Okay, technically I've seen "True Grit" last Thursday but I decided I'd keep it for the Monday review, because quite frankly I found the movie rather meh...
Now I know, all the Western-, Coen Brothers-, Jeff Bridges- and who-knows-what-else- fans out there probably want to tear me into shreds for saying it out loud, but there it is, the bald truth: the movie just didn't do it for me.
It's kinda hard to put the finger on it exactly, why I'm not ecstatically gushing about how great it is like everyone else, since I did not find it bad, exactly, or boring. The story just fizzed along for me, never truly ignited, that's the best I can come up with...
It's not the acting either. I had great expections of Jeff Bridges after seeing "Crazy Heart" last year (a truly spectacular, Oscar deserving performance), and I was not disappointed. Hailee Steinfeld was amazing, too. Josh Brolin always surprises me, the way he manages to play the rather dim-witted characters. Matt Damon, oh well, he's Matt Damon. What can I say? (Anyone else out there who always has to think of the Matt Damon spoof in "Team America" when he/she sees that guy? No? It's just me? )
It's not the cinematography either. There were some grand scenes and it was all well done. The set, the pictures, the scope. A nice gritty reality. Not overdone either.
I suppose it's the story. I'm not a big fan of revenge stories. And yeah, I get it, that it is a parabel on our humanity. That it shows what we lose of ourselves on our quest for retribution. That no matter how good and pure our incentive is (which btw I don't buy. Setting out to kill someone or have someone killed is never good and pure. Not even when you are a 14-year-old girl wanting to avenge your father.) anyways, it'll change you. Revenge is not so much about righting a wrong, it's about getting the scale even. But in order to do that, you have to give up something of yourself in the process. For me, the whole eye-for-an-eye business never made sense. Counteracting violence with more violence...where's the point in that? And when do you stop?
And yeah, I also got the point where the little girl hast lost her father (from the subtext in the movie, probably long before he was killed) and that her journey also is meant as passage into adulthood (again she appears to me as a young adult, who has made the transition from child to adult without the luxury of adolescence long before the movie starts) on which she finds a father figure in the grumpy alcoholic Rooster Cockburn. But can I just state here how crummy I find it that in the end (SPOILER ALERT) he leaves her, too?
Oh, and speaking of the end (again MAJOR SPOILER ALERT don't read any further if you haven't seen the movie yet and intend to see it still): That whole snake bite business and hell-for-leather riding scene? Totally overdone and unneccessary. Made me want to shake my head and mumble "oh no, you didn't...you didn't...you DID..." for the last 10 minutes of the film. Also having Mattie end up as a shriveled old spinster at the end? Not sure what kind of message that was supposed to send.
As for the casual racism towards Native Americans and the sexism (boy did that weird sexualised relationship between Mattie and LeBoeuf squick me out)... yes, I know that it was a detached depiction of the "good ole days" and that it was meant as an ironic refraction for the modern viewer to take a step back and say:"Oh boy, were we racist and sexist back when..." It still made me feel pretty uncomfortable and being used for the comic element as it was I'm not sure that the average viewer got the irony. Actually, listening to the audience around me breaking out in gleeful laughter, I'm pretty sure they didn't...
So, all in all, I was not too impressed. I think the Coen Brothers have done better movies (Fargo comes to mind) and Jeff Bridges has, too. I'd give it five out of ten points.
Tell me watcha think!
And of course for todays mancandy, how about a nice cowboy?
No comments:
Post a Comment