← Back to Reviews
in
True Grit (Coen Bros., 2010) +
I want to compare this exemplary flick to the John Wayne version. I actually give both versions the same rating although I thought that for awhile I might give this one a slightly higher rating. Let me tell you what I think of these two flicks which really aren't all that different if you're actually paying attention. I will admit that I've seen the Wayne version about 10 times so I basically have that one memorized and sometimes it's not described very accurately at that. For example, this flick is rated PG-13 and I don't think it's any more violent or profane than John Wayne's G-rated version. In Wayne's version you actually see Dennis Hopper's fingers fly off the knife. It tells you more about the era and the evolution of the MPAA than anything else.
This version has a terrific performance by Hailee Steinfeld and Matt Damon is much better than Glen Campbell as Shia's great-great-great grandfather. However, I think that Robert Duvall, Jeff Corey, Dennis Hopper and General Sterling Price are better than Josh Brolin, Barry Pepper and whoever the hell else they had here. Even the guy playing the Strother Martin role was obviously doing an imitation of Strother and it wasn't nearly as good. (Sorry, Holds.) Next, we get to the lead Rooster Cogburn. Bridges is very good. I thought he may have been trying to do Don Corleone, but then Josh Brolin sounded like he was too! But there's no way in hell that anyone who doesn't believe that John Wayne is such a Duck (from Unforgiven) won't think that Wayne is better than Bridges. I mean, Bridges, in my opinion, is better than his year-earlier Academy Award-winning performance, but he still ain't no John Wayne, and the people who think that Wayne did not give a performance as Rooster are in pure denial.
Other changes worth noting include the fact that the the intro to Matty was different, the intro to LeBeouf was different, the ending was completely transposed. What happened to LeBeouf seems to happen to Rooster, what happens to other characters seems to happen to Mattie, and thus perhaps it may seem less sentimental, but I don't really think it is. Steinfeld is excellent but the fact that she isn't there at the end of the film and is played by her older self seems to rob the character and the film of some of its emotional power. Unlike many others, I've always enjoyed Kim Darby in the original. Of course, it's a bookend and the opening bookend is also quite different than the original flick.
Something else I want to say is that Lucien Ballard's cinematography in the original is gorgeous and full of green trees, meadows, blue water and other very colorful locations. The Coens have Roger Deakins as DP but his pallette almost seems to rival what he did in Fargo. All the greens have turned grey, there is very little water and snow pops up in more than one scene. Apparently this is meant to highlight a difference in seasons and the fact that Arkansas and the Indian Nation just aren't that ripe and luscious as they seemed in the original which was admittedly shot further west than the story was set. There are quite a few other scenes which are different in this newer flick but I'll get to those later if anybody even cares. It's a solid movie, but with such a great plot, I'm not sure how it couldn't be. I'll try to come back and add some more later because although about 85% is the same, it's interesting and/or weird the small part which is different. Did Bridges steal Marlon Brando's Kleenex from The Godfather? Was Bridges' right eye covered because he's somehow left-wing while John Wayne's left eye was covered because he was super right-wing? I have no idea, but it's a thought. Irrelevant to two very good movies, but a thought.
I want to compare this exemplary flick to the John Wayne version. I actually give both versions the same rating although I thought that for awhile I might give this one a slightly higher rating. Let me tell you what I think of these two flicks which really aren't all that different if you're actually paying attention. I will admit that I've seen the Wayne version about 10 times so I basically have that one memorized and sometimes it's not described very accurately at that. For example, this flick is rated PG-13 and I don't think it's any more violent or profane than John Wayne's G-rated version. In Wayne's version you actually see Dennis Hopper's fingers fly off the knife. It tells you more about the era and the evolution of the MPAA than anything else.
This version has a terrific performance by Hailee Steinfeld and Matt Damon is much better than Glen Campbell as Shia's great-great-great grandfather. However, I think that Robert Duvall, Jeff Corey, Dennis Hopper and General Sterling Price are better than Josh Brolin, Barry Pepper and whoever the hell else they had here. Even the guy playing the Strother Martin role was obviously doing an imitation of Strother and it wasn't nearly as good. (Sorry, Holds.) Next, we get to the lead Rooster Cogburn. Bridges is very good. I thought he may have been trying to do Don Corleone, but then Josh Brolin sounded like he was too! But there's no way in hell that anyone who doesn't believe that John Wayne is such a Duck (from Unforgiven) won't think that Wayne is better than Bridges. I mean, Bridges, in my opinion, is better than his year-earlier Academy Award-winning performance, but he still ain't no John Wayne, and the people who think that Wayne did not give a performance as Rooster are in pure denial.
Other changes worth noting include the fact that the the intro to Matty was different, the intro to LeBeouf was different, the ending was completely transposed. What happened to LeBeouf seems to happen to Rooster, what happens to other characters seems to happen to Mattie, and thus perhaps it may seem less sentimental, but I don't really think it is. Steinfeld is excellent but the fact that she isn't there at the end of the film and is played by her older self seems to rob the character and the film of some of its emotional power. Unlike many others, I've always enjoyed Kim Darby in the original. Of course, it's a bookend and the opening bookend is also quite different than the original flick.
Something else I want to say is that Lucien Ballard's cinematography in the original is gorgeous and full of green trees, meadows, blue water and other very colorful locations. The Coens have Roger Deakins as DP but his pallette almost seems to rival what he did in Fargo. All the greens have turned grey, there is very little water and snow pops up in more than one scene. Apparently this is meant to highlight a difference in seasons and the fact that Arkansas and the Indian Nation just aren't that ripe and luscious as they seemed in the original which was admittedly shot further west than the story was set. There are quite a few other scenes which are different in this newer flick but I'll get to those later if anybody even cares. It's a solid movie, but with such a great plot, I'm not sure how it couldn't be. I'll try to come back and add some more later because although about 85% is the same, it's interesting and/or weird the small part which is different. Did Bridges steal Marlon Brando's Kleenex from The Godfather? Was Bridges' right eye covered because he's somehow left-wing while John Wayne's left eye was covered because he was super right-wing? I have no idea, but it's a thought. Irrelevant to two very good movies, but a thought.