I really loved the first one. Always loved westerns as a kid, was dating my long-time boyfriend at the time who had "turned cowboy," and this was just a well-done film.
Now come the Coen brothers who, in my view, border on genius wrapped in a demented coat. I liked this version very much, also. Outstanding photography, faithful to the story, set design authentic enough to make me feel as if I could smell and taste and touch the Northwest in the 1800s.
But of course what makes (or breaks) this story lies in its three principle players: Rooster Cogburn, Maddie Ross, and Texas Ranger Le Boef. Here played superbly by Jeff Bridges, Hailee Steinfeld, and Matt Damon. Bridges is having a bang-up career lately. For him to be starring in this AND Tron at the same time (where he looks 50 years younger) is quite an accomplishment. He IS Rooster Cogburn. I sense such affection by him for this role. Dang - he was good here! I do find him less likable than Wayne's work. Newcomer Steinfeld, who beat out thousands of peers, displays an innate maturity and skill beyond her years that is so aligned with Maddie Ross. These two young ladies take no prisoners. Literally. Matt Damon seems comfortable in not upstaging either this newbie or the veteran Bridges. He downplays his role, as opposed to Glen Campbell's portrayal. (As a minor character, Josh Brolin's Tom Chaney is amusing in his surprising whining and stupidity. Brolin, I am convinced, can play ANYTHING!)
All three deftly manage the characteristic syntax and wording of the dialogue, unique to this film. I've read that the novel's dialogue with its lack of contractions and weighty vocabulary oddly placed in the mouths of unrefined outlaws mirror those times, when most speech patterns echoed the King James Bible.
This version has more humor in it than its predecessor. I did feel less affection between these three than in the first film. I cried at the end of the first one, with Maddie on a snowy hill with Cogburn's grave. I didn't cry at this one, but I was moved.
The first film had a lovely, sentimental musical theme running through it which I can still hum on command. That says something. This one had sometimes overt-sometimes subtle strains of an old church hymn threading through it. Set more of a tone of justice and redemption. *Trivial note: one great attraction for me to see this new film lay with the trailer's deep bass sounds creating a musical image. I did not notice any of this same manly riff in the actual film at all. I had been looking forward to it.
The most memorable scene from the 1969 version was set in an aspen clearing, as one-eyed Cogburn takes on 4 outlaws, reins in his teeth. I am sooo glad to see a faithful nod to this in this film. It wasn't copying; it was homage.
All three of these characters either are embued with, or must learn, true grit. It was an essential requirement for those times in order to survive. Hell, even today.
Good movie - then and now.
This is a very good movie but not a great movie. However, it was just what I needed for a New Years Day flick. - geno
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with geno - He is spot on!
ReplyDelete"Why, you're no bigger 'n a corn nugget."
ReplyDeleteJust had the pleasure of watching the original yesterday and I'm tellin' ya, the Cohen brothers are lyin' to us or themselves when they say theirs isn't a re-do. Boulderdash. Virtually every single frame is identical to the original, even the dialogue (including the above), even Rooster's residence, down to the slat-less "bed."
Now, maybe both are simply ultra-faithful to the novel; it so, they are two extreme cases.
Is this a criticism of the new version? Absolutely not. I have such affection for the original, enjoyed every moment as I watched again, and only see this new version as an extended homage. There is room for two on the film shelf.