I really like doing these movie reviews. I should do them more often.
Now, to be honest, there’s a couple of things at play here. #1, I really don’t like Michael Cera. #2 I thought the trailer for this looked awesome. So I had very mixed emotions about seeing this movie.
Scott Pilgrim (AKA Michael Cera) is a loser who for some reason dates high school girls, has a band, and falls hopelessly for Ramona (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). He wants to date her, but finds out in order to do, he must fight and defeat (kill?) her seven evil ex’s.
How’s that for a concise synopsis?
THE AWESOME
1) THE VISUAL EFFECTS
There’s a shit-ton of them in the movie, and they range from the fight scene cartoonish to comic book lines to denote expression/emotion. Simply put, they’re stunning and add a nice touch to the film- like when the phone rings, literally “rrriiinngggg” appears on screen. It’s cool, and touches on the screenplay’s origin as a comic.
2) THE SUPPORTING CAST, PARTICULARLY THE EX’S.
Literally everyone else in the film is more interesting than Scott Pilgrim and Ramona. Everyone. His sister is more interesting, the ex’s are more interesting, the band mates are more interesting, his gay roommate is WAY more interesting- I would have gladly watched a movie about him. This may be as a result of the over-the-top nature of “the world” compared to Scott, but they made the movie. Even Ramona, who by all rights SHOULD be really interesting as the little-red-haired-girl to Scott’s Charlie Brown, the object of our desires, doesn’t do it for me. Why exactly does Scott want to go for her? I blame the story, which with so much action doesn’t really allow the film to explore the characters that much. But I digress.
It’s a breath of fresh air every time one of the ex’s (with one major exception) shows up, and most are very funny and memorable. We learn a lot about Ramona through the ex’s, who really run the gamut of loser to god.
3) THE MUSIC
This didn’t have memorable soundtrack or anything like that, but I did like the music, particularly from the band, that accompanied a lot of the action scenes. It really fit with the film. I don’t really know what else to say.
4) THE SET/LOCATION
There were a TON of locations for this film, and I loved the attention to detail that was put into them. It greatly hid the fact that they wasn’t really a lot of good dialogue in the film, and gave me at least something to look at when I didn’t care about hearing the same ol’ shit from Scott or Ramona AGAIN.
Most impressive were the way the set changed to fit the mood of the characters. In a scene at the music store, Scott must find a way to break up with his current girlfriend so that he can devote his attention to Ramona. Obviously not thrilled with this, the music sections were labeled “Gloom Rock”, and other silly, “sad” names. Nice touch, and while these didn’t make as much of an appearance as I’d have liked, it was appreciated.
5) THE WORLD
Alright, what I mean by this is how unapologetic the movie is by the surrealistic elements throughout. Who knew Toronto was so awesome? It seems like Scott just figured out apparently anything goes in the world, where people can summon demon hipster chicks and gain psychic powers from being vegan. That sorta shit made me laugh my ass at the sheer wtf-ness of it all. And the movie makes ZERO attempt to explain it, which is also pretty satisfying. It’s like “what, you didn’t know you can do all this shit, too?”
THE NOT AWESOME
1) THE MAIN CAST
In short, Michael Cera did nothing in the film that makes me change my mind about him in the least. He was terrible. Just terrible. He wasn’t the lovable loser or anything like that, he was just fucking annoying and whiny, and man did it piss me off. As mentioned above, virtually everyone else was more interesting. And I don’t know if it’s just me being biased or what, but it really seemed like he collected a paycheck for this one. They were certain scenes in this movie that I just couldn’t take him seriously as an actor- jokes fell flat, his anger was laughable, you name it. And again, maybe it’s just bias, but he was totally forgettable.
Mary Elizabeth Winstead did the best she could, but again, she wasn’t interesting either. Early in the film when she had the “what-is-this-girl-about” thing going for her, but as we learned more about her dating history (and this was rarely done in advance- some dude would show up and then we’d get some abridged backstory about them), I grew less fascinated with the character. If the ex’s weren’t a problem, and Scott could have immediately dated her, at least based on what I saw, he would have grown tired of her in about 25 minutes.
2) THE WRITING/SCREENPLAY
Now, let me clarify. Parts of this movie were extremely well-written- “Do you know how long it took me to get all of their contact information? Like TWO HOURS!”- but all-in-all, I was pretty damn disappointed. If I wrote some of the jokes on this blog, I’d have people blasting me for how lazy and shitty the blog was.
