Read Mixed User Reviews for True Grit (2010)

5

dubbleqJan 14, 2011

When i give this movie a five i am being kind because the absolute stupidity of this movie is unbearable to witness. It combines stupidity and bad acting into what is nothing more than a tart fruitcake

3 of 6 users found this helpful33

All this user's reviews

5

mckillustratorDec 23, 2010

Unfortunately this movie falls short of being worthwhile. Perhaps my expectations were too high--though how could they be "too high" with Bridges, the Coens, and the western genre--but True Grit felt bland and uninspiring. It certainly wasn'tUnfortunately this movie falls short of being worthwhile. Perhaps my expectations were too high--though how could they be "too high" with Bridges, the Coens, and the western genre--but True Grit felt bland and uninspiring. It certainly wasn't a bad film but I felt no tingling sensation of mental excitement that I get after movies I really enjoyed like after that first watching of No Country, for instance. The best moments of True Grit are few and far between. Ultimately despite the fact that this film is well shot and (generally) well acted, I left the theatre disappointed. I'm still trying to figure out what or who is to blame for that feeling...because it obviously can't be me:)… Expand

5 of 13 users found this helpful58

All this user's reviews

5

txrangersfan72Dec 26, 2010

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Being a huge Coen Brothers fan, I was surprised to hear they were remaking True Grit. I know they were fans of the original, but my experience with them made me believe they were going to take the original and improve it dramatically the Coen Brothers way. Well...they didn't. In fact, this was the most un-Coen Brothers movie I've ever seen. Not to say that is a bad thing, but having just watched the original, I could have not seen this version entirely and not missed anything. Being fans of the original, they clearly wanted to pay homage to the original. In fact, dialogue and setting-wise, it was about a 90% carbon copy of the original, down to the shots, the script and the way the characters were portrayed. The Coen Brothers really didn't do much to put their stamp on the film, except maybe the perfect casting. Aside from very minor differences throughout the film (such as Mattie covering the chimney to smoke out the first couple of ruffians rather than LaBoeuf and having LaBoeuf interact with Ned Pepper the first time instead of Rooster), the only meaningful change in the script is the last 30 minutes. I've never read the book, but the compliments given to this version is that it is more like the book. That must mean the ending. It is very different, and honestly, better than the original. However, anyone could have done this film the way it was done. The Coen Brothers didn't do anything to make this film special, so I'm grading it as an average film. I hope they enjoyed making it more than I enjoyed watching it and I look forward to them returning to their style soon.… Expand

3 of 8 users found this helpful35

All this user's reviews

4

AllisonJan 8, 2011

What I loved: Matt Damon, the cinematography, the premise. What I liked: Jeff Bridges. What I didn't like: the incredibly slow story and the one-note main character (Mattie Ross). What confuses me: why this movie is getting such rave reviews.What I loved: Matt Damon, the cinematography, the premise. What I liked: Jeff Bridges. What I didn't like: the incredibly slow story and the one-note main character (Mattie Ross). What confuses me: why this movie is getting such rave reviews. I suggest seeing it as a rental.… Expand

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

All this user's reviews

4

VypurrJan 11, 2011

I didn't really like this movie. Jeff Bridges voice was annoying (too much groveling in his voice), and the scenery looked pretty bland (no vibrant sky colors or grass colors). The town scenes looked unauthentic and it seems as if some of theI didn't really like this movie. Jeff Bridges voice was annoying (too much groveling in his voice), and the scenery looked pretty bland (no vibrant sky colors or grass colors). The town scenes looked unauthentic and it seems as if some of the background was intentionally a bit off or blurry, so someone wouldn't focus on it I suppose. The girl, Maggie spoke too sophisticated for a 14 year old, and seemed too rehearsed at times. The old vigilante cowboys even seemed to speak this way at times, and it came off as unauthentic. Maggie looked mixed race (white/black) and I'm wondering if this was intentional to appeal to a wider audience? I definitely don't think that was the "norm" in the 1800's. Whole thing seemed unauthentic and stiff. Thumbs down on the scenery and acting. Definitely didn't hold up to the original. A much better western is The Quick and the Dead with Sharon Stone and Gene Hackman. Hackman was born to play a cowboy and the scenery is perfect for that era and there was so much put into the visual effects of this movie.… Expand

