Main Menu

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 5,559,185
  • Total Topics: 106,348
  • Online Today: 767
  • Online Ever: 3,311
  • (July 08, 2021, 03:14:41 AM)
Users Online
Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 06:00:17 AM

Login with username, password and session length

True Grit

Started by CaledonianGonzo, February 09, 2011, 02:20:41 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Small Man Big Horse

The ending's slightly different in the book apparently -
Spoiler alert
after she recovers, Rooster comes to visit, and Maddie makes him accept a funeral plot with her family for when he eventually dies.
[close]

CaledonianGonzo

Quote from: wheatgod on February 13, 2011, 01:48:16 PM
Didn't like the dialogue, too period for me

Though surely appropriate for a period film?

Icehaven

#32
Quote from: Ian Mildcheddar on February 13, 2011, 01:43:33 PM
Also, also re: the spoilertext, I'm pretty sure I remember La Boeuf say something to Mattie about
Spoiler alert
watching her footing as there is a pit just there after he takes out Chaney with a rock.
[close]

Indeed he did, and
Spoiler alert
as soon as he said it I knew she was going to fall down it
[close]
. I enjoyed it though, although maybe that's because I've never read it or seen the other version, and am only moderately bothered about the few other Coen films I've seen (although I really liked Serious Man and Barton Fink), so I had no expectations. There's a few too many nick of time moments too, but if they're in the original then fair enough. I actually really enjoyed the dialogue more than anything else, so I'm pleased that's mostly from the novel and not completely modern over-stylisation. Agree that it's hard to make out a lot of what Rooster says, which adds to the authenticity but is annoying as it's probably funny/a pleasing turn of phrase etc.

Could some kind person post (spoilered obviously) how the book and other film end?

Anyway Will Self uses True Grit as a starting point to have a typically Selfish pop at the Coens ouevre here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/feb/11/will-self-coen-brothers

wheatgod

Quote from: CaledonianGonzo on February 13, 2011, 07:12:57 PM
Though surely appropriate for a period film?

Yes but I must say sir that I still find it a trifle bit troubling, if I may so so myself sir.

Harpo Speaks

Quote from: wheatgod on February 13, 2011, 01:48:16 PM
Also the ending was a bit pap.

I had no problem with the ending itself, but the choice of music there was atrocious.

For those people familiar with the book, or even the John Wayne film, how is Tom Chaney described/portrayed? I wasn't quite sure what Brolin was going for there, it was a slightly unusual performance.

Ignatius_S

Quote from: wearyworld on February 12, 2011, 03:05:34 PM
Just to correct this staggering ignorance - True Grit is based on Charles Portis' wonderful novel, from which around 95% of the Coens' dialogue is taken verbatim. If anyone here enjoys the film, you'd do yourself a huge disservice not to check out the book. Portis is a great writer, mastering in all his books deadpan ironic narration, strange Coenesque-before-the-Coens conversation, and endless comic invention.
Before True Grit was published as a novel, it was serialised as a story in a newspaper.

As you would have seen from my previous post, I haven't seen this latest version and was basing my information on what a friend had said – I make no claims for its accuracy...

Quote from: Old Nehamkin on February 12, 2011, 03:29:29 PM
I've not seen the Wayne version so I can't really comment on the similarities between the two, but the Coens have stated that they only saw the film once when it came out (and they were children), so there's unlikely to be a huge influence....
Thanks for letting me know they had gone back to the original ending!

Oh sure, the Coens have obviously gone back to the source material – the reports that Mattie was going to be more prominent, I think certainly indicated this. However, as I say, I have heard few things that suggested that there are nods to the earlier film – and I was a bit surprised they had reused the eyepatch; if I was trying to get minds away from the first film, that's something I would have done. It wasn't that I wanted to link the films too closely, but that there is some debt to the first... but I shall see what I think!

CaledonianGonzo

Quote from: Harpo Speaks on February 14, 2011, 12:52:19 PM
I had no problem with the ending itself, but the choice of music there was atrocious.

Whether you like the hymn or not probably affects your take on it, but the choice is deliberate and thematically apposite (as outlined in the video above):

http://www.hymnsite.com/lyrics/umh133.sht

Harpo Speaks

Quote from: CaledonianGonzo on February 14, 2011, 06:18:28 PM
Whether you like the hymn or not probably affects your take on it, but the choice is deliberate and thematically apposite (as outlined in the video above):

http://www.hymnsite.com/lyrics/umh133.sht

Yeah, actually 'choice of song' was badly worded by me, I just thought it sounded terrible.

