True Grit

True Grit

Directed by: Ethan Coen, Joel Coen
Cast: Jeff Bridges as Rueben "Rooster" Cogburn
Matt Damon as LaBoeuf
Josh Brolin as Tom Chaney
Hailee Steinfeld as Mattie Ross

Rated PG-13
*The following may contain spoilers*

“You must pay for everything in this world; nothing is free, except the grace of God. Justice comes, one way or another.”

It’s been a long time since movie theaters played a good western (and no, Back to the Future: Part 3 doesn’t count). Then, last December, Hollywood released True Grit, another remake of another classic. The original True Grit which starred John Wayne and Glen Campbell, was released in 1969. Now, 41 years later, we’ve received a remake, this time with Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon in the lead roles. So how do the two compare? Has Hollywood finally made a remake actually worth watching?

True Grit was originally a novel written by Charles Portis. The story follows a young girl named Mattie Ross as she tries to avenge her father’s death at the hands of a past associate named Tom Chaney (played by Jeff Corey in the original and Josh Brolin in the remake). Being as young as she is, Mattie cannot hunt down a killer on her own and decides to hire the toughest U.S. Marshall she can find; a mean old drunk by the name of Rueben “Rooster” Cogburn (John Wayne in the original and Jeff Bridges for my generation). Soon, the duo team up with a man named LaBoeuf, a Texas Ranger (not a baseball player) who has been hunting Tom Chaney for years. Together, the unlikely team sets out to find Tom Chaney and bring him to justice facing outlaws, bandits and snakes along the way.

The 2010 version of the movie stays pretty close to the plot of the original, even using some of the same dialogue, word-for-word. I haven’t read the book, but I would assume that most of the plot and dialogue are also originally drawn from the book. Despite the movies similarities in plot, the two are actually different in more ways than they are similar. And personally, I liked the 2010 version better so this might come out a little biased.

First of all, the cinematography in the 2010 version is much better. The camera angles work and cooperate to tell the story. Granted, the first was released in ’69, so we do have to take that into account.

Second, the newer version seemed to move at much quicker and more enjoyable pace. The first seemed to take way to long setting everything up; it felt like every character had a ten minute back story. In the remake, audiences are thrown right into the story and it remains pretty fast-paced for the next two hours.

Third, Jeff Bridges seemed to actually do something with his character. The new Rooster Cogburn really seems to be a cranky old drunk, whereas the original just felt like John Wayne being John Wayne With An Eye-Patch. Also, Matt Damon seems to be less of a creep than Glen Campbell and I found Hailee Steinfeld (2010’s Mattie Ross) to be much more enjoyable than Kim Darby’s portrayal in ’69; the original Mattie annoyed me to no end. Like I said, this might be a little biased.

Overall, both films are good in their own way. But, given the choice between the two, I’m going to have to say I much more enjoyed the newer one. Yes, it was a little bloody and gruesome, but what else do you want from a good Western? Jeff Bridges introduces a new kind of cowboy, and does it well, while Matt Damon is a brilliant little snob from Texas. To top it off, newcomer Hailee Steinfeld, who began filming when she was 11 or 12, is an excellent addition, convincingly being both hard-headed and naïve.

In my opinion, if True Grit isn’t a classic by the time I’m 40, there’s something wrong with my generation. But, I guess we already knew that…

Personal Rating: 9 of 10
Alcohol Content: 4 of 10
Blood and Gore: 7 of 10