Settle down, just a little sarcastic humor. I'm sure with the star power involved she needed to take a lower billing to begin with. A-listers are not going to take second and third billing to an unknown with her first job. Although I still think she was a lead and not a support.

I agree with you about her being a lead in the film, but how she is defined for an awards campaign doesn't have anything to do with how much she gets paid, and that is what your earlier post was all about.

I saw the movie today and enjoyed it. Them Cowboy accents were a bit tough to understand but I thought the girl and Jeff Bridges were great.

It's understandable that sometimes film makers need to make changes when adapting from other sources, especially when there are parts that can be hard to translate to film (viewpoints shifting between characters, stream-of-consciousness 'narration', length, extraneous characters, etc.). And it's understandable that even 'classics' can contain some clunky passages or excessive background material not necessary to the plot (all of the educational 'whaling' chapters in Moby Dick come to mind).

However, True Grit is a slim little novel(ette) that is lean & mean. It has stood the test of time, and its main attraction to readers seems to be the characterization & the dialogue (at least, that's what appealed to me most).

When a work is extremely popular and well-loved (at least one of the Coens rhapsodized about how much the book meant to him as a young man, how he read it to his kids, etc.), why would a filmmaker feel the need to mess with what already works? Film and literature are two different media...when I see a film adaptation, I WANT the filmmakers to be adapt the work as closely as possible. I don't need someone trying to be "artsy" or "current" or to think they know better than the author & the audience who made the original work a success. I totally disagree with those who insist that, unless a filmmaker has something 'original' to add to a work, there's no reason to film an adaptation

And I hate it when a filmmaker makes changes to suit his own sensibilities or those of the audience (don't like the downbeat ending of The Scarlet Letter? How about ending with an Indian massacre & having the illicit lovers make good their escape...thus eviscerating the plot). A good example is "Last of the Mohicans" (Mann version)...changing the love story of Cora & Uncas to Cora & Natty (Hawkeye) robbed the story of much of its sublime tragic ending. I wish Mann would have trusted the source material enough to make a "competent" film without messing with a great love story that was far ahead of its time to make a "safe" version for date night.

In other words, a straightforward adaptation of True Grit (if well-filmed & acted) should be "competent", to say the least (unless one didn't like the book, in which case why make the movie?).

They should have loved it...most awards shows love any role that involves boozing or drug addiction.

Which is sort of funny, because a lot of actors could simply "play themselves" for those roles.

I don't see an inherent problem one way or the other. Absolute fidelity to source material can be great, or it can be lifeless. Deviation can likewise yield varying results. Offhand, some adaptations I thought improved upon their literary source material:

The Bridge on the River Kwai
Christmas with the Kranks
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

The Tailor of Panama is an example where the two different versions delve into different material. Le Carre's novel showcases a lot more of Louisa (Jamie Lee Curtis in the movie), whereas the novel emphasizes Mickey and Marta. Their backstory is still present in the novel, but it wasn't as prominent.

I could go on and I'm sure others have their own examples handy, but my point is that I reject the notion that there is a corollary between fidelity to source material and quality of an adaptation.

The wife and I finally caught a matinee this afternoon. I was worried she wouldn't like it, as she only went because of Matt Damon, but it turns out she really enjoyed it.

I thought it was pretty damn good. **** out of five.

Hallie Steinfeld was amazing.

Excellent, could be my favorite Coen Brothers film. Jeff Bridges is having a hell of a career resurgence.

The little girl was terrific, especially in the horse trading scene. I can easily see her nominated for an Oscar.

Bridges too, although he sounded a lot like The Old Man from Pawn Stars.

Damon and the other actors did fine jobs as well, but I see this as a two person show.

Movie line I've now been using quite a bit:

Finally saw the movie and enjoyed it, but I was mostly underwhelmed by it. Maybe my expectations were so high but the film didn't really resonate with me. The middle of the film is a bit slow and my mind started to wander. But the performances are great!

Agree 100%

Also pretty underwhelmed, possibly due to unrealistic expectations going in. While Hailee Steinfeld gave a solid performance indeed, especially for her age, it is pretty unfair that even garnered an Oscar nomination, let alone numerous calls for her to win.

I think "unfair" is a little strong. Steinfeld's performance guided the entire movie; pretty much everyone reacted to her, rather than the other way around. The only other nominee in her field that I saw was Helena Bonham Carter in The King's Speech. She had a nice presence in the film, but for my money any measuring stick that allowed for her to be nominated also allowed for Steinfeld.

That had far more to do with the script, specifically her dialogue, than her performance. The film depended on it. It was good, quite good in fact for a child, but quite questionable indeed as one of the five best supporting performances of the year. I can think of several performances by a child in the last 20 years or so that were as good or better, many of which that were not even nominated.

You'd be hard pressed to find another forum member as quick to champion writers, but even I have to say that it's one thing to write a character and another thing to actually deliver the performance.

Calling it a good performance "for a child" is rather condescending, and it's wholly unfair to rank her against previous performances. I wouldn't say True Grit is the best Western of the last 20 years, but what's that got to do with whether or not it was well-made or enjoyable? I think we get too caught up in placing movies in a continuum sometimes, and forget to simply appreciate them for what they are, rather than penalize them for what they aren't.

Damn, I was not expecting this flick to be as excellent as it was......f'n loved it.

I saw it again last night and enjoyed it a lot more than the first time I saw it.

No poll? What the H?(that's what we decided to go with).

Good film. Hard to find a flaw with anything.

It will never approach the greatness of the original.

*sigh* Uhm...yeah..I dunno. Honestly...This one was a better movie. If there could be anything I could criticize off the top of my head from the original..was the girl and that guy playing Labeof...horrible acting. Wayne was essentially playing Wayne..not that that's bad..but he didn't add much to someone who was a somewhat a slob. Bridges and the girl...solid work.

I think it took most people by surprise despite it being the Coens.

I too saw this over the weekend, and found it really good. Definitely a keeper.

Watched this last night on blu. Great performances, but was missing something. Barry Pepper was fantastic, and hardly recognizable, as the villain, but seriously underused. But the actress they picked for 40 year-old Mattie was a poor choice since she looked nothing like young Mattie, particularly her nose. Took me right out of the film.

I rated it "Liked It" on Netflix (three out of five stars). Was expecting it to be much better due to all the hype. Good, but I have no desire to watch it again.

I mostly agree with Numanoid. I'd watch the film again, but it does meander quite a bit during the middle third. At least Deakins' cinematography was so fucking gorgeous I could have stared at b-roll footage all day. Bridges was excellent, and Damon was much better than I expected.

I really liked how Chaney was this huge, brooding presence throughout the film, then once we finally catch up with him and the gang we learn he's nothing more than a cog in the wheel; he's pathetic. And Brolin was great, as was Pepper. I loved it when Halie told him to "stand up, Mr. Chaney!". I felt it could have done without the narration of the flash-forward denouement, but overall I thought it was a solid flick.

Yeah, but that happens at the very end of the movie, so if you absolutely have to be taken out of the movie that seems as ideal a point as any. I don't see how it would affect your overall enjoyment of it. It's not like the Coen Bros.' previous film, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, where they take you out of the movie with a good 30-40 minutes to go.

Almost forgot to mention, I got excited when I heard J.K. Simmons' voice... but then he never materialized on screen.

I saw it recently, and I just loved the authentic flavor of the film especially the dirty grungy look of all the characters. The scene where they cut down the corpse was frightening realistic. I wouldn't be too surprised if that was a real corpse.