Paramount Pictures | Release Date: December 22, 2010
7.8
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 638 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
543
Mixed:
64
Negative:
31
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characteres (5000 max)
2
JasonGoalieJan 9, 2011
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I know I'm going against the grain... I know this movie is well liked by critics and patrons alike... But after watching this movie, I feel like the enlightened one in a sea of gullible moviegoers! Can anyone else appreciate just how TERRIBLE this movie was? First: the script plays on screen like it was written by a school child. Sure, there's some witty one-liners and laugh-inducing reparte now and then, but in the context of a (supposedly) serious film, these parts of the dialogue transpire with the feel of a cheap David Spade movie... (not that there's anything wrong with David Spade movies, it just doesn't belong here). Second: certain scenes of this move are ABSOLUTE GARBAGE, and do nothing in the way of character development or plot advancement! The man in the tree who Rooster Cogburn "does not know"... The painfully awkward, random meeting with the medicine man in the bearskin... the inane, often incomprehensible ramblings of Cogburn... the lame-ass cornbread shooting contest... Do you need another four WORTHLESS scenes from this film? I'd be happy to list them. Third: I think it would be fair to say that this movie *attempts* to portray a special bond between Cogburn and the little girl, Mattie Ross. To steal a line from today's youth: EPIC FAIL. Jeff Bridges is a (usually) great actor, and Hailee Steinfeld seems like a wonderful young actress. But taken together, these two have the chemistry of oil and water... Summary thoughts: This movie is boring, hamstrung by hollywood cliches, rather poorly acted, INCREDIBLY poorly written, has a very uninspiring "gotcha, bad guy!" moment, and perhaps shouldn't have even been (re)made in the first place. The 2 points I have awarded are for the (surely unintentional) entertainment value derived from the aforementioned campy one-liners, and overdone, humor-inducing melodrama... Enjoy, but probably if you're over 70. Expand
5 of 11 users found this helpful56
All this user's reviews
0
EthanPeterDec 27, 2010
Infuriatingly bad, it's the worst Oscar bait in years. The story's essentially a one-act play that's so boring I fell asleep. Thankfully(?) the characters are so hollow that I didn't care what happened to them. The dialogue is a mix ofInfuriatingly bad, it's the worst Oscar bait in years. The story's essentially a one-act play that's so boring I fell asleep. Thankfully(?) the characters are so hollow that I didn't care what happened to them. The dialogue is a mix of poorly delivered olde timey "urgency" and inane one-liners. It wasn't funny, suspenseful, insightful, thrilling, or engaging in any way aside from a few seconds of nice cinematography. It wasn't snubbed by the HFPA for Golden Globe nominations; they saw that it was a horrible crapfest of a movie totally worthy of zero accolades in exchange for the zero amount of entertainment it contained. Expand
4 of 10 users found this helpful46
All this user's reviews
2
HEI5ENBERGFeb 13, 2011
Man I can't believe this movie is in the running for best picture at this years Oscar!!! This movie was so BORING and un-entertaining! The acting was OK at best. I found that I couldn't Jeff Bridges! The way the movie was filmed was like itMan I can't believe this movie is in the running for best picture at this years Oscar!!! This movie was so BORING and un-entertaining! The acting was OK at best. I found that I couldn't Jeff Bridges! The way the movie was filmed was like it was filmed in the early 60's! Nothing in this movie impressed me even the 11 years old girl, whose been given great reviews from the movies critics failed to impress me!

When you look at this movie on paper, you just can't wait to watch it. Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin stars, Cohen Brothers Direct! Gets your mouth watering! Trust me people this movie was very very boring!
Expand
2 of 5 users found this helpful23
All this user's reviews
2
David_HDec 29, 2010
I'm old enough to have seen the original and its not just an issue of "why remake a John Wayne movie?". I have to give Jeff Bridges some credit, he certainly has skill. Matt Damon however seemed to be an odd casting choice and a bit awkwardI'm old enough to have seen the original and its not just an issue of "why remake a John Wayne movie?". I have to give Jeff Bridges some credit, he certainly has skill. Matt Damon however seemed to be an odd casting choice and a bit awkward in this kind of movie. Overall, the whole thing moved slow and therefore seemed to drag on. I left the theater feeling like I had wasted an afternoon and that there was no point in remaking this film. The original was excellent and this version brought nothing new. Expand
2 of 6 users found this helpful24
All this user's reviews
3
podriscoll27Jan 28, 2011
Sucked. It is over-hyped, badly predictable, easily forgettable, utterly missable. Don't bother with it.

