Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: True Grit

This is topic True Grit in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001736

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-26-2010, 12:28 AM:

***1/2

A pretty damn good Western by the Coen brothers. What struck me the most was that this is such mainstream movie, nothing much like other Coen brothers film. The film reminded me of Unforgiven and Pale Rider. I have not seen the original but I hear this movie is very much different, it builds like a typical Clint Eastwood movie, slow moving and about the characters until the big conclusion.

Like Tron 3D, Jeff Bridges seems to act like he has that Oscar behind his belt and you can tell. Again, I hear this a completely different Cogburn, this is all Jeff Bridges. Not sure if it was good enough to win him another Oscar.

This is Hailee Steinfeld movie. She is outstanding. Oscar nomination worthy. The other actor played by Damon are Brolin are good, but nothing great. Cinematography of the film is good as well. there are some well photographed scenes. I also very much liked the score.

I haven't seen a Western in a theatre since perhaps Unforgiven, I never did see Open Range and I can't remember any other Western that I have gone to the cinema to see. This was a pure Western plain and simple. Good story with great dialoge.

I think word of mouth will do this movie ok. It is not the Coen brothers best stuff and it is very much mainstream compared to anything else they have done. People expecting to see typical Coen brothers quirky stuff will be surprised.

The movie does feel a little shorter than it should of been. Also, after the big climax. the final end scenes seems forced upon us. Unlike Ungorgiven, the Coen make crystal clear what happens to all of the characters many years later and this is the movies biggest fault.

Like Unforgiven, True Grit opens with an onscreen message, however it does not end in the same manner.

Cineplex Odeon Ultra AVX
DLP Christie Solaria 2230 DLP Cinema projector
Dolby Surround 7.1
Presented on a SilverScreen

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-26-2010, 02:23 AM:

I don't know for certain, but I doubt True Grit has a native 7.1 channel mix.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-26-2010, 02:34 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I don't know for certain, but I doubt True Grit has a native 7.1 channel mix.

There was a little demo just after the Christie Digital ad that showed off the 7.1 set-up.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-26-2010, 06:50 AM:

The demo means nothing aside from the theatre being wired for Surround 7.1. If the movie isn't mixed that way, then it was not a 7.1 presentation. So, if they did a retro movie like Casablanca with its original mono mix but ran a Surround 7.1 demo on the head of it so show off the theatre you would still say your presentation was Surround 7.1?

I have not seen it listed on the Surround 7.1 list, I did not see a Surround 7.1 tag on it in the credits (did you?). Can anyone that is showing it digitally confirm that there is a 7.1 version?

-Steve

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-26-2010, 01:13 PM:

Let's not forget lots of movie theaters have improperly run various sound format snipes in front of movies when the movie wasn't being shown in that format.

There were those early DTS releases where the flying disc trailer was included on every release print. Theaters not equipped with DTS were supposed to remove the trailer, but that didn't happen in many cases. Others would build a sound format snipe into the trailer pack, play the movie in the digital sound equipped house then move it to another non-digital house but forget to remove the trailer. The PITA factor eventually led to those sound format snipes just not being used at all in most movie theaters.

Then you have the general misunderstanding very common all over the place especially in home theater that having a 7.1 capable setup in hardware translates to everything being in 7.1. Electronics companies and people selling the gear have been floating that crap for years, long before Blu-ray brought actual 7.1 channel audio to home theater. They'll even take the misunderstanding even father with high end gear, such as a 2 room Yamaha receiver playing a movie in "11.2" channel audio. Derp! A 5.1 mix played on 7.1 wired gear is still only 5.1. And a multi-room receiver isn't going to fold all of its channels of amplification magically into one room to provide a 11.2 presentation that doesn't exist.
[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-26-2010, 01:45 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
So, if they did a retro movie like Casablanca with its original mono mix but ran a Surround 7.1 demo on the head of it so show off the theatre you would still say your presentation was Surround 7.1?

That depends if the THX was "turned on". [Razz]

Posted by Carol May (Member # 4068) on 12-26-2010, 03:25 PM:

I just saw a screener of True Grit on my 27" TV. Maybe it needs the Big Screen, maybe it requires that I not have seen the original a month ago, but I thought it was sooooo booorrrring! No oomph, no pizazz, all one tone, one note.

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 12-26-2010, 05:34 PM:

One of those built-in DTS snipes in front of a long forgotten Universal film in 1993 provoked me to go ballistic on another assistant and her friends for screening the movie the night before and NOT removing the DTS snipe or mentioning it was on and needed to be removed or nothing. The theater I was in at the time never had digital sound. (It was closed in 1994.)
What's the point in screening a movie if one is going to do nothing about obvious errors in presentation?