One line in this movie really pissed me the fuck off, and that’s because I remember it from the trailer and I was pissed then, too. It revolves around the fourth ex, and only female ex, Lesbi Girl-loving Bothways CunningLinguist Johnson, I believe her name was. Did you laugh at the name? You should have. Apparently, if you didn’t know, being bisexual is a joke in it of itself. Which raises an interesting question- why is the gay roommate like totally well-adjusted and interesting and nice, but this bisexual girl is such a holy terror?
This single character is the epitome of what went wrong with this movie. Every time Scott mentions “ex-boyfriends”, Ramona clarifies with “ex’s”. OH I WONDER WHY.
I’M BEING SUBTLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But worse than that is being bisexual appears to be the only thing about this character. That’s it. Everyone else was either a douchebag, or the result of a fling, or a tool, or in possession of a mind-control device, or talented, or any combination of those of things, or whatever, but that’s the draw with this girl. Bisexual.
Are you laughing yet?
Now, for the line that made me want to vomit, paraphrased:
SCOTT: You dated her?
RAMONA: I was a little bi-curious.
LESBI: Yeah, well, I’m bi-furious!
BI-FURIOUS?!
This is supposed to be funny! That’s the laziest writing ever! Not only is it a play-on-words, but a really fucking terrible one at that. It’s totally unnecessary! I mean, the entire conversation wasn’t written well, but damn, that one line pretty much made me shut down for the rest of the movie. Terrible.
And that’s why the 4th ex personifies the movie, because it felt like everyone involved just took the scene off. If they wanted to, they could have put the time in to make this scene and this movie really good, but it’s like every couple of scenes was a train wreck, and this was by far, for me, the worst offender.
3) OVERKILL
And here we come to the heart of the problem: overkill. Almost everything in the movie had the potential to be good, but there was just too damn much of it.
The movie was WAYYYYYY too long, and I found myself by the third ex fight going alright, this is gonna pick up soon, right? Almost over, maybe a montage or something to get us where we need to be? Nope. Everything was seen in detail, although I was mercifully spared more movie by 2 of the ex’s fighting simultaneously. It clocked in about two hours, although it seemed much longer.
Even the pop culture references got to be too much. I understand the movie was set up like a video game, but for me to play 2 straight hours of a fighting game, it better be really, really good, and this movie wasn’t good enough to justify that sort of commitment.
Also, they absolutely loaded the front end of the movie with the Legend of Zelda sound effects. While cool at first, eventually I hit the ALRIGHT I GET THE POINT plateau and it got annoying.
Inexplicably, one seen is played with a laugh track and the Seinfeld music. But… it didn’t make any sense. And I'll admit I laughed at first, but it reminds me of newer Family Guy’s- a small amount of random shit is funny, but it has to make SOME sense and it can’t be all the time cause otherwise it’s incoherent. It's a cheap laugh but not a good one. I just didn’t understand it, and I WANTED to like that scene!
Alright, so what did I think of the movie?
On a scale of one to ten, one being shitty and ten being mind-blowing, I, starckie, give this movie a….
4: Haters gonna hate as they say, and I know a LOT of people who liked this movie, but I just couldn’t get into it. Which stinks, cause I like the plot, and I wanted to like the movie. But the trouble I had with it was that it was sooooo freaking surface value, and if you’re going to do that in a movie, it better be original as hell. And I know some of you are going to say this WAS original, and you’re right- it was. But not enough to justify the alarming lack of subtlety throughout it. There weren’t any ups and downs in it, it was just “okay on to the next fight/scene”. It’s okay to be surreal, but it’s got to be relatable as well, and for me that just didn’t happen. I mostly didn’t care about any of the main characters. Plus, I hate Michael Cera. So that doesn’t help either.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
The Least Awesome Movies of 2010 (That I Didn't See)
I’ve had this idea for a while, and putting it bluntly what you see is what you get.
I’m going to list the movies, that I didn’t see, and the various reasons why I didn’t see it or why it sucked anyway. This could be because of a stupid premise, general reaction from critics, its pop culture status, etc.
These are by release date- not in terms of how bad they were.
TOOTH FAIRY
Although, it’s fitting this is first, since it makes me the most angry.
How long did it take Disney to come up with pile of shit? Take a hockey player- du-hur, they typically have bad teeth- and make him a tooth fairy!
I HAD BETTER MOVIE IDEAS THAN THAT IN THIRD GRADE!
I guess the funny part is that the Rock is a hockey player so notorious for hurting other players that he is nicknamed the tooth fairy, and in a …. Twist isn’t the word I’m looking for since you can see it coming from the opposite side of the globe, he has to BECOME a tooth fairy… for… some convenient plot reason! Oh Disney, when will the hilarity cease?!
This movie offends me for a couple of reasons.
