True Grit

One great piece of Western poetry smelling of gunpowder, beans and tears. The film, which is perhaps most reminiscent of No Country for Old Men in Coens' pedigree, but with its humility towards genre conventions and absolutely brilliant work with the central triangle, creates a very pleasant and warm place of nostalgia and melancholy for the old dusty times of heroism. (16/02/2011)

The Coen brothers are known for their maximum precision, with which they approach every tested genre and film being prepared. In True Grit, this can be seen in every aspect, whether it is the casting, prop selection, the well-crafted screenplay, and above all, traditionally high-quality directing. This film is a return to the traditional western, which experienced its golden age about 60 years ago and has been rather languishing in recent decades. Precisely because it is a return to the roots of the respective genre, there are no major surprises and it is not a modern genre variation like Dead Man or Dances with Wolves. This is a classic battle of good and evil, tough men and wilderness, where law and justice are far from what we imagine in today's courtrooms. However, it is rawer, less romantic, and somewhat more sober than the famous films of the golden era. Furthermore, the presence of a stubborn girl who stubbornly seeks to avenge her father's death and bosses around the gunmen brings important lightness to the film. It is unnecessary to highlight other film elements, such as the camera or music because in the case of the Coen brothers they always work perfectly. Overall impression: 80%. If I were a fan of the genre, I would not hesitate to give it 5 stars. (07/06/2011)

A meaningful remake. A tribute to the original from the Coen brothers, but also they realize the mistakes of the original and certainly do not repeat them. They avoided a long introduction, and got rid of the landscape backdrops and the overall naivety. A dusty, tough atmosphere reigns, where harsh words fly from all angles. The Coens put their money on the characters, which turned out to be the right choice because, unlike the original, they gave them some depth (Wayne was just Wayne with a gun belt, while Bridges is actually Cogburn, and it’s the same with everybody else) and none were sidelined. This makes emotions important, while in the first version they were rather absent. And despite the outstanding performances of all those badass macho types, it is fourteen year-old Hailee Steinfeld who steals the movie (and who has the biggest balls). (02/01/2011)

Even though western is far from my favourite genre, I was looking forward to True Grit, if only because it would be my first opportunity to see a story from the Wild West on the big screen. The execution is above-par, but that shouldn’t be a surprise, the Cohens know how to make movies. Unlike most viewers, though, I had a serious problem with the actors, everyone except Jeff Bridges. Damon, Brolin and the praised all the way to heaven Steinfeld felt… robotic. They just didn’t fit into the western setting, I didn’t believe they were people, I only saw characters written on paper. This leads to another complain I have: the epilogue. In the last five minutes the Cohens try to squeeze emotions and they do it in an unexpected way. In the cinema I didn’t get the dramatic intention, but now it’s clear and I appreciate it somehow because it’s fairly untraditional, but that doesn’t alter the fact that it didn’t work on me. True Grit disappointed me in the same way that No Country for Old Men did three years ago. I prefer the Cohens in comedy :) (26/02/2011)

I’m not a fan of westerns, but I really looked forward to True Grit. I was mostly curious to see how the Coens could incorporate their slower narrative and creeping Wild West vibe among those seasoned and rugged heroes, and it turned out pretty much the same as always does. Once again, they managed to create a very specific genre film with their own rules and formulas, something that never has the desired effect with their comedies (in my opinion), but it does with dark crime thrillers, and now also here – I was literally in bliss all the time. The story is a bit more adventurous for a classic western, it relies on a careful portrayal of each character, and if the Coens got a motif from somewhere, I think it was Jarmusch's Dead Man, which I thought of several times. Otherwise, the film has pretty much everything a proper western should have: beautiful landscapes, a straightforward plot, great villains (for a long time we imagine them only on the basis of the narrative, which earns them a lot of respect), and excellent performances – Bridges is brilliant, but the young Steinfeld towers over everyone. And then there's the Coens’ touch, which can sometimes make a film quite unpleasant, but usually adds a whole new and incredibly voluminous dimension. The western is still alive!........... I'm downgrading to 4* after a some time, unlike other top Coens’ films, this one has completely faded from my memory and I have no need to ever see it again. (25/11/2012)