More

'True Grit' Synopsis, Guide And Reviews

True Grit

First Posted: 12/24/10 03:09 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:20 PM ET

UPDATE: We asked you to give your reviews, and we got a record number of responses. Thanks to all the writers -- here are just a few of the many, many great reviews you submitted.

Abe G:

...All of that lofty consideration can go and hang, really, because sandwiched between a prologue and epilogue of melancholy rumination, True Grit is a rollicking, picturesque, old-fashioned adventure tale. It has all the shootouts, rattlesnakes, outlaws, close scrapes, bad teeth and heroism you'd ever hope to see, anchored by three performances that are so effortlessly delightful that it's easy to ignore the creeping darkness beneath all the fun.

...The Coens have crafted a Western of rare elegance and excitement. It's slow to start, but by design; as Mattie gathers the forces of justice, the pace tightens and the danger builds to an often shocking pitch. At the halfway point, there is a scene of startling savagery, and the film never lets up. The violence, fleeting though it is, stretches the bounds of a PG-13 rating. It is, nevertheless, a perfect film for teenagers who think Michael Bay films are the only real action cinema. After watching True Grit, they might investigate Kurosawa, John Ford, Orson Welles.

PDFerguson:

My wife and I watched the 1969 original version yesterday at home, and the Coen brothers' version today in the theater. We had seen neither film before, so this was to be our immersion in all things True Grit. It was a fun way to spend two afternoons­.

I think the Coen brothers' version is superior in every way. The acting by Bridges and Steinfeld is far better than Wayne and Darby; I thought Darby was particular­ly weak in the original. Matt Damon's portrayal of the Texas Ranger was much more nuanced and three dimensiona­l than Glen Campbell's (shocking, I know...) I was afraid the new version would be too dark, but it still has a bit of humor and sentimenta­lity, with a light touch the original lacked. The voice over narration of the new version also works to start the story off and wrap it up at the end.

The Coen brothers's film will be one to watch more than once, the original not so much.

Medproof:

That being said, I wish I would have enjoyed this more. I don't know if 19th century Americans shunned contractio­ns but any time any character spoke (I will NOT, I canNOT, I do NOT) it took me right out of the narrative and into the Coen brothers' writing workshop. Every detail is for effect, and nothing is presented as if it just IS. Many people seem to enjoy that about Coen movies but their technique just gets in the way. Everything that every character said seemed "written." And each time I heard Miss Steinfeld speak, I thought of Fairuza Balk in "Return to Oz." She is only 14 and I don't want to come down hard on her but her performanc­e was not as resolute as other reviews led me to believe it was.

No character interacted ... it was is if they were reciting in front of each other.

My interest began to wane during the Damon/Brid­ges shooting contest scene. I could go on but I'm just not getting what audiences see in the Coen brothers.


A western action film isn't your usual type of Christmas weekend film, but then again, this isn't your usual type of western, and the Coen Brothers aren't your usual type of directors, either. They took on adapting a 1968 novel by Charles Portis -- insisting it was a novel adaptation, not a remake of the 1969 big screen version that won John Wayne his only best actor Oscar -- and, with the help of some true talent, made a brand new legacy for 'True Grit.'

The western action flick mixes in a surprisingly high level of subtle comedy with its gritty realism to create a wild west all its own. Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon and precocious 14-year old newcomer Haliee Steinfeld star in this memorable adventure.

Synopsis:

Following the murder of her father by hired hand Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin), 14-year-old farm girl Mattie Ross (Steinfeld) 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 (Bridges). 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 (Damon), 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.

Professional Reviews:
Matt Soergel, Florida Times-Union:

It's the best Western in years and one of the best movies of the year, a rousing adventure that's also sneakily comic, with humor that rises from the sharply drawn characters and the dialogue they spout. And how wonderfully they spout!

Ethan and Joel must have relished the chance to have Jeff Bridges, the Dude in their "Big Lebowski," give his ramshackle take on John Wayne's hard-drinking Rooster Cogburn. But you can also see what must have attracted them to the story at least as much: the words.

Andrew O'Hehir, Salon.com:

Now, it's also true that the Coens are coming at this classic western yarn from a 21st-century perspective that might misleadingly be called "ironic," but it's better not to get hung up on that. Let's put it this way: Like most Coen films, "True Grit" works on multiple levels and will reward repeat viewings. It's an impressive widescreen spectacle set on the 19th-century American frontier and built around a memorably ferocious performance by 13-year-old Hailee Steinfeld.