1) Way to belittle possibly my favorite sport (next to football- it’s close)
2) How freaking intimidating of a hockey player can you be if the word “fairy” is in your nickname? The Rock “leads the league in penalty minutes”. When Dave Shultz did that for the Flyers (by the way he still holds the record for penalty minutes in a season, by far) he led that team to be called the “Broad Street Bullies”. Can you imagine if that team was led by Dave “the _____ fairy” Shultz? Listen Disney, you want me to believe the Rock becomes a supernatural entity exchanging teeth for money? Okay. Hockey goon nicknamed Tinkerbelle? Go f*** yourselves, I’m out.
3) The Rock isn’t a terrible actor! His movies aren’t good usually, but he’s alright! Why, Dwayne, why? Did you lose a couple million gambling? I don’t care what they’re paying you this is the sort of thing your grandkids are gonna laugh at you for! WHAT PRICE IS YOUR DIGNITY?
4) How many times are we going to see the uber-macho guy doing feminine, sensitive, or otherwise not manly things formula used? I mean for God’s sake, Disney themselves releases that movie like three times a year! I think Vin Diesel does one every three months!
5) Just because it’s a kids movie doesn’t mean you don’t have to try, Disney. The second I heard this premise, the 8-year-old kid starckie in my head went “Nope. I’ll just watch Aladdin again on VHS.” I hate movies that trick kids into accepting shitty quality. I don’t how much money this made, but any more than $30 worldwide is an outrage.
FROM PARIS WITH LOVE
I know virtually nothing about this movie, and I don’t care. Here’s why: if I’m going to watch a movie with the words “from”, “with”, and “love” in it, it’s going to be “From Russia With Love” (or “Love With that Girl From Korea” – I think that was unrated…
NOTE: THAT SECOND MOVIE DOESN’T EXIST (to my knowledge) I KNOW ONE OF YOU PROBABLY THOUGHT IT DID.
ALICE IN WONDERLAND
I already wrote about this movie in a “Not Awesome” entry, so I’m going to keep this brief. My main gripe with it was that virtually everybody I know proclaimed this to be “movie-of-the-millennium” quality after hearing Tim Burton was directing it, Johnny Depp was in it, and the visuals were good. And that I was ostracized for even hinting that it might be anything less since nobody’s seen it yet!
THE BOUNTY HUNTER
For reasons I won’t get into, I have a fairly good idea of what this movie is about, and this is all I’ll say.: One of the stupidest premises EVER, and this movie is exhibit A on why Jennifer Aniston should no longer be taken seriously as an actress- speaking of which, does anybody from Friends really have a career anymore?
DEATH AT A FUNERAL
I hate how once every year, most of the black actors/actresses in Hollywood get together, determined to make a move that will put African-Americans back another 20 years. This movie seemed especially determined to do that since IT WAS A REMAKE OF A BRITISH (SEE: BETTER) MOVIE OF THE SAME NAME NOT MORE THAN TWO YEARS AGO. That’s a really quick turnaround. And with more accessibility to foreign movies now than ever before, why bother with this shit?
Note: I didn’t see the British version either.
ROBIN HOOD
Didn’t I see a movie like this before? With Russell Crowe? Didn’t it win a lot of awards and shit, and I really liked it? Yeah, I’ll go watch that instead.
SEX AND THE CITY 2
Nuff said.
KILLERS
Sorry Ashton Kutcher, after Punk’d, that 70s show, and Dude, Where’s My Car?, I’m not buying it. I don’t even know if this was supposed to be a comedy or not, and I assure you, I don’t care.
MARMADUKE
WHAT!?!?! How you make a movie about Marmaduke, I’ll never know. I am amazed that there is a writer or group of writers out there capable of coming up with a screenplay about Marmaduke before committing suicide.
THE SORCERER’S APPRENTICE
Oh Jesus. Is this a more impressive feat than writing Marmaduke? I bet this movie was even worse than it. I mean, Nicholas Cage as the sorcerer… oh boy. This kinda defies logic, I don’t know if words exist to properly convey my amazement that this exists. This is proof Disney should do everything they can to have Pixar do everything for them, because obviously Disney is fresh out of ideas of any kind.
SALT
I saw the trailer, and here’s what I thought: Jason- oh wait- Angelina Bourne. No thanks.
VAMPIRES SUCK
Again, I already wrote this about this. See that for the details… but I will say this. At least the Twilight movies… are actual movies. Not good movies (I haven’t seen them either, so I’m qualified to say that), but I hate “fad” movies.
WALL STREET: MONEY NEVER SLEEPS
Insert “Shia LeBeouf” into any movie, and it almost guarantees I won’t see it.
