Films/DVD Asylum

Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

Saw it last night...

Posted by Dalton on December 24, 2010 at 00:16:02:
The Coen's "True Grit" is a comptetent, but straight forward, retelling of the story. This and the original 1969 John Wayne version are decent but unspectacular movies. In my opinion this new version is by no means a must-see movie or a strong contender for any awards. See it with the proper expectations and you'll enjoy it. But it clearly is NOT Best Picture material.

Despite the more melancholy tone and an epilogue showing Mattie 25 years later, my opinion is that the Coens do not find anything deeper or more thought-provoking in the story than Hathaway and Wayne found in the 1969 version. That was a minor disappointment and leads me to a slight preference for the older film simply due to the iconic performance of Wayne.

The 1969 film operates on the premise that the Portis novel lends itself toward lightweight entertainment and broad characterizations as a movie. In contrast, the Coens have muted the humor and simply given us grittier, more authentic, locations and characterizations. A lot of witty dialogue is mumbled and glossed over too quickly. The Coen version takes place in early winter and the landscapes are bleak. Much of the story takes place at night. Although it is well-filmed, it is not a "pretty" looking western.

There is a new sequence involving Cogburn and Mattie happening upon a hanging victim (whom neither knows) in a tall tree, an indian and a medicine man wearing a bear pelt. This is not in the novel and seems to be an entirely grauitous Coen edition. It doesn't advance the plot or develop the characters. It's not even bizarre enough to simply entertain us. It's pointless.

Also, in the Coen version the Texas ranger keeps leaving and rejoining Cogburn and Mattie and much opportunity for interplay/conflict among the characters is lost. Apparently, this is more faithful to the novel. If so, I think the change made for the 1969 version is more effective even if Glen Campbell was an attrocious actor.

Again, see it with the proper low expectations and you'll enjoy it. By that I mean if you've seen the 1969 version don't let the artistry, tone, better casting, and greater authenticity of the Coens's take fool you into looking for any Deep Meaning along the way. Don't expect any great emotional catharsis either. The climax and ending are just as flat as the original.