TRUE GRIT (2010; Blu-ray; Paramount)

P

PearlcorderS701

Banned


Releasing Studio: Paramount
Disc/Transfer Specifications: 1080p 2.35:1; Region 1 (U.S.) Release
Video Codec: MPEG-4 AVC
Tested Audio Track: English DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1
Rating: PG-13
Director: Ethan & Joel Coen
Starring Cast: Matt Damon, Jeff Bridges, Josh Brolin


PEARL'S PLOT ANALYSIS:


I must have been the only person – regardless of status whether it be critic, reviewer or everyday joe – that didn’t find appreciable gobs of applause for this oddly paced remake. It seems everyone loved it. But I just didn’t get what the hoopla was about – forget the nearly unforgiveable killing of a horse towards the end (which nearly always kills a film for me instantly, and is an element, seemingly, that the Coen brothers like to use in their pictures…remember when Josh Brolin’s character in No Country for Old Men shoots that poor dog by accident and just doesn’t care? I can’t even watch that scene) this film was riddled with incomprehensible, unintelligible dialogue, rather off-putting acting and absolutely no build up to satisfy the revenge fantasy it’s based on – the entire point of a girl tracking down the man who killed her father through a Texas Ranger and a hardened U.S. Marshall is explored so haphazardly at the end, and the sequence’s standoff moment between the girl herself and Josh Brolin’s murderer character so unsatisfying, I don’t really get why there was so much acclaim for True Grit.

I remember really wanting to see this when I saw the trailers – as a sucker for pseudo-Westerns like Tombstone and loving the Coen brothers’ No Country for Old Men, this promised to encapsulate the best of these, depicting Jeff Bridges as a hard-edged, one-eyed Marshall during the frontier era of America who is sent on a mission of revenge. The revenge scenario always proves ultra-entertaining, depending on which filmmaker handles it – Gladiator, The Patriot, Taken and even Ransom are good examples of this genre being done the right way. True Grit, based on the original of the same name, goes wrong in so many places, notably the pacing and ridiculously thick “frontier accents” spoken by the main characters, which makes it difficult to even understand what is being said most of the time. The Coens, while crafting a masterpiece drama with No Country just bombed here with this; where the trailers promised an exciting, anger-driven performance from Bridges’ character, bent on merciless destruction as he looks for his murderous man, played by Brolin, the final product wasn’t that exciting nor did Bridges’ character turn out to be what I expected in terms of depth and complexity. Upon first analysis, Matt Damon’s Texas Ranger character, on board for the mission of bringing in Brolin’s character, seems like little more than a backdrop and a way for him to get his name on the film’s marquee – but he ended up being slightly more entertaining here than Bridges…and that’s not really saying much.

The retelling of the classic John Wayne-endowed True Grit opens with the narration by an older Mattie Ross (Elizabeth Marvel) who describes the systematic killing of her father by one of his hired hands, Tom Chaney (Brolin) and how he made off with one of her father’s horses and two pieces of California gold when she was 14. Young Mattie, played by Hailee Steinfeld, has quite the mouth on her and does a bunch of double-talking as she desperately searches a town for someone she can hire to bring Chaney in for justice. All roads point to Bridges’ “Rooster Cogburn” character, a one-eyed Deputy U.S. Marshall known for being a hardened criminal chaser amongst the locals. Mattie witnesses Cogburn on the stand one afternoon in court, being questioned about his methods for bringing in a fugitive, and immediately pleads with him to take her assignment of tracking down the dangerous Chaney. The interaction and interplay between Steinfeld’s character and Bridges’ is downright silly in many aspects during these sequences; Cogburn sleeps in the back of an Oriental market of some kind as Mattie sits by his side attempting to wise-mouth him into finding her father’s killer. Cogburn, half drunk and making absolutely no sense with much of what he says, eventually agrees to accept the mission of tracking down Chaney for her, but when the morning of their adventure comes, she finds Cogburn has already started his journey without her, leaving a note that he shall return with Chaney so he could face the courts. Mattie, desperate to join in on the trip, races with her horse, “Blackie,” and finds Cogburn and a Texas Ranger LaBoeuf (Damon) on the other side of a river, preparing to hunt Chaney – it seems LaBoeuf is hunting Chaney as well for various crimes. Mattie pushes Blackie to his limits, the horse paddling through the water towards the other side of the river, and once there, she demands she come with them, and the three begin their journey after Chaney – but not before a ridiculous and unnecessary sequence involving Damon’s character, having enough of Mattie’s smart mouth, bending her over his knee and actually, literally spanking her. I have to be honest – I thought the horse portraying Blackie was the most entertaining, loveable character in this film. When Bridges’ character shoots him later on as he collapses during a chase sequence, the feeling was beyond heartbreaking; it did not sit well with me, at all.

As True Grit goes on, Mattie, Rooster and LaBoeuf interact as they stop for rest and shelter, and it’s these interactions which were the most ridiculous to me. Between Bridges’ drunken Western frontier babble and Damon’s tacked-on, wondrously fake Western-era ranger accent, it was difficult to follow what any of these characters were saying or talking about – add in Steinfeld’s annoying, lightning-quick Little House on the Prairie slang, and all was lost. Eventually, LaBoeuf cannot take the implications made of him by Mattie and Rooster, as there seem to be three distinct personalities clashing here, and rides off to seemingly leave the two of them to their mission of tracking Chaney. Mattie and Cogburn come upon a shack in the middle of a mountain pass somewhere in the Western wilderness, and stop for food and rest, running into two men who take shots at them from inside the cabin. Rooster, with his gunfighting skills, of course shoots back and hits one of the men in the leg – the entire sequence in my opinion was unnecessary and tiring, basically setting up the following scene in which LaBoeuf returns and discovers the shack, only to be surrounded by some of what appear to be Chaney’s men. Watching from a distance in the hills, Cogburn and Mattie witness LaBoeuf being attacked by these men as Cogburn shoots with precision at the men, coming down the mountain to rescue an injured LaBoeuf.

The final frames of True Grit are perhaps the most disappointing of all, as we’re expecting a major throwdown between the “gritty” U.S. Marshall Cogburn and Mattie’s father’s killer, perhaps in the fashion of the gunfights towards the end of Tombstone, but we get no such action really; the Coens instead approve a script that has Mattie fetching water in a river when she suddenly and unexpectedly comes across Chaney on the other side of the river, the two of them locking eyes. To be honest, Brolin’s Chaney character wasn’t nearly as frightening or threatening as the narrative or trailers of the film made out to believe; the first verbal standoff comes between Mattie and him before other mayhem ensues, including Mattie being captured by some of Chaney’s men, her falling down into a snake pit, LaBoeuf shooting and killing a man having a confrontation with Cogburn in the distance and of course the ultimate demise of Chaney. The whole thing was just wildly unsatisfying though, and wasn’t what I expected from this film. Bridges’ Cogburn character finds redemption within himself, softening his hardened soul (or some such metaphor) when he rescues Mattie from the snake pit after she’s been snacked on by a slithery critter, sucking the snake’s venom out of her hand and racing off on Blackie to get her medical attention before she dies. We later learn, in the film’s closing frames, that Mattie (older at this point and played by Liz Marvel) lost her arm because of the venom from the bite, but survived because of her rescue by Cogburn, and also that Cogburn himself had passed away when she comes to see him in a Western town he’s supposed to be in. The ending of True Grit felt very much like the conclusion of Tombstone in which we learn, with saddened effectiveness, that certain characters have died and yet have made a mark on history, after we’ve become connected with them in the films. However, in True Grit, I wasn’t really moved one way or the other. I didn’t think this remake lived up to the hype it garnered nor do I understand why it received the acclaim it did – personally, I enjoyed the aforementioned Tombstone much better than this, as far as modern Westerns go, as well as the Coens’ No Country for Old Men. As far as I’m concerned, No Country was a far, far better piece of American cinema, without the sequence involving Brolin’s character killing the dog of course.