JACKASS 3-D
This is what Youtube is for. I’m not paying for this.
UNSTOPPABLE
Runaway train. Denzel Washington. Being kind of a dick…. Umm…. Okay?
What exactly is the draw to this movie? The “based on a true story” part?
C’mon Denzel you’re better than this.
YOGI BEAR
Absolutely nothing in the trailer made me laugh. Or smile. Or stop banging my head against the wall. 8-year-old starckie couldn’t find a reason, even the most ill-based nostalgic ones, to go see this movie.
But I’m glad to see the dude who played the titular “Ed” on that TV show is getting work. I really liked that show!
LITTLE FOCKERS
As mentioned many times before, I hate Ben Stiller. And Owen Wilson ain’t much better.
Furthermore,
a)Meet the Parents wasn’t funny (I did see that)
b)Meet the Fockers looked terrible.
c)The trailer for Little Fockers looked even worse.
d)Is this the end for Robert DeNiro? Like the end, I’m done taking him seriously as an actor? I know his career has been steadily going downhill for a while now, but I don’t know if I can continue hoping that he’ll turn it around. Too painful.
e)Is that Dustin Hoffman? Noooo, man, not you too. You don’t need this.
f)Is that BARBRA STREISAND?!
THIS MOVIE NEEDS TO BE DESTROYED.
Well, that’s it. The worst movies of the year that I didn’t see. Disagree with me? Let me know- especially if one of these can restore my faith in God by actually being good.
I’m going to list the movies, that I didn’t see, and the various reasons why I didn’t see it or why it sucked anyway. This could be because of a stupid premise, general reaction from critics, its pop culture status, etc.
These are by release date- not in terms of how bad they were.
TOOTH FAIRY
Although, it’s fitting this is first, since it makes me the most angry.
How long did it take Disney to come up with pile of shit? Take a hockey player- du-hur, they typically have bad teeth- and make him a tooth fairy!
I HAD BETTER MOVIE IDEAS THAN THAT IN THIRD GRADE!
I guess the funny part is that the Rock is a hockey player so notorious for hurting other players that he is nicknamed the tooth fairy, and in a …. Twist isn’t the word I’m looking for since you can see it coming from the opposite side of the globe, he has to BECOME a tooth fairy… for… some convenient plot reason! Oh Disney, when will the hilarity cease?!
This movie offends me for a couple of reasons.
1) Way to belittle possibly my favorite sport (next to football- it’s close)
2) How freaking intimidating of a hockey player can you be if the word “fairy” is in your nickname? The Rock “leads the league in penalty minutes”. When Dave Shultz did that for the Flyers (by the way he still holds the record for penalty minutes in a season, by far) he led that team to be called the “Broad Street Bullies”. Can you imagine if that team was led by Dave “the _____ fairy” Shultz? Listen Disney, you want me to believe the Rock becomes a supernatural entity exchanging teeth for money? Okay. Hockey goon nicknamed Tinkerbelle? Go f*** yourselves, I’m out.
3) The Rock isn’t a terrible actor! His movies aren’t good usually, but he’s alright! Why, Dwayne, why? Did you lose a couple million gambling? I don’t care what they’re paying you this is the sort of thing your grandkids are gonna laugh at you for! WHAT PRICE IS YOUR DIGNITY?
4) How many times are we going to see the uber-macho guy doing feminine, sensitive, or otherwise not manly things formula used? I mean for God’s sake, Disney themselves releases that movie like three times a year! I think Vin Diesel does one every three months!
5) Just because it’s a kids movie doesn’t mean you don’t have to try, Disney. The second I heard this premise, the 8-year-old kid starckie in my head went “Nope. I’ll just watch Aladdin again on VHS.” I hate movies that trick kids into accepting shitty quality. I don’t how much money this made, but any more than $30 worldwide is an outrage.
FROM PARIS WITH LOVE
I know virtually nothing about this movie, and I don’t care. Here’s why: if I’m going to watch a movie with the words “from”, “with”, and “love” in it, it’s going to be “From Russia With Love” (or “Love With that Girl From Korea” – I think that was unrated…
NOTE: THAT SECOND MOVIE DOESN’T EXIST (to my knowledge) I KNOW ONE OF YOU PROBABLY THOUGHT IT DID.
ALICE IN WONDERLAND
I already wrote about this movie in a “Not Awesome” entry, so I’m going to keep this brief. My main gripe with it was that virtually everybody I know proclaimed this to be “movie-of-the-millennium” quality after hearing Tim Burton was directing it, Johnny Depp was in it, and the visuals were good. And that I was ostracized for even hinting that it might be anything less since nobody’s seen it yet!
