Carl the Critic: Reviews "True Grit"

Source

Carl the Critic: Reviews "True Grit"

The Following was a review for "True Grit" made by me this year on January 10.

I must admit that after seeing "Tron Legacy" I was a bit angry at Jeff Bridges, and felt that there was no chance that he would ever in a million years be forgiven in my eyes for such a piece of crap film with awesome music and so so special effects. But I am pleased to say that it has either been a million years or I must have misjudge him as an actor at any rate "True Grit" is a movie that had changed my mind about the man's abilities yet again. The story is about a little girl named Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld), a girl who is as stubborn as a mule who is seeking revenge on the man named Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin), who killed her father because of a dispute of some pony or gold (I couldn't tell which because of the strange dialogue), but at any rate she hires a one-eyed bounty hunter named Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) to help her find and kill the man who killed her father. Cogburn also is helping Laboeuf (Matt Damon) or "The Texas Ranger", a sorta creepy whiney bitch who keeps coming and going and coming and going back and forth. Laboeuf is looking for Chaney for different reasons, Chaney killed a Texas senator over a dispute over a dog (which led me to theorize that this guy has a thing for animals) and so Laboeuf is hired by the family of the senator to bring Chaney to Texas to see him hang. But Mattie is from Alabama so she doesn't like that idea hat her father's killer be killed in a place where some senator was killed because who cares about state senators?

The story of "True Grit" is definitely solid and is one of the best remakes I had seen in a while, but there seems to be that the characters in the movie kept on increasing as the movie progressed, and then decreasing at the same rate, leaving very little time to care about them and leaving the question "why did that person matter in the story?" It is very hard to understand the movie at times, and it is almost like a foreign film the way the movie was using terms that haven't existed in about 100 years. "Well Dog my Cats where did that prairie dog rallied himself abouts to?" This is a western term that apparently means "Hello where's the bathroom?" In addition to people who hate violence or gore of any kind, I warn you (without spoiling the plot) that there are some very intense scenes that may be hard for you to watch. But I for one really enjoyed myself through out the movie and felt that the Coen Brothers did the original movie justice.

OVERALL: I gave "True Grit," 8.4 out of 10, because it went beyond my expectations and I feel like it does the original John Wayne film justice.

I definitely recommend this movie and hope that if anyone is reading this thing (up to the very end and in that case congrats, you deserve an award of some kind) please feel free to like my review or comment as to why I am wrong. :)

What about you?

If you saw "True Grit," What did you think?

  • worst movie ever >:(
  • It was bad, but... :(
  • So-so :/
  • It was good, but... :)
  • BEST MOVIE EVER!!! :D
See results without voting

More by this Author


Comments 6 comments

imadork profile image

imadork 5 years ago from St. Peters, MO

Have not seen this remake yet. Unfortunately, I do not get out to the theater as often as I used to. Cable and Netflix supplements this but leaves me about 3 or 4 months behind the times.

I did recently catch (for the first time) the original John Wayne version recently on TV. I was wondering how the remake measured up to the original. I usually am not a fan of the older westerns, do to plot simplicity and cheesy "violence". If I have to see one more scene where the good guy in the white hat shoots the gun out of the hand of the bad guy in the black hat -- who then proceeds to yell "ahhh" while rubbing his hand -- I'll put a real bullet through my TV! True Grit impressed me though. Pretty gritty (pardon the pun) for a John Wayne western. Not nearly as awesome as Eastwood's Man With No Name trilogy but still good. Very good performance by Wayne.

If you saw the original, how do you compare the two?


CarltheCritic1291 profile image

CarltheCritic1291 5 years ago Author

I just felt that the story, and that the dialogue from both movies was really close. There are a few changes that I thought were not that big of a deal (one difference occurs at the end, but I'm not sure how to articulate it without giving away either movie to anyone else who reads this review). I'm sorry I took so long to answer, you've asked a great question, and I'm trying to think real hard how to answer it, without repeating what I already said, or giving away too much of ending.


imadork profile image

imadork 5 years ago from St. Peters, MO

To prevent any spoilers, I'll settle for a simple "Remake is better" or "Original is better". ;)

Being a huge Coen Brothers fan, I'm sure I would find the remake more enjoyable. Just waiting for the DVD to be released!


CarltheCritic1291 profile image

CarltheCritic1291 5 years ago Author

Hahaha,Fair enough. :) "Both are good"


Stevennix2001 profile image

Stevennix2001 5 years ago

To be honest, I think this is arguably one of the few remakes that managed to out perform the original. Although I still love the original John Wayne version a lot, but I think this movie was a lot more faithful to the story, and it was a lot deeper in a lot of ways compared to the original.


CarltheCritic1291 profile image

CarltheCritic1291 5 years ago Author

Well I'm glad you said that Steve, because I am sure many people who watched both might feel the same. Thanks for the comment :)

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working