CONTINUED BELOW...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
P

PearlcorderS701

Banned
VIDEO QUALITY ANALYSIS:

Paramount’s 1080p video encode for True Grit was absolutely stunning in most places – with just a hint of film grain residing in the backgrounds, this was a rock-solid, detail-rich transfer which truly showed what the Blu-ray format can do. Facial close-ups, brightly-lit outdoor sequences and sweeping vista shots were of the most flamboyant of these elements, as the sequences involving Bridges and the other actors out in the Western frontier wilderness were shockingly realistic. Dirt, gravel, sand and the snowy mountaintops of the frontier terrain were rendered with striking clarity, far surpassing what I assume the DVD edition looked like. It was almost as if you could simply reach out and touch the elements of the transfer from your couch – texture on clothing, facial hair and the intricate details of the Western plain environments popped with eye-opening characteristics.

AUDIO QUALITY ANALYSIS:

The sound mix for True Grit left me wanting a bit; from start to finish, it really wasn’t an explosive DTS-HD Master Audio track, and the issues with character intelligibity due to unnecessarily thick accenting made the center channel issues worse than they had to be. However, once adjusted to a comfortable range, the dialogue “issues” became relegated strictly to the production aspect of the film – not of a problem with the audio mix itself. The sporadic gunfight sequences, prevalent in Westerns, were satisfyingly impactful, but didn’t pack the quite the “hit-you-over-the-head” wallop I would have expected – the bullets and cracks of the frontier-era rifles hit the surround channels well enough, but again, the work could have been a bit more engaging for the sound mix here. I actually found this lossless high resolution DTS-HD Master Audio track to be about on par with the lossy legacy DTS mix from the Director’s Cut of Tombstone on DVD…the gunfire, impact and overall dynamics weren’t really “improved” when directly comparing these audio tracks.

SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS:

This was truly disappointing. Based on the exciting, testosterone-influencing and downright dramatic teasers and trailers for True Grit, I expected more – Jeff Bridges’ patched U.S. Marshall character seemed as though he was going to steal the show based on the trailers, and that his awesome role was going to redefine the meanings of justice and revenge. That didn’t happen. He spends much of the film babbling in incomprehensible drivel, fueled by alcohol and frustration, while Matt Damon’s Texas Ranger character didn’t seem to add up to much, either. Through Damon’s attempts at keeping his frontier-era accent for his character, you could totally make out his own vocal characteristics so prevalent in works like Saving Private Ryan, Good Will Hunting and The Adjustment Bureau. It just wasn’t believable. Further, putting the kibosh on the entire thing was Josh Brolin’s totally wasted, in my opinion, “Chaney” character who is hunted through the whole film – the narrative leads us to believe Chaney is a murderous monster who could only be dealt with by the likes of a badass Marshall such as Bridges’ Cogburn, but that’s not what really transpires. The actual standoff primarily takes place with the “Mattie” character holding a gun to Chaney, demanding he be brought in for justice after murdering her father, and from there, the whole ending goes downhill rapidly.

This was definitely not a buy for me, as I was disappointed after excitingly awaiting this title on Blu, and I believe the Coens did a much better job with No Country for Old Men. As I said, though, I am in the massive minority of those who didn’t care for the retelling of True Grit; consensus is that this was a wonderfully sculpted piece of cinema.

I’ll be reviewing the Liam Neeson spy/assassin thriller Unknown next!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
j_garcia

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
Have you seen the original? The original is more fleshed out with backgrounds and character development compared to this one. That doesn't make up for the fact that this one lacked that, but it helps understand who the characters were supposed to be.

I have to completely disagree with your review with respect to the presentation of the story however. It makes FAR more sense than No Country for Old Men. Yes, it does lack sufficient back story for most to pick up, but the characters are adequately represented. In reality, the Coens bombed with No Country. Except for interesting characters in odd situations, that movie was completely worthless and were it not for the performances (mainly Brolin) I would list that as one of the top ten worst films of all time. Tobmstone has many flaws, yet it remains one of my favorite films. It makes up for what it lacks and has room to spare.

I will comment on your review once again - you give ENTIRELY too much info in your synopsis, which should reveal events NOT actual DETAIL about the film.

There's already a thread for this disc as well.
 
P

PearlcorderS701

Banned
Have you seen the original? The original is more fleshed out with backgrounds and character development compared to this one. That doesn't make up for the fact that this one lacked that, but it helps understand who the characters were supposed to be.
Yes, I've seen the John Wayne original -- I still didn't think these characters were fleshed out or developed well, at all.

I have to completely disagree with your review with respect to the presentation of the story however. It makes FAR more sense than No Country for Old Men. Yes, it does lack sufficient back story for most to pick up, but the characters are adequately represented. In reality, the Coens bombed with No Country. Except for interesting characters in odd situations, that movie was completely worthless and were it not for the performances (mainly Brolin) I would list that as one of the top ten worst films of all time. Tobmstone has many flaws, yet it remains one of my favorite films. It makes up for what it lacks and has room to spare.
Oh, man -- we're WAY off on opinions here; I LOVED No Country For Old Men, and must disagree with everything you say here; to me, this film made FAR LESS sense than No Country, and I'll stick to that. The tension so thick you can cut it with a proverbial knife, the eerie silence between sequences that's as haunting as Bardem's performance itself...it was a drama masterpiece. THIS -- True Grit -- was FAR from that, IMO. But, as I stated, I realize I am in the minority on that one from what I have read.

I will comment on your review once again - you give ENTIRELY too much info in your synopsis, which should reveal events NOT actual DETAIL about the film.
Are you a critic? Are you a reviewer by trade? What you're commenting on is a style that I prefer to use (utilized by many in the online review community if you research it) and if you don't care for it, don't read it. I spend a great deal of time writing them, and to be constantly criticized by you is growing tiresome; I'm glad that's how YOU feel about my work. That's simply my style of reviewing.

There's already a thread for this disc as well.
So what? This was MY individual review and take on the title, and we're allowed to contribute even via newly created threads.
 
GlocksRock

GlocksRock

Audioholic Spartan
Just watched this blu ray last night and thought it was really good, the audio and video was excellent, and I liked the story too.
 
j_garcia

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
Oh, man -- we're WAY off on opinions here; I LOVED No Country For Old Men, and must disagree with everything you say here; to me, this film made FAR LESS sense than No Country, and I'll stick to that. The tension so thick you can cut it with a proverbial knife, the eerie silence between sequences that's as haunting as Bardem's performance itself...it was a drama masterpiece.
LMAO! A masterpiece. It was a piece alright. Oh boy, tension. The Blair Witch Project had tension too...that doesn't make it a good film either. :rolleyes: The funny thing about No Country: Nobody I've ever talked to about it, even those who liked it, can explain what it was about. It is almost as if the Coens were experimenting to see if they just put some cool scenes and a crazy character in there if they could win awards with no story at all. And the reason isn't because they didn't "get" it, it is because there is nothing to get. Talk about films with endings that were completely unsatisfying; No Country literally wrapped up nothing :confused: You are left to draw your own conclusions, which isn't always a bad thing, but in this case, it left everything completely open. It is a perfect example of a film winning accolades based entirely on hype and nothing else. Simply because of Bardem's character, this movie became popular, and that was pretty much all it had going for it. The Oscars are a joke.

Are you a critic? Are you a reviewer by trade?
Nope; nor are you AFAIK. I've watched thousands of films and read probably tens of thousands of film reviews and few of them have revealed actual plot details without warning the reader that they were spoiling it. Usually when they spoil it, it is because it is that bad. In this case, I've already seen the film, and while not an improvement over the original, it wasn't bad, so I completely disagree with your assessment. Your review is your opinion, and I am giving mine.

What you're commenting on is a style that I prefer to use (utilized by many in the online review community if you research it) and if you don't care for it, don't read it. I spend a great deal of time writing them, and to be constantly criticized by you is growing tiresome; I'm glad that's how YOU feel about my work. That's simply my style of reviewing.
If you are going to be a critic/reviewer, you will have to be capable of facing the same. A review that gives away the film to those who haven't seen it isn't a review. It also isn't a "style". The point of a review is to give people an idea whether or not they want to watch it, not to find out specific plot details. You've already ruined one movie for me, so trust me, I won't be reading any more of your reviews.

So what? This was MY individual review and take on the title, and we're allowed to contribute even via newly created threads.
Um, maybe because fewer threads are easier for people to search for when looking for a review of a particular movie. It is different when the admins do that, because you aren't an admin.
 
Last edited:
malvado78

malvado78

Full Audioholic
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS:

This was truly disappointing. Based on the exciting, testosterone-influencing and downright dramatic teasers and trailers for True Grit, I expected more – Jeff Bridges’ patched U.S. Marshall character seemed as though he was going to steal the show based on the trailers, and that his awesome role was going to redefine the meanings of justice and revenge. That didn’t happen. He spends much of the film babbling in incomprehensible drivel, fueled by alcohol and frustration, while Matt Damon’s Texas Ranger character didn’t seem to add up to much, either. Through Damon’s attempts at keeping his frontier-era accent for his character, you could totally make out his own vocal characteristics so prevalent in works like Saving Private Ryan, Good Will Hunting and The Adjustment Bureau. It just wasn’t believable. Further, putting the kibosh on the entire thing was Josh Brolin’s totally wasted, in my opinion, “Chaney” character who is hunted through the whole film – the narrative leads us to believe Chaney is a murderous monster who could only be dealt with by the likes of a badass Marshall such as Bridges’ Cogburn, but that’s not what really transpires. The actual standoff primarily takes place with the “Mattie” character holding a gun to Chaney, demanding he be brought in for justice after murdering her father, and from there, the whole ending goes downhill rapidly.

This was definitely not a buy for me, as I was disappointed after excitingly awaiting this title on Blu, and I believe the Coens did a much better job with No Country for Old Men. As I said, though, I am in the massive minority of those who didn’t care for the retelling of True Grit; consensus is that this was a wonderfully sculpted piece of cinema.
It is funny the items jgarcia brought up are many of the things I thought as I read you SUMMARY.

I capitalize summary because I, as well, do not read you full review. Why? Too much detail of the plot. I do not get to watch many movies. I eventually end up watching many that I want to see but I do not know when. I do not want to ruin the movie by reading you synopsis. I read the summary to find what you thought about the movie in general.

When I read this particular summary. I thought "Did he ever see the original?"

Not much in the original of:
exciting, testosterone-influencing and downright dramatic" scenes.
He spends much of the film babbling in incomprehensible drivel, fueled by alcohol and frustration
- Pretty much what John Wayne did in the original.

Through Damon’s attempts at keeping his frontier-era accent for his character, you could totally make out his own vocal characteristics so prevalent in works like...
- You list so many movies that he nothing to change his accent what did you expect out of him? Real acting? He is in some enjoyable movies but Daniel Day-Lewis he is not...

And I know jgar has commented on your reviews before but it is kind of hypocritical to be a reviewer/critic by hobby, posting critiques of others work and then come all up in arms when someone critiques you critique... :rolleyes:
 
j_garcia

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
It is funny the items jgarcia brought up are many of the things I thought as I read you SUMMARY.

I capitalize summary because I, as well, do not read you full review. Why? Too much detail of the plot. I do not get to watch many movies. I eventually end up watching many that I want to see but I do not know when. I do not want to ruin the movie by reading you synopsis. I read the summary to find what you thought about the movie in general.

When I read this particular summary. I thought "Did he ever see the original?"
The longer the review, the more likely people are to just skip to the summary. I am sure most everyone jumps to the summary anyway :) It wasn't until after I read the summary here that I had to read the rest of it because I felt it was way off base.

Pretty much what John Wayne did in the original.
I didn't mention that, but that IS the character and Bridges interpretation was a little flatter, but more drunkard and it worked. Bridges was the main reason I wanted to see the new one.