THE BOUNTY HUNTER
For reasons I won’t get into, I have a fairly good idea of what this movie is about, and this is all I’ll say.: One of the stupidest premises EVER, and this movie is exhibit A on why Jennifer Aniston should no longer be taken seriously as an actress- speaking of which, does anybody from Friends really have a career anymore?
DEATH AT A FUNERAL
I hate how once every year, most of the black actors/actresses in Hollywood get together, determined to make a move that will put African-Americans back another 20 years. This movie seemed especially determined to do that since IT WAS A REMAKE OF A BRITISH (SEE: BETTER) MOVIE OF THE SAME NAME NOT MORE THAN TWO YEARS AGO. That’s a really quick turnaround. And with more accessibility to foreign movies now than ever before, why bother with this shit?
Note: I didn’t see the British version either.
ROBIN HOOD
Didn’t I see a movie like this before? With Russell Crowe? Didn’t it win a lot of awards and shit, and I really liked it? Yeah, I’ll go watch that instead.
SEX AND THE CITY 2
Nuff said.
KILLERS
Sorry Ashton Kutcher, after Punk’d, that 70s show, and Dude, Where’s My Car?, I’m not buying it. I don’t even know if this was supposed to be a comedy or not, and I assure you, I don’t care.
MARMADUKE
WHAT!?!?! How you make a movie about Marmaduke, I’ll never know. I am amazed that there is a writer or group of writers out there capable of coming up with a screenplay about Marmaduke before committing suicide.
THE SORCERER’S APPRENTICE
Oh Jesus. Is this a more impressive feat than writing Marmaduke? I bet this movie was even worse than it. I mean, Nicholas Cage as the sorcerer… oh boy. This kinda defies logic, I don’t know if words exist to properly convey my amazement that this exists. This is proof Disney should do everything they can to have Pixar do everything for them, because obviously Disney is fresh out of ideas of any kind.
SALT
I saw the trailer, and here’s what I thought: Jason- oh wait- Angelina Bourne. No thanks.
VAMPIRES SUCK
Again, I already wrote this about this. See that for the details… but I will say this. At least the Twilight movies… are actual movies. Not good movies (I haven’t seen them either, so I’m qualified to say that), but I hate “fad” movies.
WALL STREET: MONEY NEVER SLEEPS
Insert “Shia LeBeouf” into any movie, and it almost guarantees I won’t see it.
JACKASS 3-D
This is what Youtube is for. I’m not paying for this.
UNSTOPPABLE
Runaway train. Denzel Washington. Being kind of a dick…. Umm…. Okay?
What exactly is the draw to this movie? The “based on a true story” part?
C’mon Denzel you’re better than this.
YOGI BEAR
Absolutely nothing in the trailer made me laugh. Or smile. Or stop banging my head against the wall. 8-year-old starckie couldn’t find a reason, even the most ill-based nostalgic ones, to go see this movie.
But I’m glad to see the dude who played the titular “Ed” on that TV show is getting work. I really liked that show!
LITTLE FOCKERS
As mentioned many times before, I hate Ben Stiller. And Owen Wilson ain’t much better.
Furthermore,
a)Meet the Parents wasn’t funny (I did see that)
b)Meet the Fockers looked terrible.
c)The trailer for Little Fockers looked even worse.
d)Is this the end for Robert DeNiro? Like the end, I’m done taking him seriously as an actor? I know his career has been steadily going downhill for a while now, but I don’t know if I can continue hoping that he’ll turn it around. Too painful.
e)Is that Dustin Hoffman? Noooo, man, not you too. You don’t need this.
f)Is that BARBRA STREISAND?!
THIS MOVIE NEEDS TO BE DESTROYED.
Well, that’s it. The worst movies of the year that I didn’t see. Disagree with me? Let me know- especially if one of these can restore my faith in God by actually being good.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Awesome Reviews: True Grit
AWESOME REVIEWS: TRUE GRIT
Alright, it’s been a while since I’ve had a review, but I want to make a few things clear before I start:
1) I have a lot more experience in general with movies since my last review.
2) I’m somewhat biased when it comes to the Coen Brothers… even though I’ve only seen a few of their movies, I greatly enjoy them.
3) I have NOT seen the original “True Grit”
And with that, let’s dive right in.
As with many other Coen brothers’ films, it starts off with a monologue delivered by an older Mattie Ross, whom we’re soon introduced to as played by Hailee Steinfeld. We’re told that Tom Cheney (Josh Brolin), a notorious outlaw, shot and killed Mattie’s father, and while Mattie goes to deal with her late father’s affairs, she discovers that local law enforcement does not hold much hope for finding the murderer. Undeterred, she hires Col. Reuben “Rooster” Cogburn, a rough U.S. Marshall played by Jeff Bridges to bring Cheney to justice. Unfortunately for Mattie, however, a Mr. Texas-Ranger-and-don’t-you-forget-it LeBoeuf is also out to collect the bounty on Cheney, who’s escaped into Indian territory- provided Cheney goes to Texas for prosecution- against Mattie's intentions. Cogburn and LeBoeuf head out to find him, but Mattie has no desire to miss out on the hunt.
Awesome/Not Awesome has a strict NO SPOILER policy which now compels me to stop.
Anddddd… the breakdown.
AWESOME:
1) THE SUPPORTING CAST
I know this is kind of a weird thing to list first, but for as good as the principal cast was (and they were- I’ll get to it), what really got me deeply involved in the story from the get-go was the wide variety of supporting cast members that the casting director absolutely NAILED. I mean, people were spot-on- and I feel like another movie could have been made just about the inhabitants of the town. The movie spends a good deal of time in the town before heading out to Indian territory, and between all the people at a boarding house/hotel, courtroom, undertaker’s residence, etc., I got sucked in. It was impossible not to.
2) THE PRINCIPAL CAST
While at first, Hailee Steinfeld didn’t really do it for me, I was more and more impressed with her as the movie went on. Mattie Ross is the central figure of the story- it is told from her perspective- and it was not exactly an easy role. She sorta falls into that smack-talking I-know-a-disproportionate-amount-of-information-about-everything-considering-my-age category that arose sometime around Home Alone, but she manages to make it much more endearing (as opposed to annoying like so many other characters in the type do). It was greatly satisfying seeing that she was only person for whom Cheney’s capture is personal, and I’m not sure why. You could say her character exhibited “TRUE GRIT” in her determination to have her revenge (cue laugh track here).
Matt Damon did a great job as the Texas Ranger LeBoeuf, although (for reasons I won’t explain but that may be forgivable) I think his accent wasn’t exactly consistent through the movie. I don’t know- I’d have to see it again to confirm- but it was thoroughly enjoyable to see him get into a spat with virtually anyone else in the cast- Steinfeld, Bridges, etc.- and c’mon, who wouldn’t want to see some uppity condescending don’t-mess-with-Texas asshole get his ass handed to him verbally or physically? It’s why so many people hate the Dallas Cowboys!
While I wish Josh Brolin had a bit more screen time, it’s certainly understandable why he didn’t. After all, he’s the bounty the three main characters spend most of the movie looking for. He was really solid though, and when he finally did appear- after all we’d heard about Tom Cheney- it made it that much more satisfying.
But, of course, the scene-stealer was Jeff Bridges as Rooster Cogburn. Bridges was, in a word, phenomenal. Cogburn is known for his eye patch, his knack for shooting criminals rather than bringing them to justice, and his love of White Russians [citation needed]. Like Brolin, we’re introduced to him through quick stories and glimpses at first- but the character sets the mood and pace for the whole story with the aforementioned courtroom scene. Bridges’ low, gravelly, slow voice is the perfect foil to Damon’s LeBoeuf, and as a movie-goer I found myself being guided along by Cogburn just as Ross did.
3) THE CINEMATOGRAPHY/SET/COSTUMING
I could watch this movie again without audio and still come away satisfied. You can tell how much effort was put into every shot- and if there’s one thing I hate- it’s lazy film-making. The movie wastes no time showing the intricacies of the town- the outhouse, the advertisements, the dress, etc.- but what really sells it is the vastness of the country which they seem to capture on every shot once they’re out in the Indian territory. The landscape is huge, the lone structures strategically placed, the sun perfectly positioned- and I was more and more impressed as the movie went on. By the climax and (I wish I could say more), I forgot about the characters and just got lost in the scenery. Anybody wanting to know anything about what movies should look like and what you can accomplish with attention to detail need look no further.
4) THE WRITING
There is definitely a learning curve to the language used in the film, and it took me about 15 minutes to really understand clearly what was being said- and then another 15 minutes to understand what Jeff Bridges alone was saying. That’s not a bad thing- for me, it reminds me that this was another time and adds to the scope of the story- but it is something you need to be aware of, especially if you’re not a huge Western guy (and lord knows I’m not). That being said, the dialogue is appropriate, witty, and impressive. I found myself thinking at multiple times during the movie how much research it must have taken to get the script right. I appreciate the colloquialisms and idioms of the time, and coupled with actors (see 1 and 2) that are perfect for their respective roles, you’ve got one hell of a script. I’d love to get my hands on a copy of the script and read it. (Maybe I should just get the book?)