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

All this user's reviews

4

s053714Jun 13, 2011

Compared to the John Wayne original, this version was so very ordinary. Where the original had great scenery, music, acting and scriptwriting, this new version is very dull. Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon are fine actors but their lines areCompared to the John Wayne original, this version was so very ordinary. Where the original had great scenery, music, acting and scriptwriting, this new version is very dull. Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon are fine actors but their lines are very wooden and unemotional - a sign of poor direction. The girl was pretty good but she couldn't save the movie. Although the original is one of my favorite movies, I truly saw this version with an open mind, and didn't much care for it. Why is this movie so highly regarded ? I'm sorry but I think the Coen's are greatly overrated.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

6

BroncosOwnYouJan 20, 2011

For any one to say that this version of True Grit is more faithful to the book by Charles Portis is ridiculous. This version changed just as much, if not more than the original did. I understand that the book is narrated through Mattie'sFor any one to say that this version of True Grit is more faithful to the book by Charles Portis is ridiculous. This version changed just as much, if not more than the original did. I understand that the book is narrated through Mattie's eyes but they left out so much of what made the book so great that it was almost a different story. Too many characters spoke lines in the movie that other characters in the book had actually spoken. Parts of the movie were out of order and the role of Rooster Cogburn himself was literally relegated to second fiddle.

This movie gets a 6 because it was a decent western. But if you want to watch True Grit stick with the original.

"The Dude" just couldn't pull off what the "The Duke" did over 40 years ago.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

asylumspadezNov 26, 2011

The acting was pretty poor and I expected far more however the teenage girl who played opposite of Bridges was amazing and made the film bareable. Overall its a very disapointing remake.

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

6

Lambo442Jan 4, 2011

all these westerns are much the same. An injustice is done and a jaded, anti-hero type mercenary gets hired to track someone down. All a bit dull and rehashed really. The Unforgiven was the first film to use the formula and it hasn't beenall these westerns are much the same. An injustice is done and a jaded, anti-hero type mercenary gets hired to track someone down. All a bit dull and rehashed really. The Unforgiven was the first film to use the formula and it hasn't been equalled since, with the exception of maybe apaloosa, which is leagues above this film. The Coen brothers should start directing porn instead.… Expand

0 of 6 users found this helpful06

All this user's reviews

6

TENCATIJADec 23, 2010

Well first off, I am a huge John Wayne fan. I have watched almost all of his movies, with this being one of my favorites. I was a little nervous on how Jeff Bridges was going to do in regards to taking on John Wayne's previous role andWell first off, I am a huge John Wayne fan. I have watched almost all of his movies, with this being one of my favorites. I was a little nervous on how Jeff Bridges was going to do in regards to taking on John Wayne's previous role and surprisingly, I thought he did a pretty good job. As a whole, I thought all of the acting was well done and particularly thought Hailee Steinfeld did an excellent job with portraying the role of Mattie Ross. I also thought some scenes were better than the original, like the scene where Rooster is trying to squeeze the information out of the two men in the cabin and one guy chops the other guys fingers off and stabs him in the heart and Rooster blows that guy's head off. I thought that seen kept the suspense moving and really moved the audience. However, I thought the first half of the movie really didn't build up the story at all and the fact that an hour of the movie took place in the town, I felt like that made the second half of the movie (the action scenes) feel rushed and we, the audience, didn't get the feeling of evil that is supposed to be portrayed through the rival gang of cowboys. The other thing that I felt really hurt the movie was the focus that was on how Rooster is a drunk. There was probably 3 different scenes that was focusing on how he's a drunk and I felt like that really hurt the plot. Overall, I thought the movie was good but most definitely not as good as the original. Hats off to you John Wayne...… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

6

criticalrangerJan 8, 2011

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The acting was brilliant. The cinematography often stunning. The story enjoyable. Joel and Ethan Coen have once again produced a visceral film, with moments of intensity (particular with the indoor scenes) and characters that are unforgettable (like that instant when the narrator is left behind with her father's killer). But there are moments that really concern you, and you wonder who it is that you're supposed to care about most. And, as a result, the film falls flat - its feels incomplete and without heart, despite the amazing quality of everything that went into its production. Would I recommend it? Absolutely - but only in the hopes that you discover what is there that I didn't see.

