96% True Grit

I have watched this film twice now, and I can say without any real hesitation, that this is, in just about every single way, the far superior of the two adaptations of the Charles Portis's novel. The one major thing the John Wayne version has over this one is that it had John Wayne. Don't get me wrong, that one is a good movie, but this is a great one. And, not only that, this one comes off more like art, whereas the other was just a fun movie.This is probbaly the most straight-forward, and, for lack of a better term, normal film that the Coen Brothers have ever made. That is a bit odd yes, but there's nothing in the world wrong with that. Hell, they certainly earned the right to do whatever they wanted long ago, so let's just let them. <a href="http://www.gobizdiscount.com"><strong>Replica UGG boots</strong></a> Their track record also certainly makes this acceptable, too.If you didn't alread know, this is the story, set in circa 1880, of a 14 year0old girl who, bound and determined to see her's father's murderer brought to justice, hires a cantankerous, mean drunken one-eyed U.S. Marshal to help her get the job done, with assistance from a Texas Ranger who also has a score to settle. This is not technically a reamke of the John Wayne version, as they are both adaptation of a novel, although this one sticks far closer to the source material. It is not a remake in the same <a href="http://www.gobizdiscount.com"><strong>Replica UGG marketplace</strong></a> way that every new cinematic version based on Shakespeare is not a remake of previous versions. This is a brilliantly observed story about respect, retribution, and the consequences of being too determined to see something to an end. Jeff Bridges has the unenviable job of filling John Wayne's boots, but his work is tremendous, and he really disappears into the role, even though his portrayal will probably never become iconic. Newcomer Hailee Steinfeld really impresses here, and her Oscasr nomination was rightly deserved. Despite being in every scene, she was placed in the supporting actress category because it was determined that she would have had no chance at all of winning if placed in the lead category. That's silly, but okay. Regardless, she is wonderful, and I would love to see many more great performances from her in what I hope will be a long and prosperous career. Matt Damon, Josh Brolin, and Barry Pepper round out the rest of the major supporting <a href="http://www.gobizdiscount.com"><strong>shoess</strong></a> roles, and they all do quite well, as do all of the lesser players. Like many Coen Brothers films, there's some good (if sometimes grim humor), as well as some very playful and colorful dialogue. Carter Burwell's music is grand and sweeping, and the look, attention to details, and cinematography are absolutely beautiful. Roger Deakins got royally screwed out of an Oscar for his work here, and that's a real shame. This film is more dark and gritty than the 1969 version, as well as a slightly more violent, but oddly enough, it's <a href="http://www.436100.info/view.php?id=91012"><strong>Give An Abstract Oil Painting And Impress Them | Free Article ...</strong></a> a bit more restrained than it could have been. I was surprised at just how grim the final 10 minutes or so were, but they don't really feel too out of place given the context. Still though, it did catch me off guard.So yeah, the Coen Brothers play it essentially straight (there are a few quirky things here and there, though), but who cares? This is a wonderful western, and definitely worth checking out. December 1, 2010