NOT AWESOME
Most of these will be pettier things since I’ve pretty much praised the film left and right.
1) As mentioned above, I would have liked to see more Matt Damon and Josh Brolin, but it didn’t detract from the movie at all. Maybe it’s just that they were pushed so much in the ads? I don’t know.
2) At least twice there were some audio/visual problems. Like they used one take’s audio and another’s visual, or they used a take with dialogue that was cut. Again, nothing major, but when I saw it, it took me a couple seconds to figure out what the hell happened.
3) At times, it approached unnecessarily brutal. Now, I realize I’m watching a Western here, and things WERE brutal back then, so maybe this isn’t a fair criticism. But there were two/three instances that shocked me with how frankly portrayed it was. However, I would much rather have a problem with that than the alternative. NOT showing the most disturbing violence would have probably killed the atmosphere of the movie. Chalk this one up to personal bias.
4) At an hour and 50 minutes, it was slightly too long. But I have no fricking idea what I’d cut. It all seemed necessary, and the movie built the suspense well.
5) There were no slamming women in the whole thing. Totally a guy thing to say, and honestly, only a gripe now that I’m thinking about it. We could have used one smoking hot townie or something! They had whores back then! Hell, they probably had MORE whores!
Overall, on a scale of 1-10, 1 being shitty and 10 being mind-blowing, True Grit gets a…
9.5: Practically everything in this movie is done better than I’ve seen in a long, long time. Anybody who appreciates movies should be obliged to see it. I don’t think True Grit will ever be one my favorite movies- I’m just not that kind of Western guy- but it will be one of the best-made movies top-to-bottom I’ve ever seen. But perhaps the thing that most satisfied me with the movie is that with so many blockbusters out there with campy-ass writing, huge special effects, the money-making whores of movies, there are still A-list people out there making quality art. And that’s what True Grit is- art.
Alright, it’s been a while since I’ve had a review, but I want to make a few things clear before I start:
1) I have a lot more experience in general with movies since my last review.
2) I’m somewhat biased when it comes to the Coen Brothers… even though I’ve only seen a few of their movies, I greatly enjoy them.
3) I have NOT seen the original “True Grit”
And with that, let’s dive right in.
As with many other Coen brothers’ films, it starts off with a monologue delivered by an older Mattie Ross, whom we’re soon introduced to as played by Hailee Steinfeld. We’re told that Tom Cheney (Josh Brolin), a notorious outlaw, shot and killed Mattie’s father, and while Mattie goes to deal with her late father’s affairs, she discovers that local law enforcement does not hold much hope for finding the murderer. Undeterred, she hires Col. Reuben “Rooster” Cogburn, a rough U.S. Marshall played by Jeff Bridges to bring Cheney to justice. Unfortunately for Mattie, however, a Mr. Texas-Ranger-and-don’t-you-forget-it LeBoeuf is also out to collect the bounty on Cheney, who’s escaped into Indian territory- provided Cheney goes to Texas for prosecution- against Mattie's intentions. Cogburn and LeBoeuf head out to find him, but Mattie has no desire to miss out on the hunt.
Awesome/Not Awesome has a strict NO SPOILER policy which now compels me to stop.
Anddddd… the breakdown.
AWESOME:
1) THE SUPPORTING CAST
I know this is kind of a weird thing to list first, but for as good as the principal cast was (and they were- I’ll get to it), what really got me deeply involved in the story from the get-go was the wide variety of supporting cast members that the casting director absolutely NAILED. I mean, people were spot-on- and I feel like another movie could have been made just about the inhabitants of the town. The movie spends a good deal of time in the town before heading out to Indian territory, and between all the people at a boarding house/hotel, courtroom, undertaker’s residence, etc., I got sucked in. It was impossible not to.
2) THE PRINCIPAL CAST
While at first, Hailee Steinfeld didn’t really do it for me, I was more and more impressed with her as the movie went on. Mattie Ross is the central figure of the story- it is told from her perspective- and it was not exactly an easy role. She sorta falls into that smack-talking I-know-a-disproportionate-amount-of-information-about-everything-considering-my-age category that arose sometime around Home Alone, but she manages to make it much more endearing (as opposed to annoying like so many other characters in the type do). It was greatly satisfying seeing that she was only person for whom Cheney’s capture is personal, and I’m not sure why. You could say her character exhibited “TRUE GRIT” in her determination to have her revenge (cue laugh track here).