Admittedly, I think the best story was that told by Jeff Bridges' character. If only his was the main reason to watch the film. Haillie Steinfeld - well casted and well acted - doesn't quite fill the needs of a protagonist. You don't notice anything change in her... you don't feel anything change in her. At the end you wonder why it is that you've just watched the film - because Jeff Bridges' character would've been the best protagonist to make the film have a purpose.

As it stands it doesn't provide anything other than a story that doesn't make you feel. And that is not a good thing - even when you consider Joel and Ethan Coen's hard-style of directing and lack of interest in "feelings" in the past they have always managed to produce something more magical than this...… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

6

MrRiggsJan 9, 2011

Well...nothing beats the original True grit. This movie has a well supported cast, its the ONLY thing the movie has tho. Its well acted, the sights/sounds/horses/scenery is all fine but I just found the movie boring and somewhat just rambledWell...nothing beats the original True grit. This movie has a well supported cast, its the ONLY thing the movie has tho. Its well acted, the sights/sounds/horses/scenery is all fine but I just found the movie boring and somewhat just rambled on without much action, they could have done wayyy more with this and I have to say my expectations were somewhat high for this when I seen the trailers for it, but I have to say they make the movie far better then it is by those trailers...not bad but not the best remake of a western by far, 6/10 for me for just didnt keep me entertained throughout, didnt keep me wanting to watch it.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

BlitzcragJun 11, 2011

First, no action. Instead, this 14 year old girl talks the entire time. Matt Damon doesn't do anything for the entire film and Bridges just walks around with an indiscernible southern accent.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

jluaFeb 27, 2011

Never has my opinion after seeing a movie been so far removed from the general buzz. In my opinion, True Grit looks like a B-movie Western, at best. It is hard for me to understand all the favorable critic reviews, other than to imagineNever has my opinion after seeing a movie been so far removed from the general buzz. In my opinion, True Grit looks like a B-movie Western, at best. It is hard for me to understand all the favorable critic reviews, other than to imagine that there was a degree of the "star-struck" factor. Because, stars there were; the track record of all the creative team is impressive. What happened, then, when they got to make this movie? It may have been the all too well-known lack of inspiration. LetÂ´s hope that is was a temporary condition, and they revert to making good films, as they have shown they can do. At least in the past.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

SpunkyMonkeySep 4, 2012

Another one of those movies with some nice ideas and good moments, but which doesn't gel cohesively enough to work as an overall package. Pacing wise it drags in parts and, as potentially interesting as the characters are, they never quiteAnother one of those movies with some nice ideas and good moments, but which doesn't gel cohesively enough to work as an overall package. Pacing wise it drags in parts and, as potentially interesting as the characters are, they never quite fulfill their potential. I had to watch the movie with subtitles on because of Bridge's indecipherable accent too, and it did take something away from the movie. Get the original instead.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

emkadvFeb 10, 2011

There was much to admire about True Grit, but I found it hard to get past the amount of violence, some of it quite gratuitous. I suppose I should have known what to expect from the Coen brothers. Much of the film's dialog seemed stilted,There was much to admire about True Grit, but I found it hard to get past the amount of violence, some of it quite gratuitous. I suppose I should have known what to expect from the Coen brothers. Much of the film's dialog seemed stilted, which probably reflects the way the Coen brothers believed (possible correctly) that people spoke in the late 19th century. My wife and I were discouraged by how many of Jeff Bridges's lines were mumbled and hard to understand. I know that way of speaking fit the character, but we found it hard to follow parts of the film.

Overall, the film did seem realistic, however. I frequently found myself thinking "I'm glad I don't live in that time and place!"… Expand