Good film though, not great, but very enjoyable. Loved all the dialogue exchanges - I know the vast majority are direct lifts from the novel, but the performers really sell them. Thought Hailee Steinfeld was fantastic. Given that the film is centred on her it's imperitive that you have a decent perfomer in that role, and she delivered it.

mikeyg27

Quote from: Harpo Speaks on February 14, 2011, 09:15:09 PMThought Hailee Steinfeld was fantastic. Given that the film is centred on her it's imperitive that you have a decent perfomer in that role, and she delivered it.

How the fuck is she nominated for Best SUPPORTING Actress at the Oscars? She's in almost every scene! I hope she wins and kicks up a fuss.

Bad Ambassador

The field for Supporting Actress is less competitive than Leading Actress. Steinfeld has a better chance on winning for Supporting Actress - a win she thoroughly deserves. It's unbelievable that this is her first film.

lipsink

Wouldn't it be cool if the Academy had the balls give the awards to the kids this year: Steinfeld, Jesse Eisenberg and Jennifer Lawrence.
I saw this at the weekend and wasn't sure of it at first. It felt a bit all over the place with not much really happening. The more I think about though it's starting to grow on me. Think I'll enjoy it more on a second viewing.


wheatgod

She doesn't deserve the award for Best Supporting Actress, because that's not what she was.

Marvin

I think I must be one of the only people in the world who likes Burn After Reading. It's a lightweight farce but that's what it sets out to be, and it does it pretty well, watched it once at the cinema and once since and really enjoyed it both times. For me half the appeal is how pointless all the events of the film are, the little summings up by the agency guys are brilliant.

Harpo Speaks

BAR is certainly nowhere near as bad as it's reputation suggests. 'Lightweight' is the key word there I think, it is all rather slight, but there are enjoyable things in it (Pitt's performance for example).

I thought this was so-so. An uneasy mix of traditional and revisionist - the realistic/sad ending felt wrong considering what had gone before.

I thought Bridges was pretty disastrously miscast actually. Cogburn should be played by a monolithic, iconic actor who very much brings his own personality to the role - like Eastwood or Nicholson (or Duke Wayne.) Bridges is a great actor - subtle and nuanced and freewheeling, but totally wrong for this. Brolin was horribly miscast too. Damon was okay, and the young girl was excellent.

One thing - at the end she says, of Damon's character, "he'd be close to eighty now." Um - that'd make him in his early fifties in the first part of the film, which Matt Damon clearly isn't.

Little Hoover

Quote from: Marvin on February 15, 2011, 11:56:00 AM
I think I must be one of the only people in the world who likes Burn After Reading. It's a lightweight farce but that's what it sets out to be, and it does it pretty well, watched it once at the cinema and once since and really enjoyed it both times. For me half the appeal is how pointless all the events of the film are, the little summings up by the agency guys are brilliant.

I enjoy Burn After Reading as well, I'm always surprised by the negativity it generates, as you say the agency men, how most of the events are happening just because of misunderstandings, the character relationships and dynamics are very good. I seem to have some unusual opinions when it comes to Coen films, O Brother Where art Thou is another one that seems to be largely dismissed that I enjoyed a lot and yet I wasn't so enthused with No Country for Old Men or A Serious Man, though I still enjoyed them both.

Waking Life

I saw this on Sunday and really enjoyed it.  I like the majority of the Coen Brothers films, although this one does feel a lot different and definitely has a wider appeal.  A brisker pace than I anticipated and Steinfeld turns out a great performance.  I know it's based on 3rd party source material, but the last 10 minutes are also a fairly big departure for the Coens.

I'll try to check out the original, which I've not seen (not really a fan of Wayne).

Vitalstatistix

Lovely, lovely filmmaking. Warm, witty, smart, fantastic visuals and flawless performances.

Really breezed along, with none of the pacing issues which have marred recent Coen films. Much, much better than I was expecting.  Easily their funniest film since O Brother. Loved it!

Famous Mortimer

I watched it last night, and while I enjoyed it, there were certainly plenty of flaws.

Spoiler alert
First up, the way she just stumbles on the man she's after in the large, heavily wooded territory they're in. I don't know, but for such a significant quest, it felt a bit cheaply won.
[close]
But that's not to say it didn't have some great moments, and looked and sounded great. I enjoyed Bridges' performance, by and large. The ending got on my nerves a bit, too.
Spoiler alert
After a film's worth of them not really being able to figure out what to do with Matt Damon's character, he gets abandoned in the wilderness at the end and never seen again. The reference to him in the final monologue was odd too, and felt a bit jarring / tacked on
[close]
.

I think the previously spoilered complaints match a few of my other gripes with it. But it's a pretty damn good film, all told. I am a fan of the Coen brothers earlier, awesomer films too.