Colin Colvert, Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

In "True Grit," the Coens dial down the eccentricity and deliver their first classically made, audience-pleasing genre picture. The results are masterful. Their love for traditional Wild West movies glows with a cinephile's breadth of knowledge and a fan's mad crushes. With dazzling performances by Jeff Bridges and newcomer Hailee Steinfeld, awe-inspiring cinematography and the Coens' trademark moral paradoxes, it's sweet nostalgia, subtly shaded with melancholy and peppered with dashes of black satire.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST ENTERTAINMENT

UPDATE: We asked you to give your reviews, and we got a record number of responses. Thanks to all the writers -- here are just a few of the many, many great reviews you submitted. Abe G: ...All of...
UPDATE: We asked you to give your reviews, and we got a record number of responses. Thanks to all the writers -- here are just a few of the many, many great reviews you submitted. Abe G: ...All of...
Filed by Jordan Zakarin  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 424
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (11 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MirageRF
02:46 AM on 02/10/2011
Having seen both "True Grits", I prefer the original for its entertainment value.
Though longer by about 30 minutes than the Coen version, the plot never bogs down.
Far from creating a new western genre, the Coen's have often come close to plagiarizing the original movie. The original True Grit has aged well, even the arrogant dandy played by Glen Campbell seems somehow more a part of the film than Matt Damon. You "care" about the characters in the first movie, which is difficult with the stilted performances of the second.

Finally, I must say that America needs more cowboy movies. For that, I thank the Coens.
10:17 PM on 01/12/2011
I loved John Wayne in the Original...but it was flawed...especially with Glen Campbell as LeBeouf! Campbell is a nice guy and a great musician...but acting isn't his forte! :)
True Grit 2.0 is an instant classic! Bridges,Stienfeld and Damon are all great!
It;s a totally different movie from the original and it does a much better job!
Apologies to the Duke!
04:10 PM on 12/30/2010
Sorry, but this doesn't hold a candle to the Coen's "No Country." In that film I felt truly invested in the main character's quest, whereas in True Grit I just felt like I was watching some actors giving performances. It just didn't seem to have a heart.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kasandra
03:51 PM on 12/30/2010
I really liked it right up till the last six minutes or so. They lost me when they stupidly left the buckskin behind instead of taking both horses and switching off to spare them...and ended up killing the black (I realize that was in the book, I don't care who started the stupidity). Then, the actual ending really sucked rocks IMHO. It's like they ran out of patience telling the story and said let's just do a recap voice over at the end. I really hate that. It steals the climax and goes from exciting adventure to passive voice... BORING. It might be useful in a story such as Jurassic park where you spent the whole time holding your breath or gasping but this movie, while good, wasn't THAT energetic to start with. I didn't need a come down I needed a finish up!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
gulopartisan
My micro-bio is empty.
04:03 PM on 12/30/2010
Spot on. I enjoyed the film, and the language didn't bother me (it is, after all, Mattie's memoir, not "what really happened." Killing the horse, and making us watch for what? ten minutes? infuriated me. First there's the stupidity of leaving the other horse (and really forgetting about it; as Cogburn mounts up, he says to LaBoeuf "I'll come back for you" as if the other horse didn't exist) was hopelessly stupid. And they actually ride PAST Lucky Pepper's horse after all this business. The gratuitous, petty nastiness of making us watch a horse 'die' (Yes, I I know they didn't really kill the horse) left a bad taste for the film.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
HotheadPaisen
Longform bio awaiting the Donald's approval.
07:23 PM on 12/30/2010
I haven't seen the new version but from what I remember Cogburn took her on the same horse because he feared she's pass out and fall off from haqving been bitten- no? I hated that they killedLittle Blackie too, but thought that was the reason.
aristippe
no more war for oil
03:36 PM on 12/30/2010
I've come to expect a lot from the Cohen Brothers and this film doesn't measure up to their better efforts. The script could of used a rewrite as the second and third act were pretty anemic. This film reminds me of that other flaccid bomb they made, The Man Who Wasn't There.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:33 PM on 12/30/2010
it was very good. Although the Duke is the Duke and better than the Dude.
03:47 PM on 12/30/2010
I prefer the Dude. I have loved the "Dude" ever since I saw him for the first time in a little-seen film called "Hearts of the West" (1975) when he was barely older than Hailee Steinfeld, the young girl in the current film.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:52 PM on 12/30/2010
undefined
02:52 PM on 12/30/2010
As the credits rolled by at the end of this film, I wanted to make a U-turn, return to my seat, and watch it again!
03:06 PM on 12/30/2010
You should have made a U-turn to stay and watch the credits... the people who made the film.
03:42 PM on 12/30/2010
I actually did stay, standing off to the side in an aisle, watching the credits until the screen went dark, which is my custom as a cinema buff. I'll probably return to the theater next week to see this film again. I love the Coen brothers' work.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Horatio
Wordsmith seeks others for salacious mental trysts
01:19 PM on 12/29/2010
Matt Soergel has it all wrong: Jeff Bridges said in an interview he wasn't trying to replicate/improve upon/mimic or deconstruct John Wayne's "take" on Rooster Cogburn. He was doing his own take from the Charles Portis novel.

