Owen
Photoshop Savant
Agreed. This pretty much sums up how I interpreted the film. Saw it twice. Loved it.
True Grit
- Thread starter Sad Max
- Start date
Agreed. This pretty much sums up how I interpreted the film. Saw it twice. Loved it.
Batutta
Major Contributor
Thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I'm surprised nobody here has praised Hailee Steinfeld's performance, as I thought it was pretty astonishing, especially for a 14 year old. Bridges was great but that's almost a given, especially with a role as juicy as this one. And Damon was nicely understated in a role that could have been bufoonish. I think this is the most sincerely heroic film the Coen's have ever done. They usually undercut heroism or anything that could be sentimental with heavy doses of irony, but that would have been disastrous here and they played it wonderfully straight. I think ALL three major characters had arcs, but they had more to do with how they viewed each other, with each developing a respect for the other in the end. They weren't major transformative arcs but they were arcs. This is a film I like more with each passing moment, unlike most films today which are utterly disposable. I think those who say it doesn't fit in with the Coen's filmography aren't looking very hard. The dialogue and sense of place is very particular, it's just a time and place we've seen a lot of on film so it doesn't stand out as much as a Fargo or Raising Arizona. But it's just as carefully measured, as are the visuals...and Roger Deakins is god. My only criticism would be that the pacing seemed to drag a little in the middle, but the end made up for it. The Coen's get more suspense out of a couple of snakes than many blockbusters can muster with millions of dollars worth of CGI jackassery.
Jawa Ex Machina
Veteran
arroway
Well-known member
There was no "narrative messing about" in No Country, just the opposite. It stayed true to the source material.
As for True Grit, having recently read the book, I don't see what all this fuss is over with the Coens supposedly basing their film off the book rather than the previous film since the first film was pretty much spot-on as far as the source material is concerned.
Haven't seen the new film yet but the girl looks to be a lot less annoying than the one in the first film. I can't see anyone topping the Duke either. He was born to play a character like Rooster.
mjmcneese
Veteran
Must say that I agree...and that there is so much more of that kind of micro-directing in the film. I've only seen it once, but there is definitely enough in there that one could study. It's usually films like this that, on the surface, seem to have little character development. But with a little bit of thought, you begin to see how that the arc is, in fact, quite deep.
The only thing I'm on the fence about is the lighting of the night scenes. I know that it's difficult, and there are limitations when dealing with such wide open spaces. But, in a lot of the shots, it looked as though they just craned 18ks up and shot. Intensity and spatial relationships of the lighting was all over the place. Nit-picky, but it stuck out to me.
Just saw it yesterday . Enjoyed the little things in the movie !
About the night shots...that stood out to me aswell but I wouldnt say that it was to unrealistic .They were on mountains.
I was a bit dissapointed , ...couldnt understand Jeff Bridges half of the time thought that Mat Damon's Character "Le Beef" was too flat.
The scene in the court went way to long to establish that Rooster was a man with "True Grit" .The girl was awesome IMO.
Overall a good movie but I was expecting something with more suspense...with more Grit
