True Grit VS. True Grit

True Grit '69 vs. True Grit '10

After viewing both films, and several discussions on the topic, I've decided to put my thoughts into words.

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD

This won't be so much a QUICK REVIEW like my normal posts, as I feel there are many things to talk about when comparing the John Wayne classic from 1969, to the Jeff Bridges version of 2010. I like the new movie, and in many ways it improves on the original, but it's really not a BETTER film, in my opinion.

"Fill your hands, you son of a bitch!"

Before I get into specifics, let's talk about the story. Both films are based on the 1968 book, True Grit, written by Charles Portis. The story is set in 1877 Arkansas, and is about a young girl named Mattie Ross, who hires the notorious Rueben J. "Rooster" Cogburn to hunt down ranch hand Tom Chaney, who murdered her father, and is hiding in Indian territory. Cogburn is a U.S Marshall, notorious for his drunken disposition, and trigger-happy ways. Mattie uses Cogburn's need for money, and the fact that Chaney is traveling with Ned "Lucky" Pepper, to persuade him to take the job. They are joined by a Texas Ranger named La Boeuf, who is also hunting Chaney for killing a Texas Senator, and his dog. 

Kim Darby as Mattie Ross

That is the premise of both films in a nutshell. While both use the book as the source material, they go about different ways of telling the story. The original movie took the book, and made a movie that was accessible to a vast audience. They removed the narrative by Mattie Ross, and made changes that helped move the story along, and build the characters. The cast was great, with John Wayne as Cogburn, Kim Darby as Mattie, Glen Campbell as La Boeuf, and Robert Duvall as Ned "Lucky" Pepper. We can argue all day about the type of actor Wayne was, and how his Best Actor Oscar was more a "Lifetime Achievement Award" than anything else, but that won't change my mind about this role. I liked Wayne's Rooster Cogburn better.

That's not taking anything away from Jeff Bridges, who is great in the 2010 version. I love Bridges, but he really didn't bring anything new to Cogburn, and overall had less redeeming value than Wayne's Cogburn. Cogburn was an anti-hero, but ultimately still a hero. A good guy, deep down. John Wayne was able to do this, and even though it was John Wayne, playing John Wayne, it worked. Bridges seems to go too far into the darkness of the character, to a point where, even when he becomes the hero at the end, you don't exactly want to cheer for him. You want to say "It's about time". It was also very difficult to understand him throughout the film, as his mumbling, and growling should have come with subtitles.

Cogburn gives La Boeuf a warning.

So you're asking yourself about now, "How can you say he was great in the movie, and then then tell us why you didn't like it?". Good question. Here's my answer: Jeff Bridges is great, whether he's fighting Iron Man, singing country music, or trapped in a cyber world. He's gonna give you 100% percent, regardless. The fault here would lie in the Coen Brothers, who directed, produced, and wrote this version, which is a stretch, considering so many scenes, and lines where exactly the same in the orginal film directed by Henry Hathaway, and written by Marguerite Roberts.

If you'll remember, they claimed this wasn't a remake, but another adaptation of the book. That may be what they intended, but after viewing both films back to back, it felt more like a remake to me.

Getting back to the cast, the 2010 film also has Matt Damon as La Boeuf, Hailee Steinfeld as Mattie Ross, Barry Pepper as Ned "Lucky" Pepper, and Josh Brolin (in nothing more than a cameo) as Tom Chaney. All were great (almost) in their roles, especially Steinfeld as Mattie Ross. At only 14 years old, I suspect she may receive an Oscar nomination, as her performance was nothing less than spectacular. Matt Damon's La Boeuf was adequate, but not as memorable as Glen Campbell's, and underused. As good of an actor as Damon is, the Coen's missed a great opportunity here. This should have been Oscar material for Damon.

Hailee Steinfeld as Mattie Ross

Another standout performance was Barry Pepper. His take on Ned "Lucky" Pepper was fantastic, and he makes the absolute most out of the few scenes he has. The nasty teeth, and the scarred lips (which, unlike the original, are never explained here), and hate in his eyes made him look the part. His performance was superior to Robert Duvall's. A big disappointment here is Josh Brolin, who received billing on the poster, but only appears briefly, similar to the Schwarzenegger/Willis appearance in The Expendables. A big to do, about nothing. His performance even felt like he stopped in on his lunch break from doing something else more important.