Sloppy observation.

I thought the movie had more "right" than "wrong" but where does Andrew O'Hehir get off implying this family-friendly fare. This movie is gruesome! It may not be explicit but the violence is palatable and consistent.

Also, the adapted screenplay I thought was brilliant. Although did they really say "whine" (as in to complain) back in the 1870s?
photo
Morgantheaxe
Right is wrong, and left is correct!
11:34 AM on 12/29/2010
Excellent movie. I loved the irony of "Lucky" Ned Pepper being played by Barry Pepper. It's amazing having two movies to compare and seeing the stark contrast btw the two eras of cinematography. I give this one two thumbs up.



P.S. Stop dissing John Wayne. The guy was an actor. His craft was acting therefore you should understand that when he played a soldier he was not proclaiming that he personally was one. He was immulating the character in a story. Complaining about him not serving in ww2 or Korea because he acted in a war movie is exactly the same thing as proclaiming anyone who refuses to serve can never ever be allowed to write about a war or a painter who wouldn't serve being barred from painting combat scenes. It's silly. It's their job.
02:08 PM on 12/30/2010
Well as someone who was of legal age during the Vietnam war, John Wayne sold us a bill of goods, alot of boys died trusting John Waynes jingoism. I like him fine as an actor but he was very political during that war and since he never served himself he had alot of gall telling me I had to fight for his sorry behind! He took side during that time and it wasn't for the American youth, it was for the Military Industrial Complex and their General Electric war.
10:38 AM on 12/29/2010
Discout patriotism? Yeah, you know, wrapping yourself in the flag while being a draft dodger duing WWII. Remind you of any of the drugstore cowboys in the last administration?
photo
Morgantheaxe
Right is wrong, and left is correct!
11:23 AM on 12/29/2010
Ehhh I think you mean drug dealer cowboy. Bush's habits werent by prescription if you know what I mean?
10:13 AM on 12/29/2010
Loved it. The actors were forbidden the use of contractions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Horatio
Wordsmith seeks others for salacious mental trysts
01:24 PM on 12/29/2010
That's an interesting note. I wonder why. Contractions were in use far earlier than the period in which the movie is set. For example, Jane Austen used "shan't" in her writing.
10:13 AM on 12/29/2010
I really enjoyed this movie. Couple of parts made me cover my eyes but the acting was very good. Haliee was great!
photo
ontariogirl
Power to the People
10:00 AM on 12/29/2010
We went last night. Loved it. Amazing performance by Haliee Steinfeld.
09:36 AM on 12/29/2010
Remaking True Grit” I have some more suggestions. Remake: The Sound of Music, Gone with the Wind, the godfather, the star wars movies etc. There might be some money in it.
03:23 AM on 12/29/2010
Never liked John Wayne and his discount patriotism and generally avoided his movies including the Wayne version of Rooster Cogburn. Saw this True Grit, loved it. Anyone who hasn't seen this movie has missed one of the best films from the past decade. Casting right down to the minor characters is pitch perfect, the score should get an Academy nomination, the cinematography is beautiful, the story's great, Hailee Steinfeld's a constant amazement to watch, and the dark humor is spot on. I thought the elevated dialog was a brilliant touch. SEE THIS MOVIE. DO IT. DO IT NOW.
09:37 AM on 12/29/2010
discount patriotism?
10:36 AM on 12/29/2010
Yes, discount patriotism. Win all your wars in the movies and root for American belligerence in general, but let 18 year olds go do the real thing if it involves leaving blood, limbs or life on an actual battlefield. Today it's called "chicken hawk." Also called "conservative."
10:40 AM on 12/29/2010
BTW, John Wayne had to play the original Rooster Cogburn because Dick Cheney was too busy arranging his deferments.
photo
Morgantheaxe
Right is wrong, and left is correct!
11:39 AM on 12/29/2010
Hypothetical question for you. If a guy works on a crew laying bricks. His crew gets a job building a building on a military base. Said guy refuses to serve for his personal religous beliefs. Should he not build the building for the military, or should he do the best job possible on that building?