Matt Damon did a great job as the Texas Ranger LeBoeuf, although (for reasons I won’t explain but that may be forgivable) I think his accent wasn’t exactly consistent through the movie. I don’t know- I’d have to see it again to confirm- but it was thoroughly enjoyable to see him get into a spat with virtually anyone else in the cast- Steinfeld, Bridges, etc.- and c’mon, who wouldn’t want to see some uppity condescending don’t-mess-with-Texas asshole get his ass handed to him verbally or physically? It’s why so many people hate the Dallas Cowboys!
While I wish Josh Brolin had a bit more screen time, it’s certainly understandable why he didn’t. After all, he’s the bounty the three main characters spend most of the movie looking for. He was really solid though, and when he finally did appear- after all we’d heard about Tom Cheney- it made it that much more satisfying.
But, of course, the scene-stealer was Jeff Bridges as Rooster Cogburn. Bridges was, in a word, phenomenal. Cogburn is known for his eye patch, his knack for shooting criminals rather than bringing them to justice, and his love of White Russians [citation needed]. Like Brolin, we’re introduced to him through quick stories and glimpses at first- but the character sets the mood and pace for the whole story with the aforementioned courtroom scene. Bridges’ low, gravelly, slow voice is the perfect foil to Damon’s LeBoeuf, and as a movie-goer I found myself being guided along by Cogburn just as Ross did.
3) THE CINEMATOGRAPHY/SET/COSTUMING
I could watch this movie again without audio and still come away satisfied. You can tell how much effort was put into every shot- and if there’s one thing I hate- it’s lazy film-making. The movie wastes no time showing the intricacies of the town- the outhouse, the advertisements, the dress, etc.- but what really sells it is the vastness of the country which they seem to capture on every shot once they’re out in the Indian territory. The landscape is huge, the lone structures strategically placed, the sun perfectly positioned- and I was more and more impressed as the movie went on. By the climax and (I wish I could say more), I forgot about the characters and just got lost in the scenery. Anybody wanting to know anything about what movies should look like and what you can accomplish with attention to detail need look no further.
4) THE WRITING
There is definitely a learning curve to the language used in the film, and it took me about 15 minutes to really understand clearly what was being said- and then another 15 minutes to understand what Jeff Bridges alone was saying. That’s not a bad thing- for me, it reminds me that this was another time and adds to the scope of the story- but it is something you need to be aware of, especially if you’re not a huge Western guy (and lord knows I’m not). That being said, the dialogue is appropriate, witty, and impressive. I found myself thinking at multiple times during the movie how much research it must have taken to get the script right. I appreciate the colloquialisms and idioms of the time, and coupled with actors (see 1 and 2) that are perfect for their respective roles, you’ve got one hell of a script. I’d love to get my hands on a copy of the script and read it. (Maybe I should just get the book?)
NOT AWESOME
Most of these will be pettier things since I’ve pretty much praised the film left and right.
1) As mentioned above, I would have liked to see more Matt Damon and Josh Brolin, but it didn’t detract from the movie at all. Maybe it’s just that they were pushed so much in the ads? I don’t know.
2) At least twice there were some audio/visual problems. Like they used one take’s audio and another’s visual, or they used a take with dialogue that was cut. Again, nothing major, but when I saw it, it took me a couple seconds to figure out what the hell happened.
3) At times, it approached unnecessarily brutal. Now, I realize I’m watching a Western here, and things WERE brutal back then, so maybe this isn’t a fair criticism. But there were two/three instances that shocked me with how frankly portrayed it was. However, I would much rather have a problem with that than the alternative. NOT showing the most disturbing violence would have probably killed the atmosphere of the movie. Chalk this one up to personal bias.
4) At an hour and 50 minutes, it was slightly too long. But I have no fricking idea what I’d cut. It all seemed necessary, and the movie built the suspense well.
5) There were no slamming women in the whole thing. Totally a guy thing to say, and honestly, only a gripe now that I’m thinking about it. We could have used one smoking hot townie or something! They had whores back then! Hell, they probably had MORE whores!
Overall, on a scale of 1-10, 1 being shitty and 10 being mind-blowing, True Grit gets a…
9.5: Practically everything in this movie is done better than I’ve seen in a long, long time. Anybody who appreciates movies should be obliged to see it. I don’t think True Grit will ever be one my favorite movies- I’m just not that kind of Western guy- but it will be one of the best-made movies top-to-bottom I’ve ever seen. But perhaps the thing that most satisfied me with the movie is that with so many blockbusters out there with campy-ass writing, huge special effects, the money-making whores of movies, there are still A-list people out there making quality art. And that’s what True Grit is- art.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)