![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
64.105.34.164
In Reply to: RE: "True Grit:" nothing special. For the first time in memory, Bridges gives a posted by tinear on December 27, 2010 at 08:55:10
>> He should send Billie Bob Thornton a piece of his check because he copied the speech mannerism from Billie's character in, "Slingblade." <<
You need to go see Slingblade again. Bridges didn't sound a thing like Thornton.
>> Not a surprise in the film. Not a memorable shootout. <<
Two immediate examples that prove you wrong: the determination of the girl in her dialog with the horse seller and the violence erupting in the cabin. There was plenty going on to keep you on your toes.
>> Damon's interaction with the irascible Cogburn isn't clever, witty, or entertaining. The young girl, however, is memorable. <<
The Coens were going for a realistic depiction of an older, more experienced gunslinger juxtaposed to a younger marshal seeking cash more than anything else. It's called character development and as usual, you'll probably need to see this a few more times to get the nuances of the dialog.
>> "Unforgiven" set a bar very high for Westerns and, surprisingly, this effort comes up way, way short. <<
Totally meaningless comparison. Unforgiven was an "anti-Western" that flipped the hero and villian roles by making the ruthless outlaw switch places with the lawful sherriff. True Grit was an exploration of just that: determination and righteousness.
>> Both are revenge plots involving young women hiring "over the hill" lawmen. <<
No, no no. Eastwood's character in Unforgiven was hired by some young buck who couldn't shoot straight and had no belly for what needed to be done. The "young women" in that film were whores, not an innocent child who insisted on riding out to find her father's killer. One gets the impression that Unforgiven is the only other western you've seen. That doesn't make it worth comparing to True Grit; if any Eastwood film is, it's Pale Rider, but even that makes for a fairly meaningless comparison.
>> A successful Western needs a well-drawn, terrible villain. In TG, we don't meet the under-utilized Brolin's character till the 3/4s mark and then he's still a minor character. <<
No, he had built suspense and his mere presence alone with the child was chilling. Maybe the Coens are too subtle for you; you need to be hit over the head with bad guys and shootouts like a little boy.
>> The plunge/rescue down the "hole" seemed tacked on, ridiculous. The horse-ride, similarly, was poorly conceived and executed. <<
Are you kidding? The snakes had tremendous realism. And the way the injured girl saw the stars during the rush back had an almost spiritual flavor.
>> Now, don't get me wrong: I was thoroughly amused throughout. But when one goes to a Coen Bros. film, such as "No Country," one experiences art. This time, set your bar lower. They did. <<
If you failed to see the artistry in True Grit, you might as well get your brain and eyes removed. You're done.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
Follow Ups:
Spot on...an amazing scene that I watched with a lump in my throat. Spellbinding.
![]()
> > Two immediate examples that prove you wrong: the determination of the girl in her dialog with the horse seller and the violence erupting in the cabin. There was plenty going on to keep you on your toes. < <It's funny you bring these two particular scenes up. They stuck out in my mind as the ONLY two scenes done better in the original 1969 True Grit .
One improvement in the Coens' version: Mattie's falling into the snake pit as an "equal and opposite reaction" of firing the fatal gunshot to Chaney was more symbolic. In the original, it comes off more as a plot convenience since Chaney lives after Mattie's shot. (It is Cogburn who finally kills him.)
The original took a more paternalistic approach. Mattie remains "innocent" of any direct killing and does not lose her arm. In the Coens' version she gets retribution at her own hand, but must be "punished" with an irredeemable physical handicap, just as Cogburn was. There's a little more truth and resonance to the story this way, implying that justice does not come without cost to he (or she) who seeks it.
Was the Coens' more explicit telling of the story worth all the effort? Not really. As I said in an earlier post, the lessons are obvious and virtually the same in both versions. And the Wayne version is more entertaining.
Edits: 12/28/10
Which is what I took the point to be in Mattie's case.
J.B.
Her Mattie was my favorite character and here's hoping she will get the recognition she deserves...and the roles she deserves.
I wonder what a slightly younger Clint Eastwood would have done with the Rooster Cogburn role?...If he could stop playing Clint Eastwood long enough.
There is a Japanese version of 'True Grit' that I saw many moons ago and the name escapes me but it was quite good, ring a bell with anyone here?
J.B.
about opinion, but there can be none regarding the gender of the slashed whore(s) who hired Eastwood's character.
This was a hastily done, mediocre film which needn't have been done since it failed to surpass the original.
And I saw "Slingblade," again, two weeks ago.
Bridges should send Billie Bob half his check.
So how do you think it compares to the original? I prefer the original, though I think a fair bit of nostalgia factors in there. I do think it is a much better/different movie than Unforgiven (westerns are my favourite genre, and while I think Unforgiven is quite good, I find it a bit overrated).
recognizing it as iconic and making me ponder, "What was Bridges thinking!"
He brought nothing new to the role.
Nothing.
I found the original entertaining, nothing exceptional.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: