True Grit is Pretty Awesome

The lead actress did a fantastic job. Hadn't seen the original or read the novel, but I plan on reading the novel after seeing the movie. If

Cinematography was great, and the scenery where they filmed was just fantastic.

saw this over the new year's and i thought jeff bridges was great and definitely should be high on the candidacy for best actor academy award.

the film was entertaining but not as enjoyable for me as i guess i went into it expecting a coen brothers type film but it was just a simple western. (which is fine, and i know they were trying to be true to the book which i dont read who cares but the film was not what i expected).

spoiler
film kind of ended on a simplistic resolve on everything, everyone just started to conveniently show up at the last moment /right time and bash someone over the head before the guy took some other guy out. nothing was surprising to me as i knew everyone would be ok. the guy had the girl under the fists and i knew she was going to be saved by ..matt damon appearing out of nowhere of course. stuff like that.


oh and i agree as well, and have been saying it myself as i exited the movie,
matt damon was totally miscast in the movie.

Originally Posted by dave333

Click to expand...

Cinematography was great, and the scenery where they filmed was just fantastic.

One of the things that I appreciated about the newer version is that I am very familiar with the territory that the book/movie is supposed to be set in (the Ouchita/Winding Stair Mountains of SE Oklahoma). I've hiked and hunted in those hills for my entire life.

The 1969 original was filmed, I think, in the Sierra Nevadas in California which look NOTHING like the proper setting. There are no snow covered peaks in SE Oklahoma. It does snow in Oklahoma, but there are no peaked mountains there.

The new version does a much better job of capturing the flavor of the place. I believe it was filmed in central Texas and New Mexico. There were only 2 scenes that were clearly not right. One showed a quick shot of a peaked mountain (the mountains there are of the ridge variety, more like that Appalachians). The other was set in a birch forest. There aren't any birch trees with a few hundred miles of Oklahoma. Other than that, the scenery was very realistic. Especially the scenery with the boulder covered hillsides and pine forests. The Winding Stair Mountains look just like that.

Originally Posted by sho'nuff

Click to expand...

oh and i agree as well, and have been saying it myself as i exited the movie,
matt damon was totally miscast in the movie.

Maybe because I was comparing it to the original I disagree only because Glen Campbell was SO MUCH WORSE. Perhaps the worst acting performance ever captured on film in the original. Damon played the part at a much higher level in the remake. On the flipside, he didn't sing the theme song...so there is that.

Originally Posted by Mark from Plano

Click to expand...

Maybe because I was comparing it to the original I disagree only because Glen Campbell was SO MUCH WORSE. Perhaps the worst acting performance ever captured on film in the original. Damon played the part at a much higher level in the remake. On the flipside, he didn't sing the theme song...so there is that.

well, yeah i didnt see the first film so i cant compare, but knowing the part from what i have seen, it probably would have made more sense to have josh brolin play the damon part, and matt damon as the bad guy. would have been a little more surprising i would think. it would be more coen-like. i dunno

Personally, I thought Damon was great.

I really liked Matt Damon. He was brash enough but tough enough. While I do agree with your hidden assessment above, sho'nuff, it was only a sliver of the movie and so wasn't enough to bring my evaluation of the rest of the film down. If most things are really to my liking, I can be forgiving of a slip here and there like that.

Originally Posted by sho'nuff

Click to expand...

well, yeah i didnt see the first film so i cant compare, but knowing the part from what i have seen, it probably would have made more sense to have josh brolin play the damon part, and matt damon as the bad guy. would have been a little more surprising i would think. it would be more coen-like. i dunno

I don't know. The character is actually supposed to be a bit dandyish and not particularly adept. They make fun of him a bit for being a self-absorbed Texan. I think if you were looking for a tough-guy, Brolin might have made more sense, but that isn't the character.

Originally Posted by Jekyll

Click to expand...

Personally, I thought Damon was great.

+1

Originally Posted by Teacher

Click to expand...

I really liked Matt Damon. He was brash enough but tough enough. While I do agree with your hidden assessment above, sho'nuff, it was only a sliver of the movie and so wasn't enough to bring my evaluation of the rest of the film down. If most things are really to my liking, I can be forgiving of a slip here and there like that.

+1

Originally Posted by Mark from Plano

Click to expand...

I don't know. The character is actually supposed to be a bit dandyish and not particularly adept. They make fun of him a bit for being a self-absorbed Texan. I think if you were looking for a tough-guy, Brolin might have made more sense, but that isn't the character.

ok now i see. thanks. i guess that's what i get for not knowing the original book story.
now it makes sense.

all during the movie it was making me confused how he stood out as the odd guy not fitting in the western.

also i was expecting steve buscemi to pop out somewhere in a cameo anytime

Originally Posted by sho'nuff

Click to expand...

also i was expecting steve buscemi to pop out somewhere in a cameo anytime

What a thoroughly ordinary movie.

Originally Posted by sho'nuff

Click to expand...

saw this over the new year's and i thought jeff bridges was great and definitely should be high on the candidacy for best actor academy award.

the film was entertaining but not as enjoyable for me as i guess i went into it expecting a coen brothers type film but it was just a simple western. (which is fine, and i know they were trying to be true to the book which i dont read who cares but the film was not what i expected).

spoiler
film kind of ended on a simplistic resolve on everything, everyone just started to conveniently show up at the last moment /right time and bash someone over the head before the guy took some other guy out. nothing was surprising to me as i knew everyone would be ok. the guy had the girl under the fists and i knew she was going to be saved by ..matt damon appearing out of nowhere of course. stuff like that.

oh and i agree as well, and have been saying it myself as i exited the movie,
matt damon was totally miscast in the movie.

I agree with everything you just said:

1. Bridges killed.
2. Damon was far from impressive (and I usually like him in movies)
3. The movie was alright, but not great. I was really expecting a little more.

Originally Posted by JLibourel

Click to expand...

However, people will believe the damndest things about snakes. I had a boss who believed in the existence of the dreaded "hoop snake." He said his pappy had actually witnessed one of these creatures in action back in Tennessee.

That is funny.

You have to wonder how nature never created a hoop snake. It seems like it would be a very useful way for a snake to get around.