Overall, believe it or not, I enjoyed the new True Grit. It only worked for me though, because of my knowledge of the characters, via the original movie. So many little details were fleshed out in 1969, that were overlooked in 2010. For instance, it is never revealed (unless somehow I missed it) that Cogburn was responsible for Ned Pepper's scarred lip. That established history between the characters, and motivation. That was lost in the 2010 film. Another pivotal scene that was left out, was Mattie's history with Chaney, or the actual murder of her father. It's all explained in a brief opening narrative, that felt rushed, and out of place. In trying to be true to the book, they made a less entertaining film. Sometimes there are reasons to make changes when adapting written word to moving pictures. The narrative here, at the beginning, and ending, should have been left out. The time spent on it would have been better used on character development.

I've already heard from many who liked this movie, and I agree with most of the praise it's receiving. It is a good movie. Visually, it felt more like the time period, than the original. The score is definitely better, as the original was hokey, and incredibly light, for a film with revenge as the main theme (but then again, it's rated G). The costumes, and makeup were fantastic, and will probably get Oscar attention. In many technical ways, it's superior, by a landslide. Aside from Hailee Steinfeld, and Barry Pepper, I like the performances, and character development in the original better.

Overall, I'm gonna call this a draw. Both films bring something to the table that the other doesn't. I strongly suggest that anyone who has seen one, see the other, and form their own opinion on which is better.

True Grit (1969)

Rated G, Runtime 120mns

True Grit (2010)

Rated PG13, Runtime 110mns

DOUBLE FEATURE REVIEW: Tron (1982) and Tron Legacy (2010)

TRON


I remember watching Tron as a kid, and being confused by the computer themes, and storyline. It was 1982, and computers weren't something found in everyone's home, or workplace. Tron truly was ahead of it's time, and pioneered the use of computer generated imagery. 


The movie focuses on Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges), who is trying to hack into his former employer, ENCOM, to find the evidence he needs to prove that Dillinger (David Warner) stole video games he created, and profited from them. With the help of former co-workers Alan (Bruce Boxleitner), and Lora (Cindy Morgan), he is able to get inside the facility, and access the system via a terminal in Lora's lab.


When the Master Control Program (MCP) detects Flynn, it uses a laser system Lora has been developing to digitally transport him into the ENCOM mainframe. Sound crazy? It is.


Once there, Flynn is captured by the MCP's commander, Sark, and force to compete in arena style sports. He meets a program named Tron (also played by Boxleitner) , and the agree to work together to take down the MCP.


Of course, they succeed, and Flynn is returned to normal, along with the evidence he needs. The movie ends with Flynn taking over ENCOM.


It's a fun movie, with great concepts. Having the programs look like their users was a neat idea, and a great way to have the actors play dual roles. Along with Alan/Tron, we see Flynn/Clu, and Lora/Yori, and Dillinger/Sark/MCP. It's unfortunately VERY dated. If you haven't seen it in a long time, you may be disappointed at how bad it has held up. The only saving grace here is the sequel.

Tron

Rated PG, Runtime 96mns

TRON LEGACY


The sequel picks up in 1989, just seven years after the events of Tron. Flynn has been working on what he calls The Grid, and promises to show it to his young son, named Sam. He tells Sam of the programs helping him: Tron, and Clu.


One night, Flynn vanishes, leaving behind his young son, and a large empire.


20 years later, Sam (Garrett Hedlund) is visited by ENCOM executive, and friend Alan (Boxleitner) who tells him he received a page from his father's old arcade that has been closed for 20 years. Sam goes to investigate, and finds his father's secret office behind a video game. When he tries to access a terminal, he is hit with a laser, and sent to The Grid, just like his father many years ago.


There's really not a quick way to explain the plot here, so I'll just leave it to the basics.


Sam meets Clu, who looks like his father, only 20 years younger. Clu rules The Grid, with the help of his enforcer, Tron. He forces Sam to compete in deadly games, just like the events from the first film. Sam is rescued by Quorra (Olivia Wilde) and taken to see his father, who has been trapped inside The Grid for the past 20 years. The rest of the film is basically about Sam trying to stay alive, save his father, and return home.


I have to give credit on the acting. Everyone was great here, especially Michael Sheen as the flamboyant Castor/Zuse. He makes the most of his short time on the screen, and gives the most memorable performance.


While sometimes confusing, Tron Legacy is a fantastic movie to see. Visually, we've never really seen anything quite like it. It one of those rare sequels that improves upon the ideas from the original film so much, that it feels necessary. While the first Tron was noted for being ground-breaking for the computer animation used, Tron Legacy will be remembered for making Jeff Bridges look 20 years younger in order in flashback scenes, and as Clu.


The one thing that bothers me about both movies, is the fact they used Tron in the title. Clearly Flynn was the main focus of both movies. Tron is just a program that helps Flynn in the first film. In the sequel, he has an even smaller role. Regardless, they are great movies to watch back to back, which is how I viewed them, in order to write this review.






Tron Legacy
Rated PG, Runtime 127mns