You list so many movies that he nothing to change his accent what did you expect out of him? Real acting? He is in some enjoyable movies but Daniel Day-Lewis he is not...
Damon is a decent actor at times. His performance wasn't as emphatic as the one in the original IMO.

And I know jgar has commented on your reviews before but it is kind of hypocritical to be a reviewer/critic by hobby, posting critiques of others work and then come all up in arms when someone critiques you critique... :rolleyes:
I am not trying to pick on an individual. The OP was offended by my critique, but I was offended by the review. I am opinionated; so sue me. If you post in a public forum, then you get to listen to that public.
 
malvado78

malvado78

Full Audioholic
Damon is a decent actor at times. His performance wasn't as emphatic as the one in the original IMO.
I enjoy watching most of his movies BUT what movies does he not just basically play the same character.

Now don't get me wrong there are not too make actors these days that are able a role and be adaptive. :rolleyes:

We may be beginning to to see this with Bridges though.

My wife and I recently sat down and watched the Big Lebowski. (I know I know welcome to the party)

I expect to be underwhelmed by hyped movies (i.e. Bladderunner). I thought the Big Lebowski was excellent. Bridges was excellent. I was not underwhelmed.
 
zhimbo

zhimbo

Audioholic General
No Country literally wrapped up nothing :confused: You are left to draw your own conclusions, which isn't always a bad thing, but in this case, it left everything completely open. .
You don't have to like the movie, but the idea that everything is left open is off-base. Pretty much everything IS resolved, just not in the way they're "supposed" to be resolved in mainstream crime drama. Maybe only major thing left open is what happens to Bardem's character. Every other plot point is as resolved as any other film - including the real point of the movie, I would argue, which is that Sheriff Bell removes himself from his work and the world (notice the title of the film?). Now, they aren't resolved in dramatic ways, or in the ways you might expect, but they're resolved.

The tricky thing about that movie is that it teases you into thinking it's about the usual crime drama stuff - who gets the money? who kills the villian? - but those are secondary, and the only reason to believe they'll be resolved in dramatic and satisfying ways is Hollywood convention.

Personally, I definitely count it as a masterpiece, and the best thing the Coen Brothers have ever done.
 
j_garcia

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
You don't have to like the movie, but the idea that everything is left open is off-base. Pretty much everything IS resolved, just not in the way they're "supposed" to be resolved in mainstream crime drama. Maybe only major thing left open is what happens to Bardem's character. Every other plot point is as resolved as any other film - including the real point of the movie, I would argue, which is that Sheriff Bell removes himself from his work and the world (notice the title of the film?). Now, they aren't resolved in dramatic ways, or in the ways you might expect, but they're resolved.
Yes, the title gave away the ending before the movie was 10 minutes old.

The tricky thing about that movie is that it teases you into thinking it's about the usual crime drama stuff - who gets the money? who kills the villian? - but those are secondary, and the only reason to believe they'll be resolved in dramatic and satisfying ways is Hollywood convention.
I absolutely don't need Hollywood convention and I don't expect Deus Ex Machina, but it left me feeling like something was still missing.

Personally, I definitely count it as a masterpiece, and the best thing the Coen Brothers have ever done.
The last thing I really enjoyed from them was O Brother Where Art Thou. The funny thing with them is, I love some of their films, and others I really don't like. No Country was one that I obviously didn't like. Hudsucker Proxy, Fargo, Barton Fink, Lebowski are all classics in my book though.
 
zhimbo

zhimbo

Audioholic General
Hudsucker Proxy, Fargo, Barton Fink, Lebowski are all classics in my book though.
My film geek cred is going to take a hit, but I haven't seen Hudsucker Proxy. The others I'm in complete agreement on.

I'll defend NCFOM to the grave though. I remember thinking the "non-ending" (by many usual standards) felt like a slap to the face when I saw it...in a good way. I think my mouth was still hanging open when the lights came on. The movie definitely jerks the audience around, setting up a ton of climaxes and then systematically pulling the rug out from under each of them. I can understand not liking that, and I don't mean that in a "Oh, you just didn't GET IT" sort of way.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top