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-26-2010, 07:04 PM:

quote: James Westbrook
One of those built-in DTS snipes in front of a long forgotten Universal film in 1993 provoked me to go ballistic on another assistant and her friends for screening the movie the night before and NOT removing the DTS snipe or mentioning it was on and needed to be removed or nothing. The theater I was in at the time never had digital sound. (It was closed in 1994.)
What's the point in screening a movie if one is going to do nothing about obvious errors in presentation?

haha. lol. There was a time where Cineplex Odeon had a policy to play all three SDDS/DD/DTS snipes on every print. This way whatever theatre it moved into would not have to have the projectionist around to remove the snipe.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-26-2010, 07:14 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Others would build a sound format snipe into the trailer pack, play the movie in the digital sound equipped house then move it to another non-digital house but forget to remove the trailer.

We did this all of the time. We had lots of SDDS, Dolby Digital and DTS units all over the theater. But every Thursday night I would change the snipes to be appropriate. Normally I am somewhat annoyed by trailer changes, but making sure these were correct was a point of pride and I would have been pissed if they weren't correct. Fortunately I wasn't the only projectionist who cared about that stuff.

quote: Tom Petrov
There was a time where Cineplex Odeon had a policy to play all three SDDS/DD/DTS snipes on every print.

That's just stupid.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-26-2010, 08:44 PM:

This thread needs to be split and moved into FHF.

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 12-27-2010, 12:16 PM:

So, Tom, do you feel the movie was lacking due to the digital presentation as opposed to a professional projectionist doing the changeovers? Would you have appreciated it more otherwise?

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 12-27-2010, 02:34 PM:

I saw this opening night at the Cine Capri at Harkins Northfield in Denver. (35mm)

I saw a review headline at MSNBC that summed it up for me: "'True Grit' entertains, but lacks emotional resonance." I enjoyed the dialog and liked the characters, but wasn't ever really pulled in. There were a couple of FX scenes that looked so bad they pulled me out.

Presentation was pretty good. As always at the Cine Capri, it was not as sharp as it should be.

They closed the curtain at the end of the pre-show and reopened it for the feature. I would pay a small surcharge if they would keep it closed until showtime.

The trailers left me more convinced than ever that Hollywood is dead.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-27-2010, 02:52 PM:

Geoff, were you immersed in the LARGEST SCREEN IN COLORADO?

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 12-27-2010, 06:51 PM:

I was reasonably immersed, but I was not fooled by their marketing lies. [Smile]

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 12-27-2010, 08:23 PM:

CINEMA: 13th Avenue Warren, Wichita, KS
AUDITORIUM: 19
PRESENTATION: Dolby Digital Cinema DLP/THX
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: None [Cool]

RATING: Three stars (out of four)

Good grief. Is ANYBODY working this week? Another near-full auditorium.

THE PLOT: Justice. Wackiness ensues.

Really not much different from the original, save for the epilogue, and even THAT wasn't that different in the grand scheme. Better performances, I suppose. Not enough that I see the point in re-making this.

The girls in the audience were totally shrieking when the snakes started moving.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-02-2011, 06:05 AM:

quote: Sam Graham
PRESENTATION: Dolby Digital Cinema DLP/THX

I am wondering if someone can post of pic of a theatre that still advertises THX. Not that I don't believe you, but here in the GTA, we do not have one THX advertised theatre.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 01-02-2011, 08:37 AM:

You can search for THX Certified theatres at THX.COM. Search box is near the bottom of the page.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 01-02-2011, 10:27 AM:

The 13th Avenue Warren auditoriums are all THX-certified and advertised as such. They have THX plaques in the lobby, and they play THX trailers before every show. The "voice of the theatre" often refers to it as well (even though he incorrectly refers to it as "George Lucas THX", which is no longer the case).

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-08-2011, 08:57 PM:

Very good movie all around. I was missing the "good-timeyness" of the John Wayne version, but other than that it was excellent. There were a few surprising changes from the original movie's storyline to keep a person who's seen the old one guessing a little.

The performances were great, especially Hailee Steinfeld. She holds her own. Bridges really inhabits the Cogburn role and you forget you're watching Jeff Bridges, unlike in the old film where you never forgot it was a John Wayne movie.

I liked Matt Damon in the LaBoeuf role. I was surprised that in both versions of the film, his character gets crap from Mattie about his hair. I figured they just inserted that material into the old film as a "tease" for Glen Campbell, who was famously fussy about his hair.

I guess the only scene I was a tad disappointed in was the snake-pit scene. I won't spoil it here for people who haven't seen the older film but I just thought that scene was not only more suspenseful and scary in the previous version but also provided a great surprise in the plotline. In this movie the scene seems rushed.

