Sunday, 20 March 2011

Angry Movie Lurker Review 30: True Grit (3 STARS)


Following the murder of her father by hired hand Tom Chaney, 14-year-old farm girl Mattie Ross sets out to capture the killer. To aid her, she hires the toughest U.S. marshal she can find, a man with "true grit," Reuben J. "Rooster" Cogburn. Mattie insists on accompanying Cogburn, whose drinking, sloth, and generally reprobate character do not augment her faith in him. Against his wishes, she joins him in his trek into the Indian Nations in search of Chaney. They are joined by Texas Ranger LaBoeuf, who wants Chaney for his own purposes. The unlikely trio find danger and surprises on the journey, and each has his or her "grit" tested.
The original 1969 version was on TV a few months ago and because there was nothing else on I watched it yet again for the double digit time and still enjoyed it. I got to see the new one recently with Jeff Bridges and had read that this version was closer to the book (having never read the book I don't know) but it is slighty different to the original but mostly in dialogue (language relevant to the time) as there seems to me to be a lot more of it and in some of the set pieces that are set at different times and with less or more participants, there are different engagements and meetings but other than that you get more or less the same as the original except this movie is grittier and slighty darker (pardon the pun), Jeff Bridges (Cogburn) is excellent and so is everybody else's performance Hailee Steinfeld (Mattie) and Matt Damon (LaBoeuf), the other difference is the ending it shows something the original didn't and I could have done without it, I liked how the original ended at a certain moment and left it at that but that's just my opinion.
If they were both on on a wet saturday afternoon at the same time I would choose the original because I grew up with Wayne and sometimes remakes are unneccesary but it's definitely worth a watch.

41 comments:

  1. Not seen it yet, bit its on my "to watch" list.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I loved the one from the Cohen Brothers, but I want to watch the original.
    I struggled to understand Jeff Bridges at times.
    The last ride at night is pretty epic, quite amazing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. not seen it yet , but i will

    ReplyDelete
  4. excellent assessment. i thought the new version was awesome, but i'll have to give the old one a view. :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm a big Cohen Brothers fan... but I had to ask 'Why?' when I heard they were remaking this. It's not like the original was in any way lacking. I will of course get it and watch it, but there's only one real Rooster Cogburn, just like there's only one real Bond.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Have to agree with Jim H,
    Not seen it yet and I am sure it will be a good film with a great cast. However I had to ask myself why remake such a good original film?

    ReplyDelete
  7. i've never heard of this movie before. maybe that's why they remade it - to bring it to a whole new generation of clueless people like me...

    ReplyDelete
  8. This one comes on my "to watch" list.

    Speaking about John Wayne, the best movie he made: "The cowboys". But this is just a personel opinion. ;-)

    Greetings
    Peter

    ReplyDelete
  9. Seen it, loved it. Two big thumbs up from me.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I enjoyed it. I see what your saying about the ending (though I liked it myself). I believe it restores the ending of the novel upon which both films were based. I would see this less as a remake and more as another go at the original source material.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 'The Conqueror' aside, is there any such thing as a bad John Wayne film?

    ReplyDelete
  12. thought the movie was so-so.

    ReplyDelete
  13. very nice review :P you are good :P

    Next movie to watch :P

    ReplyDelete
  14. Didn't realise it was a series.
    I watched it recently and in true Cohen brothers style was left at the end wondering was it really as good as I think it might be or what?
    It's either deceptively good or deceptively mediocre. *shrug*

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm not sure this is my kinda thing..... I suppose there's only one way to find out!!

    ReplyDelete
  16. You like zombies, I follow. LOL. Thanks for the review, looking forward to seeing this. Fan of Cohen bros.

    ReplyDelete
  17. A-W-E-S-O-M-E

    as almost everything dfrn the coens

    ReplyDelete
  18. I thought it was good, but not great.
    That girl got on my nerves after a while.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I simply loved it. Never watched the original tho.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Personally, I loved it....But then again, the only Cohen brothers film that I haven't loved was Burn After Reading.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I'm ashamed to admit that I still have to watch the original.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Almost watched the new one, but didn't get to. I didn't know this was a remake. Guess I want to see em both now. hehe

    ReplyDelete
  23. Seen the old version...and I want to see the new one.
    Why is "and slightly darker" a pun??? :-D
    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  24. ...sorry it was more towards the grittier element.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Trey had a good explanation.

    I remember watching both new and old versions of 3:10 To Yuma which came from a book by Elmore Leonard, the same guy who did Get Shorty and many more.

    That one, and also Last of the Mohicans, I thought the newer ones were better than the older, but it's hard to beat a classic John Wayne performance because of his personal charisma.

    But this one, I didn't see because I ticked off a woman who was probably trying to angle for a date, by telling her I was too young to see the old one, then she got mad and took off. Just realized now from this article what happened there.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I am waiting to see the re-make until it hits dvd.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I am quite positive I will never ever watch the old one. I am simply not that in to that time period.
    I'll admit this too: I have never seen a John Wayne movie (and it isn't because I am some punk little kid, either!)

    ReplyDelete
  28. maatttttt daaaayyyyyyyymoon

    ReplyDelete
  29. I've been wanting to see this, nice review.

    ReplyDelete
  30. It's been on my to see list. I have mixed feeling as Wayne was so iconic in his roles that it might prejudice me. However, I do think Bridges was an excellent choice to give it a go and so I'm looking forward to seeing how he does.

    Cheers
    Christopher

    ReplyDelete
  31. i didn't like it that much. it was rather slow and i couldn't understand jeff bridges...

    ReplyDelete
  32. Cool review - I agree you can't beat the Duke

    ReplyDelete
  33. brilliant movie! I watched it at the cinema. I totally recommend it!

    ReplyDelete
  34. I been hearing good things about this movie so I have to check it out soon :D

    ReplyDelete
  35. yeah I dug it as well. Not my favorite film of last year, but damn good I must say.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I think I'll watch it! I just like the title! Sounds like something a obgyn will find in a hooker during an exam o.O

    ReplyDelete
  37. I watched this latest version twice because I always seem to miss a few bits the first time. I loved it both times, and to be honest, I'd give both the original and this one a 5 star.
    My test of a good movie is if a mate says "have you seen so and so, or would you like to watch blah blah" and you dont hesitate to say "damn straight, I've seen it twice but I'll see it again" then you know youve got a winner.

    ReplyDelete