I know that all the actors have been doing press, not that I’ve seen any, but just because that’s what actors do when they have a new movie. From the IMDB link I saw a couple of interviews with Hailee and had to watch them. She is adorable! I so hope she’s nominated for an Oscar, even if it would be category fraud.
Well, that was easily my favorite movie of 2010, even though I waited until 2011 to see it. Hailee Steinfeld’s performance bowled me over. She owned that challenging dialogue in both rhythm an believability. After just a few lines, I stopped paying attention to how good the actor was and just bought into the character without effort. It called to mind how much the actor who play William Bullock, the sheriff’s adopted son, struggled on Deadwood with that caliber of dialogue and cast.
This is right up there with *Unforgiven *in my book. I like my westerns hard-nosed and “authentic”. So they’re few and far between. At a glance, the recent Open Range had the right patina, but it just wasn’t up to par upon examination. And so much in the genre that has come before was too tidy, morally simplistic, and clean shaven.
While posters here and critics have said so, I don’t agree that this was a straightforward effort from the Coens. Bear Skin Man alone was like their signature quirks literally riding into the film on horseback. There were others.
“French bread, French fries, French dressing…”
Finally saw it last night and really enjoyed it. I agree that Bridges’ Cogburn was unlikeable, but in the way that sort of character really would be. Wayne’s version was a guy you’d enjoy sitting in a bar and listening to him recount his tales. Bridges came across as the guy everyone sort of says, “Oh, no, here comes Cogburn again.” That’s exactly how I would expect a person of Cogburn’s past and character to be. I’ve known people like that in real life, and yet they still have people who admire, respect, or are fond of them. There’s a type for everyone out there.
What I would like to see now is the Coens take on some of Elmore Leonard’s works. I think the combination of his dialog and overall cool with their own could make for some very memorable cinema.
Someone over at IMDb (of all places) posted the best explanation of the perceived age discrepancy. Basically, there’s two different time periods shown in the epilogue.
Someone over at IMDb (of all places) posted the best explanation of the perceived age discrepancy. Basically, there’s two different time periods shown in the epilogue.
I assumed that it was the medicine bear-man who Cogburn rushed Mattie to after her snake bite…?
My impressions:
I really enjoyed it. I liked this actress a lot better than I like Kim Darby. I like that they made her character more age appropriate. I laughed out loud (as did the others in the cinema) at a lot of the dialogue.
I thought it was beautifully shot. The changes of scenery show not just a passage of time but how far they traveled in search of Chaney.
I liked all three major characters, Mattie, LaBoeuf, and Cogburn, and thought that they had good chemistry together.
In those days, it wasn’t uncommon for 14 year old girls to get married. So I thought that the spark of attraction between LaBoeuf and Mattie at the end was appropriate and well done.
I thought it was amusing that even though they tried to uglify Josh Brolin, he was still quite handsome.
Once minor criticism is that I thought that they were way too clean and well fed throughout the movie. I mean, Cogburn looked bedraggled the whole time, but they all should have lost quite a bit of weight, and teeth, on a trail diet. (Oh, and even though I’m an animal lover, there’s no way I’d feed all those delicious apples (which were way too big and red, BTW) to my horse.
I was surprised that in Comanche territory, there weren’t more, you know, Comanches.
I think the donkey should be nominated for best supporting actor, because boy did he sound abused.
Poor Blackie! That whole running him to death segment was well done.
Obvious Coen Brothers moment: The speeches done by the hanged men. Let’s just say that most hanging scenes aren’t comedic.
He took her back to the trading post where the Indian (the guy getting his hair cut) was a doctor.
It isn’t made clear, but I think the whole story takes place within the space a week or 10 days. Rooster had “a big slab of salt pork and 175 corn dodgers” and Mattie brought biscuit and bacon sandwiches, some cheese and dried peaches. They ate some Indian hominy at the dugout and had a meal at McAlester’s store.
You didn’t see any Comanches because they were in the Choctaw Nation, but I know what you mean. They were out in the boonies; there weren’t too many people of any kind wandering around out there…except for outlaws, of course.
Though I could tell it wasn’t him, it sure reminded me of him.
And I had to check and make sure the bear man wasn’t J. K. Simmons.
Just wanted to revisit this thread, as I DID see it a second time, and liked it more. The acting is more subtle in this, more nuance to the performances. Pay attention to tone of voice, silences, and the look on the actor’s faces. With the 1969 version, you could almost not watch the screen and come away with the same thoughts and opinions as you would have watching it. The cabin scene was not lacking in the remake, as I thought in my post above. I still wish Bridges hadn’t chosen the gravel voice, but overall, my opinion vastly improved on second viewing. It’s not the rousing, larger-than-life adventure the first one was.
While I felt the best lines in the original were, “I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!” and “Fill your hands, you son-of-a-bitch!”, I thought the best line in the remake was, “Wait, are we trading again?”
We finally saw this last night. The only reservation I had going in was how Bridges would match up to Wayne’s performance without seeming like an impersonation of the Duke. Kim Darby and Glenn Campbell didn’t impress me in the first version of the film, so it was a given that Matt Damon could nail that role without any problem. The girl was an unknown, but I always disliked Kim Darby in any role, so figured they probably found someone who could take direction without chewing the scenery.
We really like it a lot. I thought Bridges nailed the part and was far more convincing as an unrepentant derelict in this film than he was in the film that won him an Oscar last year. There was no channeling of Wayne, and I give him major props for owning the character. Damon was excellent as the puffed up Le Boeuf, and Brolin was appropriately psychotic as Chaney. Barry Pepper consumed his few scenes, but was a little too reminiscent of Robert Duvall, IMO. For me, Maddie was the least effective character in the film and could have been better cast. Still better than Darby, of course. All-in-all, I’d give it five stars for a fun adventure western.
It’s clear she thinks this is “ill advised” and nothing gets a woman gaga over a man who will take on stupid odds for her in a fight, however ill advised. That is a generalization not meant to apply to women posters here who might disagree with it, correctly or incorrectly.
Oh I am going to have serious problems watching that.
I think I will wander off to the bathroom for that. How long is the scene?
As an aside, I was ripping pissed off at a bunch of assholes who made a documentary about 10-15 years ago about pilgrims traveling to Jerusalem.
Those fuckwads rode several sets of horses to death along the 2 year endeavor. They did not realize that the average pilgrim train went 10 to 20 miles a day, traveled for 3 or 4 days then knocked off to rest the pack train and saddle animals [and do sabbath worship and equipment repair] for a couple days, then go on for several days. Those assholes rode until the horses foundered, damaged a body part or died. Then they bought more and kept on.
I have never wanted to horsewhip any people quite so much as everybody involved in that project, including the farm that sold them an absolutely beautiful belgian without making sure they actually were going to travel properly.
I don’t recall his stabbing Little Blackie, so it must be rather brief.
I thought it was spurs?
She was shouting at him to stop, and Rooster took his knife out, brought it high, and then drove it into Blackie’s side. We don’t see the blade entering his flesh, of course, but we see Rooster’s arm go down. It’s pretty blatant, I’m not sure how people could have missed it.
Concur. It is a very intense sequence, etherial and heartwrenching at the same time. I don’t even like horses, and it affected me profoundly.
Stranger
Did he stab Blackie, or whack him with the flat of the blade?
In the book, Rooster first cuts Blackie, then rubs salt into the wound when the horse falters.