For those of you miss the star power of John Wayne, don't think that Jeff Bridges tried to imitate the Duke in this version of True Grit. Though the novel was in fact written with the Duke in mind for the lead it had to be adapted to fit his larger than life movie star image. In this version Jeff Bridges is considerably less than larger than life.

As happened back in 1969 in the first version young Mattie Ross played here by Hallee Steinfeld goes to Fort Smith, Arkansas to look for the murderer of her father. She is determined to bring him to justice, but being a young lady barely into puberty she wants a man of True Grit. She seeks out US Marshal Rooster Cogburn of the one eye who has the meanest reputation and that would be Jeff Bridges. Texas Ranger Matt Damon declares himself in on the hunt for the murderer who is played by Josh Brolin.

A whole lot of the script is lifted bodily from the 1969 classic with lines given a whole different emphasis. Damon's character is a good deal darker than Glen Campbell's was, he meets up with Mattie Ross as she awakens from a night's sleep as opposed to over the boardinghouse dinner table. That scene can lead to all kinds of speculation for an even slightly prurient mind.

Bridges wisely does not attempt to imitate John Wayne, he creates his own Rooster who is menacing enough as he is. It was good enough to get him an Academy Award nomination though not the big prize that the Duke got. But as I said in my review of the 1969 True Grit, Wayne's award was for the work of a lifetime and a tribute to the man who still compels more folks to watch film than any other.

What this film really lacks is the colorful supporting players of the first version. I truly enjoyed scenes with Strother Martin dealing with Kim Darby over the horses. Her lawyer J. Noble Daggett is completely eliminated accept for J.K. Simmons over the soundtrack as Steinfeld reads a letter. One of the best scenes in the last film is John Wayne finally meeting John Fiedler as lawyer Daggett who brought that railroad to its knees. And John Wayne's scene with landlord J.W. Kim besting him at gin rummy. They even eliminated the cat General Sterling Price, that's unforgivable.

Still I did enjoy the different interpretation Jeff Bridges put on the role and this film will also stand the test of time.

True Grit isn't really a remake as such, but as a more faithful take on the novel. And even if it were a remake, it is one of the better ones if so. While I did like the 1969 very much, although I didn't like Kim Darby, this version does make some improvements, such as the pace and Mattie. But it also has some hindrances, the ending is abrupt, and some of the characters perhaps are not quite as intriguing as they are in the 1969 film, Rooster especially has a more somewhat cantankerous personality there.

Like all the Coen Bros movies, True Grit is beautifully shot, the scenery is stunning and there are some typically quirky moments in the cinematography. The story is compelling, and the dialogue is surprisingly droll which enhances the bleak atmosphere even more. The direction is superb, Carter Burwell's score is wonderfully atmospheric, the pace is more secure here and the final shoot out which stood out in the 1969 film is glorious. The performances are also really good. Jeff Bridges had the great John Wayne to compete with, not an easy feat at all, and while he is a more monotone Rooster Cogburn he is a revelation charisma and performance wise. Matt Damon impresses too, and Hailee Steinfeld is a big improvement on Kim Darby and comes very close to outshining her co-stars.

All in all, a great film. 9/10 Bethany Cox

WARNING: If you have a severe phobia about snakes, you might just want to skip this one!

WARNING: While no animals were harmed in this production, there is a scene with a seemingly dying horse being killed. Some might want to turn their heads or not watch.

WARNING: A lotta folks are very vividly killed in this film.

This film is a remake of the 1969 film by the same name. Now, with a new version of the movie in theaters I was intrigued--especially since it was made by the Coen Brothers--and EVERYTHING they make is infused with quality and is worth seeing.

I won't bother recapitulating the plot--after all, by now there are a bazillion reviews for this film and the original. Instead, I want to talk about what I liked about the film that make it transcend the genre. Unlike the average western, this one is great historically speaking. As a history teacher, I was thrilled to see a more realistic version of the old west. People wear a wider variety of hats (with more than just the stetson),the clothing colors are much more drab and hair styles are not at all neat--they ALL look like they could use shaves and haircuts--like most people did in the west. Also, there are no stereotypical gunfights on main street and immaculately groomed streets--it's dirty and the killings are without honor--and the deaths are bloody and vivid. I loved this about the film--it lacked the Hollywood glamor that really never existed out west in the 'ol days. The Coens really deserve kudos for this.

As far as the acting goes, it was excellent--and again, without glamor. Matt Damon was nice--and a lot more believable than Glen Campbell in the same role. The same can be said for Jeff Bridges--he was excellent. But the best acting was the very restrained and credible acting by Hailee Steinfeld in the lead (though, oddly, she was billed fifth!!). You could easily see why she was nominated for Best Supporting Actress--though, as I said, she really was NOT a supporting but should have been nominated for Best Actress. I don't know WHY teenagers and kids get such billing when they clearly are THE centerpiece of the film like Steinfeld was in this one.

Overall, there is really nothing I disliked about the film and think it's among the best westerns I have seen--and the best made in the last few decades. Not to be missed.

UPDATE: A week after seeing this, I re-watched the original. Here is what I think:

I loved the Coen version and heard what made it so great was that t was so much closed to the original story. Imagine my surprise, then when I saw that the original film was, in many places, practically the same film! So, if you like one you are bound to like the other! However, the films are not exactly alike and each has advantages over the others. So, in an unusual move, I'll list the pluses of each. For the first film, the 1969 version, I think it is better because:

1. The story is original not a remake. It took a lot of work to bring Charles Portis' novel to the screen and Marguerite Roberts did a fine job. In fact, her screenplay was so good that many times the Coens took her exact lines and used them in the remake.

2. John Wayne was good. His version of Rooster Cogburn was a lot more like John Wayne than anything else, but he was bigger than life and fun to watch.

3. The film took a risk by killing off Glen Campbell at the end instead of sparing his character (like the remake). You might like this. As I did NOT like Campbell's performance at all, this was a serious plus for me!

With the remake (2010),I liked it because:

1. It really got the look of the west right. It was much more historically accurate--with more muted colors, guns that were accurate to the time in the film and the costumes were more correct. Now, more correct meant more subdued in color and a lot less glamorous.

2. The main character, Mattie Ross, was MUCH better. 13 year-old Hailee Steinfeld was great and nearly the age of the character (a year younger). The original Mattie was too old and a bit whiny--almost like a cute little girl pitching a cute fit periodically. Steinfeld was stronger and more believable.

3. Matt Damon was a much better actor than Glen Campbell. I have no idea why, but starting in the late 1950s, John Wayne's westerns often featured pop singers in supporting roles--such as Fabian, Frankie Avalon and Ricky Nelson. While they weren't bad, they were not particularly good in most cases.

4. The film looked better. The winter scenes and starkness of the location shoot really stood out and looked great.

The bottom line is that both films were very good. If I had to pick one as the best, I'd say it's the new one--but not by much and I am not sure that the new one is THAT much of an improvement to merit the remake. The new one is a bit more graphic, though for a G-rated film the original is awfully adult (with cursing and some somewhat graphic scenes of violence).