True Grit

Watching the Coen Brothers' remake of True Grit brings to mind a question I think a lot of filmgoers have been wrestling with lately: what is the point of a remake? The remake is becoming a major part of cinema, and it could be argued it is the laziest form of film making - even moreso than sequels. There seems to be two kinds of remakes: one is the retelling of a story for an audience that may not have seen the original. The other is a reinterpretation of a film, filtering it completely through a new director's point of view. There is probably more nuance than those two options, but largely most remakes fall into one of the two camps. The Coen Brothers would seem like the ideal candidates for the second category, but True Grit never seems to have much in common with their darkly ironic worldview to begin with (The Searchers always felt like it would make more sense for them). And indeed, True Grit lacks a lot of what one might expect from the Coens, ultimately feeling more like a retelling of the original John Wayne version than anything else.

So then, I ask, why? Why spend a year of your life remaking a fairly well known, Oscar winning Western, and not update the story in any real way? What is this film meant to offer us? The answer seems to lay with two things: the acting and the technical components. If nothing else, the Coens have so finely tuned their craft, that they make some of the most fully realized films each year. From sound to visuals to editing, they seem incapable of making a technically deficient movie, and True Grit is no exception. With each gunshot that rings out, you will jump in your seat. Every set looks so real you would assume they found authentic locations to shoot in. The costumes run circles around those in the original. The score, inspired by hymns from the era, is enchanting and memorable. In pretty much every technical aspect, this is the superior film to the 1969 original. But is that enough?

The acting, with apologies to Mr. Wayne, is unanimously better here. Rooster Cogburn, as portrayed by John Wayne, was little more than an extension of the Duke's persona. He played a type, and this character was that type to a T. Jeff Bridges, on the other hand, has created a wholly original character. Mumbling, foolish, aggressive, bitter - Bridges fills what could have been a stock hero with so much nuance and energy that you can't help but be entertained by him. And while he is very good, even better is newcomer Hailee Steinfeld as young Mattie Ross, the girl who hires Cogburn to avenge her father's murder. She takes the delightfully archaic and wordy dialog and runs with it effortlessly, making you forget she is acting at all. As head strong as Mattie is, Steinfeld never lets you forget than you are watching a young grieving girl, and she lets that aspect shine through at just the right moments. It is one of the best performances of the year.

And yet, for all this, the film still suffers from its inability to shake the original, to be something new. The pacing often feels very off, dragging right when it should be speeding up. There is a long sequence early on in which Cogbrun is on trial for murder. While this is meant to serve as our introduction to just who Cogburn is, it ends up stopping the momentum of the movie and tells us little that we wouldn't know just from watching how this man behaves around others. And the climax of the movie seems far more rushed than in the original. While we are never meant to really know Tom Chaney, Ned Pepper, or the other villains of the film, it feels like they get even less screentime here than in the original, making the climax feel more perfunctory than it should. And speaking of endings, they seem to be the most divisive aspect of any Coen Brothers movie. Here will be no exception, but for the opposite reason of A Simple Man or No Country: it doesn't know when to end. We get a flash forward on top of another flash forward, telling us every last detail we could ever want to know, when a little more ambiguity might have served the story better.

If you have never seen the original True Grit, this may well be a very good movie. I have seen the 1969 version, so it becomes more difficult for me to appreciate this version. The things that stand out here really stand out, but the things that fail are pretty glaring. In the end, I cannot judge this movie as if I hadn't seen the Wayne version, any more than a newcomer could judge this in the context of the original. Which again begs the question, why remake this film? As much as I liked the aspects I liked, I probably would have enjoyed them even more in the context of an original story. It often felt like the Coens were spinning their wheels instead of trying to be innovative. This movie can be fun at times, but it never really rises above that, and occasionally dips below it.

Burn After Reading

Burn After Reading, the new Coen Brothers movie, plays like the comedy mirror to their own No Country for Old Men, with a dash of The Big Lebowski thrown in for good measure. A group of dimwitted personal trainers (Frances McDormand, Brad Pitt, and Richard Jenkins) discover a disk in their gym with what looks to be secret CIA files on it. The disk belongs to Osborne Cox (John Malkovich), who doesn't even know that it is missing (or that the disk of information even exists), so when the personal trainers contact him in order to collect a reward of some sort, things turn sour and all hell breaks loose. What follows is mayhem, death, a few laughs, and a morally ambiguous ending. Pretty much what you'd expect from the Coens.

If you've been keeping track, you probably remember that I was not the biggest fan of their Oscar winning picture from last year. I came to appreciate it as time wore on, but it is not the classic many might have you believe. Which is a shame because I really love these guys and their offbeat filmography. On paper, Burn After Reading looks like a return to familiar territory for the brothers. Viewing the film, however, it became slowly apparent that this was not going to be the knockout that so many of their earlier films were. Indeed, by film's end I was a bit disappointed. Not overwhelmingly so, thankfully, but enough to make me a bit sad. Will the Coens ever achieve the same lofty heights they hit with Fargo, Lebowski, Barton Fink, and others?

The film starts off surprisingly slowly, introducing us to all the players. This is problem number one: there are too many characters at the outset, and too few are immediately interesting. Cox and his wife Katie (Tilda Swinton) take up a good majority of the opening scenes, yet they have very little spark to their characters. They are two bitter, angry people that you would not expect a comedy to be centered around. Thankfully just when you think you can't take any more of these two George Clooney shows up to brighten things up a bit. His Harry is a twitchy, odd duck. Cheating on his wife with Katie, he also cruises the internet looking for other woman to fool around with. He is a fun character, but for a long time we don't understand why he is even in the film. After a good twenty or thirty minutes we are finally introduced to the Hardbodies employees, and this is when the film finally takes off.

