of that political figure.

[Spun Lepton]

Baby doll doesn't appear to understand the difference between fiction and reality...

[baby doll]

Baby doll doesn't appear to understand the difference between fiction and reality...If the Coens wanted us to read it that way, they could've made the point more forcefully by not having her lose the arm to some freak accident.

[megladon8]

I don't see how the point was made unclear, nor how it could have been any clearer.

Her shooting Chaney directly lead to her injury.

[baby doll]

I don't see how the point was made unclear, nor how it could have been any clearer.

Her shooting Chaney directly lead to her injury.So did not being more careful about where she was standing, but I wouldn't base my interpretation of the film on that fact.

[megladon8]

:frustrated:

[Adam]

Ya, I don't really see how the fact that Mattie loses the arm as such an immediately direct result of finally claiming the vengeance she thought she deserved due to her naive notions of moral righteousness is thematically significant. You guys are kinda reaching on that one. In fact, did you know Mattie didn't even lose the arm in the Coens' original draft? What happened was the actress who played older Mattie lied to the Coens about having two arms and when she turned up on the set one arm short, they had to slap together a new ending on the fly. True story

[Watashi]

Ya, I don't really see how the fact that Mattie loses the arm as such an immediately direct result of finally claiming the vengeance she thought she deserved due to her naive notions of moral righteousness is thematically significant. You guys are kinda reaching on that one. In fact, did you know Mattie didn't even lose the arm in the Coens' original draft? What happened was the actress who played older Mattie lied to the Coens about having two arms and when she turned up on the set one arm short, they had to slap together a new ending on the fly. True story

Yeah. That's complete bullshit. The actress who played older Mattie has worked with the Coens before.

[Raiders]

Yeah. That's complete bullshit. The actress who played older Mattie has worked with the Coens before.

She also has two arms.

I am assuming Adam was joking or... something.

[Adam]

Yes, you see by suggesting the Coens had no thematic reason for having Mattie lose the arm in the manner she did and that furthermore it was just a ludicrous behind-the-scenes goof involving an actress lying about having two arms, what I was trying to do there was poke gentle fun at babydoll's silliness and his comment about how Mattie should have been "more careful about where she was standing." Maybe I'm too close to it all to have a fair take, but I think if you read my full post in the context of the conversation, it makes some kind of sense

[Sycophant]

Adam's joke would've worked better if he opened with his ending.

[Wryan]

The Aristocrats!

[Dead & Messed Up]

Really dug this. Interesting to see the Coens tackle a more traditional storyline. DavidSeven used the word "handsome" earlier, and I think that's a fine word for describing the movie. Also, Steinfeld acted her ass off, literally, since her character was play-acting the whole film (the newspapers stuck in her father's hat says it all); she may have tripped over the cadence of her dialogue a few times toward the beginning, but that's a small complaint. Also, the whole snake-bite-in-the-cave thing is hugely metaphorical. If anything, it's almost too basic. She's stuck through her own lack of planning, and poison appears in the form of a dead man (dressed in similar colors to the one she just killed).

My favorite thing about the movie, though, was its use of montage. Wonderfully simple, with the cross-fades and the images overlapping, and the beautiful images of the deserts. Again. Handsome.

[Sven]

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?

[Spinal]

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.

This is a good night for you.

[transmogrifier]

Pretty sure that, after the circus scene (which was 25 years after the body of the film), the voice over continued to explain how people thought it odd that she continued to visit the grave over the years--ie. years beyond that initial 25 year jump.

This is correct. She has clearly aged during the grave scene.

Anyway, disappointing. I was so looking forward to this, mainly because everyone was going on about how low-key it was, and my main problem with the Coens is when they try and ratchet up their quirks. And I like the Western genre, but have never really seen that many great films yet.

But this was, well, just a little bit boring. There is no real pacing to it, it just lurches along from scene to scene with very little momentum transferred from one scene to the next. LaBeouf disappears, LaBeouf comes back, Rooster acts like a jerk, Rooster acts ruthless, and now he's a jerk again. I don't mind slow Westerns at all, but this one has a very hollow center.

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.

Beautifully shot, with generally good performances (though Damon really, really doesn't seem all that period appropriate as an actor, and it's hard to take him seriously in movies like this), and some interesting individual scenes, but in the end, it is pretty...meh.