The old movie has a "Yee-haw" ending for sure. This one ends on a melancholy note. But, it's maybe a more fitting ending to the story and, it probably won't allow for a remake of "Rooster Cogburn" which is a good thing.

My wife who is not a big fan of westerns enjoyed it too. She's never seen the old version but now wants to.

Four out of five stars from us. If I hadn't seen the old show I might have given it four and a half.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 01-08-2011, 10:28 PM:

I saw TRUE GRIT a week ago at Regal Peralhighland Theatres and enjoyed it very much although I do not care too much for westerns. I saw the original John Wayne movie many years ago when it was first released in 1969 and once again in Blu-Ray four days after I saw the new version starring Jeff Bridges and I was very surprised how similar they were to each other and I guess it was due to the way it was original was written in the novel by Charles Portis. John Wayne received an Academy Award for his performance in TRUE GRIT and Jeff Bridges also delivered a performance that will most likely get him a nomination for the award but his chances of winning is not good when he might be up against Colin Firth who will most likely win for his performance as King George VI in A KINGS SPEECH.

TRUE GRIT was beautifully photographed with very gritty color and contrast unlike the original that has a gorgeous Technicolor pallet. THe only thing I did not like about the new version was the use of harmless snakes that was suppose to be Rattlesnakes. The original featured a real Rattlesnake but the current version did not.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-08-2011, 11:52 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I guess the only scene I was a tad disappointed in was the snake-pit scene. I won't spoil it here for people who haven't seen the older film but I just thought that scene was not only more suspenseful and scary in the previous version but also provided a great surprise in the plotline. In this movie the scene seems rushed.

The old movie has a "Yee-haw" ending for sure. This one ends on a melancholy note. But, it's maybe a more fitting ending to the story and, it probably won't allow for a remake of "Rooster Cogburn" which is a good thing

I kind of mentioned this in my review. The ending kind of seemed shorter than it should of been. I thought the producers and studio stepped in a bit and modified the end from the way it might of been, it just seemed liked there was some more to play out.

I think that is True Grit crossed the 2hr mark, word of mouth would of suffered because it seems the film was cut for the broadest audience possible

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-09-2011, 01:03 PM:

quote: Tom Petrov
I thought the producers and studio stepped in a bit and modified the end

I doubt that very much -- I'm fairly certain the Coen brothers have gotten to the point where they have final cut.

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 01-29-2011, 06:37 PM:

True Grit is an odd creature. It's as if a bunch of Coen characters went and hijacked a Clint Eastwood production. The characters are idiosyncratic in that peculiar Coenesque way, and they all "talk funny" with dialogue that is distinctive and great, but unlike the best Coens™ they're all wandering through a remarkably linear albeit familiar landscape with few turns in the road.

Performances are predictably grand from this cast (Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin, Barry Pepper) with the exception of newcomer, Hailee Steinfeld, who is a revelation; her elocution of the Coen's distinguished dialogue squarely hits the mark.

History has shown that the Coen brothers produce basically two types of film: quirky and peculiar flicks that are borderline arthouse (A Serious Man, Barton Fink) and the crowdpleasers designed to return a reasonable box office (Intolerable Cruelty, The Ladykillers). This is understandable as the latter no doubt affords them a measure of creative freedom to create the former. True Grit aims for the middle ground and, by and large, it succeeds in its mission but is it an above average crowdpleaser or a watered down Coen? I guess it's both but it's a film which will sit better with mainstream audiences than it will with Coen fans. It's a stop gap film which will bring newcomers to the Coen fold while tiding over existing fans waiting for the next A Serious Man. All in all, though, it's a success.

7.5 out of 10.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-30-2011, 02:13 AM:

Roger Ebert predicts Best Picture/Director will go to this movie.

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 03-09-2011, 06:13 PM:

Presentation : 35mm with Dolby Digital Sound and a print with a nice tram line running down one side and horizontal scratches on the other. Anyway...

quote: Tom Petrov
The movie does feel a little shorter than it should of been. Also, after the big climax. the final end scenes seems forced upon us.

I'd agree totally with Tom. It was one of those movies where when the directors credit comes up at the end you sit there and say "What? Was that it?". It was too short (should have been around the 2hr 20m mark) and I found the ending un-satisfactory.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-12-2011, 09:43 AM:

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
THe only thing I did not like about the new version was the use of harmless snakes that was suppose to be Rattlesnakes. The original featured a real Rattlesnake but the current version did not.

Agreed. In fact I was surprised how mild the "snake" scene was in comparison to the original. In the first movie, there were real rattlesnakes seen in closeup, and the scene was much longer and more harrowing than in the new film. I was surprised, because I thought sure the snake scene would be one of the most memorable (and difficult to endure, for snake haters) in the new film.