McDonrmand is a ball of energy as Linda, a woman who just wants a couple simple procedures done to make her appearance better. Discovering the secret disk may be exactly the ticket she needs in order to pay for those procedures. The true revelation is Pitt, an actor who rarely disappoints but is especially great here in what is easily his funniest role. Pitt plays Chad, a man who takes dimwittedness to rarely seen levels. His attempts to negotiate with Cox over the return of the disk fail repeatedly, yet he can never understand why. Chad feels almost like he is from a different movie, especially when he is interacting with the dry Malkovich, and as he cuts a swath through the story he leaves behind nothing but charm and laughs. Sad that he has relatively small screen time compared to the rest of the cast - a few more scenes with him would have gone a long way, especially early on.

The film has a strong climax, and the abundance of characters makes sense by the end, but that opening half is far too slow and dull. Also, I suspect many might be annoyed by the glib, offhanded way the film is concluded, making the loose ends of No Country seem like nothing. When this film does hit the right notes, it can be very funny. Yet it is not nearly funny enough, nor as interesting and insightful as most of the Coen Brother's previous films. It all adds up to a lot of nothing. I know the Coens had some purpose to this darkly misanthropic comedy, yet I can not figure out what it is. My silver lining is that a some of their films have failed to impress me upon early viewings, only to expand with passing time - even No Country. I suspect a second viewing here will illuminate some of the subtler points and make me appreciate what felt like an otherwise malformed film. But until that second viewing, all I am left with is a film that came close to being good but just missed that mark.

Catching Up: Mini Reviews

As Oscar season quickly approaches, my movie intake is increasing. I simply don't have the time to give all the movies the reviews they deserve, but I still felt I should sum up my feelings towards each.

Gone Baby Gone



Following in the footsteps of Clint Eastwood with Mystic River, actor Ben Affleck has crafted a masterpiece of moral ambiguity. Based on a Denis Lehane novel, Baby follows two private detectives (Casey Affleck and Michelle Monaghan) in search of a missing four year old girl. The plot unfolds in a surprising way, and it's a testament to Ben Affleck's directing abilities that he is able to keep it from feeling exploitative or familiar. At one point I honestly had no idea where the film was going to go next, a quality I wish more films had. All the performances are excellent, with Casey Affleck once again proving he is ready for the big time. Ed Harris as a morally ambiguous cop and relative newcomer Amy Ryan as the mother of the missing child give the best performances, however, and it would be truly surprising to not see at least one of them (probably Ryan) get an Oscar nomination. It all builds to one of the most thought provoking finales of the year, with a final shot that is a bit devastating. If this is the career Ben Affleck has in his future, I welcome it with open arms.




Bee Movie


There really is only one reason to see Bee Movie: Jerry Seinfeld. It's been almost a decade since his hit sitcom went off the air, and he has finally made the leap to the big screen (Comedian notwithstanding). If you were to remove Seinfeld's humor, though, this would be just another Dreamworks animated comedy, which is to say, not a very good movie. Yet Jerry brings enough wit and charm to raise this above the Shreks and Shark Tales and deliver an occasionally very funny film. The supporting cast is unfortunately largely wasted, especially Chris Rock, whose presence here amounts to maybe three scenes. Seinfeld definitely still knows how to make you laugh, though, and that's really all I expected from this to begin with.




American Gangster


With American Gangster Ridley Scott appears to have watched every major gangster film of the past 40 years, and then proceeded to copy them all. The result is one of the least original films of the fall season. Which isn't to say it's a bad movie. You've seen literally everything in this film before, but it's done with such precision here that it barely receives a pass. Denzel Washington is up to his usual tricks as Frank Lucas, a gangster on the rise, while Russel Crowe is satisfying as the cop out to catch Lucas. The best scene in the film is when these two men finally sit down to talk with each other (shades of Heat), which unfortunately doesn't come until over two hours into this epic. Don't go into this expecting anything new and you will be satisfied. Those who prefer to see a new take on an old genre best look elsewhere.




No Country for Old Men


I wanted to try and write a full review of this film, but I just don't feel like I've been able to digest it the way I should have. Clearly this is a very ambitious film, and the Coen brothers have rarely stumbled in their long career. Yet for some reason I felt distanced from this film throughout. What frustrates me is that I can't pinpoint what it is I found so alienating about this film. Tommy Lee Jones as a weary cop is stoic and melancholy, a man who has seen the horrors of the world and walked away dumbfounded. Javier Bardem as the psychopath Chigurh is chilling, one of the best villainous performances in recent years. And capping off his comeback year, Josh Brolin centers the film with his portrayal of a conflicted man on the run. It's interesting that no character here is meant to really be liked or sympathized with, perhaps aiding my conflicted feelings towards this film. Everything is shot with bravado, the sound is beautiful, the lack of any real score adds tension. In fact, the only thing that I can immediately point out as being a misstep is a jumpcut towards the end of the film that essentially skips one of the most important parts of the story. We spend so much time with Brolin's character that it feels like an outright cheat to not see how he gets to where he is at the ending, even if we can piece it together on our own. I wanted to love this movie, and I see no reason why I didn't, which makes this such a maddening experience. This isn't your typical quirky, offbeat Coen brothers movie, instead feeling cold and calculated - and perhaps that is what threw me off. In a way it surprisingly feels more like a Stanley Kubrick film than a Coen brothers film. Kubrick is a man who rarely made a movie I outright loved upon initial viewing, and yet I now consider most of his films to be among the best cinema has every produced. No Country for Old Men is not a film that I can fully dissect right now, but given time it might become a classic - or its coldness might just put me off to it for good. It's simply too soon to tell.