Mister Six

Quote from: Little Hoover on February 15, 2011, 04:59:49 PMwhen it comes to Coen films, O Brother Where art Thou is another one that seems to be largely dismissed that I enjoyed a lot

Really? I thought that was seen as the last really great Coens flick before the pre-No Country downturn?

Saw True Grit today and it was absolutely delightful - full of great performances, whipcrack dialogue, wonderful shots and a splendid sense of place and time. Halee Stenfield was extraordinary - she absolutely should have been in the running for best actress (she was in the film more than anyone else!) and probably should've taken the Oscar too - and I could watch Bridges' Rooster Cogburn forever. I know it's not their style but I'd bloody love a sequel. Not one like this though.

Lots of lovely bits like the bear man and the lynched body that lent it a lazy, dreamlike air from time to time - a hangover from the book's episodic nature, I'm guessing. Yeah, not a lot of time was spent with Pepper and Chaney but that's fine because it's not actually about goodies v baddies anyway is it? It's about the relationships between three unlikely allies, and a young girl testing her limits in a cruel world. Besides, the escalation of danger from her finding Chaney to the snake pit was long enough and elaborate enough to make their victory feel earned rather than given.

scarecrow

Quote from: Famous Mortimer on March 01, 2011, 02:44:56 PM
Spoiler alert
First up, the way she just stumbles on the man she's after in the large, heavily wooded territory they're in. I don't know, but for such a significant quest, it felt a bit cheaply won.
[close]
Isn't that sort of the point?
Spoiler alert
Surely our introduction to Tom Chaney is supposed to be a bit anticlimactic- he's a bumbling idiot, albeit one who's capable of extreme violence. Running into him is significant for the girl from whose perspective the film is told, but it's just a bit of a weird coincidence to him (although it holds up that they'd both camp near a water source). Murdering her father evidently didn't have as much significance for Chaney as it did the girl and we're reminded of the sloppy/cowardly nature of the the crime.
[close]
I think discovering him any other way, would have given Brolin's character too much credit.

Mister Six

Yes, exactly Chaney's just a schmuck to everyone but Mattie - La Beef just wants the bounty and Rooster's more interested in his boss. Also why are we spoilering this stuff now the film's been out for so long?

Famous Mortimer

If he's such a schmuck, how did he manage to avoid capture by LaBeef for so long (he'd been chasing him for a year, apparently)?

Mister Six

Because La Beef's not the hot shit he claims to be. He's a good shot, but he's pretty consistently shown to have a higher regard for his abilities than he deserves.

Tiny Poster


Famous Mortimer

Quote from: Mister Six on March 03, 2011, 06:28:42 PM
Because La Beef's not the hot shit he claims to be. He's a good shot, but he's pretty consistently shown to have a higher regard for his abilities than he deserves.
But still much smarter and at least as good a shot as Chaney, yes?

Mister Six

Yes. But it doesn't mean LaBoeuf (apologies Tiny Poster) ought to be able to catch him easily in a time before telephones, cameras, organised police forces and CrimeStoppers. It's not CSI. And even if it was, plenty of schmucks manage to evade capture even by modern police forces simply by getting way out of town and lying low. Especially if they've got a gang of other criminals to help them out.

lipsink

It's kinda annoying how LaBoeuf keeps leaving and coming back. And the first time he comes back he's barely with them 10 minutes before he decides to quit so you don't get the feeling anything's really come to an end. I still really like the film but its not without its flaws. The ending seems a bit tacked on too. Not the whole 25 years later bit but the "Time gets away from us all" final line as I don't really see the film being about that at all.

Ginyard

Quote from: Mister Six on March 02, 2011, 11:51:24 PM
Lots of lovely bits like the bear man

Yeah, he was great. I loved the way every thing he said almost dropped to the floor with that big deep resonant growl of his. I could hardly understand him though. Mind you, that was the same Rooster. Its funny how LaBoeuf became almost as difficult to follow at times once he'd buggered his tongue. It almost indicated that Rooster had suffered the same accident in his past.

I thought it was a very good film, perhaps a bit too padded out in places to qualify as a great movie. I suppose the relentless gnarled twigs of the winter raped forest and the emphasis that, apart from shooting off guns and drinking booze, there's fuck all else to do out there, meant that a degree of bleak mundanity had to be sustained. But it had a heart to it and I enjoyed the banter between the characters.

Mister Six

Quote from: lipsink on March 06, 2011, 09:31:27 PMThe ending seems a bit tacked on too. Not the whole 25 years later bit but the "Time gets away from us all" final line as I don't really see the film being about that at all.

Yeah I'd agree with that, definitely.