_______________________________________________________________________________
2 of 7 users found this helpful25
All this user's reviews
1
davidp1045Dec 31, 2010
After reading all the glowing reviews from both critics and users on the website I was really expecting an amazing movie that would keep me entertained throughout. Instead, I was bored out of mind my for about 85% of the movie. The last tenAfter reading all the glowing reviews from both critics and users on the website I was really expecting an amazing movie that would keep me entertained throughout. Instead, I was bored out of mind my for about 85% of the movie. The last ten minutes were decent, and that's it. I do not recommend. Expand
2 of 7 users found this helpful25
All this user's reviews
2
shaunmedJan 10, 2011
Huge fan of the Coens but this film is an ineffectual copy of the original classic. The story line is barely changed and for the worse i must say. There is no chemistry of kinship between any of the over acting actors who all fall prey to theHuge fan of the Coens but this film is an ineffectual copy of the original classic. The story line is barely changed and for the worse i must say. There is no chemistry of kinship between any of the over acting actors who all fall prey to the pitfall of their own stardom or that of the directors. Expand
3 of 11 users found this helpful38
All this user's reviews
1
enigma13Dec 25, 2010
You'll need "true grit" to get through this one. In a word - monotone. Slow pace, too much dialogue (monologues), gratuitous violence, poor editing. Scenes that should/could have been surprises were simply confusing because the film lackedYou'll need "true grit" to get through this one. In a word - monotone. Slow pace, too much dialogue (monologues), gratuitous violence, poor editing. Scenes that should/could have been surprises were simply confusing because the film lacked story development. We plodded from one ho-hum conversation to the next with a shot of violence dropped in now and then to [try to] break the monotony. I'm a major Coen brothers fan but afraid they missed the mark here. Spend your money if you need a nap. Expand
2 of 8 users found this helpful26
All this user's reviews
1
LukeTravisDec 26, 2010
You can put frosting on a turd, but it doesn't make it a cupcake. This movie has no redeeming qualities. I went in with great expectations and came out shaking my head in disgust. Everything that made the original great is missing.You can put frosting on a turd, but it doesn't make it a cupcake. This movie has no redeeming qualities. I went in with great expectations and came out shaking my head in disgust. Everything that made the original great is missing. Bridges is no John Wayne. I never knew just how well Kim Darby and Glenn Campbell played their parts until I saw Hailee Steinfeld's and Matt Damon's performances. I have a collection of over 5,000 movies and there's no way I'd ever buy this turd. Expand
2 of 8 users found this helpful26
All this user's reviews
0
marco34laJan 1, 2011
This movie sucked for the first hour!! It was about as exciting and interesting as a heinz ketchup commercial. The last hour was okay. Overall, I'd say skip it. If you want to see a movie where they put adult words in children's mouths...This movie sucked for the first hour!! It was about as exciting and interesting as a heinz ketchup commercial. The last hour was okay. Overall, I'd say skip it. If you want to see a movie where they put adult words in children's mouths... then go see 'Kick Ass" instead. A precocious 14 yr girl just doesn't work. Damon and Brolin are just supporting roles... so don't go for them. In case you're wondering... I loved 'No Country for Old Men". This movie was a HUGE disappointment. Expand
2 of 8 users found this helpful26
All this user's reviews
0
critical1Dec 25, 2010
Got to give it a "one" mostly for my errant expectations. Those who are looking for a typical Coen brothers film will be very disapointed. Terrific acting by Jeff Bridges although he does seem to reprising his previous role in "Crazy Heart."Got to give it a "one" mostly for my errant expectations. Those who are looking for a typical Coen brothers film will be very disapointed. Terrific acting by Jeff Bridges although he does seem to reprising his previous role in "Crazy Heart." Matt Damon is unrecognizable and wasted. Hailie Steinfield is getting rave reviews and it is hard to understand why. She appears to be acting in every scene. Merely a good straight-ahead western. The Coen Brothers should go back to making Coen brothers movies unless they are getting worn out and lacking the true grit necessary for inspiration.. Expand
2 of 12 users found this helpful210
All this user's reviews
1
fantasyJan 9, 2011
This movie was awful. I am sorry I saw the original with John Wayne but this was a pointless boring piece of trash. It made absolutely no sense because you knew where this was going 5 minutes into the flick. The professional criticisThis movie was awful. I am sorry I saw the original with John Wayne but this was a pointless boring piece of trash. It made absolutely no sense because you knew where this was going 5 minutes into the flick. The professional criticis raving about this simply blows my mind. Just a waste of two hours. Expand
1 of 6 users found this helpful15
All this user's reviews
3
monkeymanDec 22, 2010
Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon were really great in this movie. However everything else was bad and boring. Characters would talk about things that had nothing to do with the plot or development of the story. When I went into this movie iJeff Bridges and Matt Damon were really great in this movie. However everything else was bad and boring. Characters would talk about things that had nothing to do with the plot or development of the story. When I went into this movie i thought i was there to see an action movie. What i saw was a bunch of cowboys talking about their crappy jobs and money. Even though the acting was good the characters that these great actors were made into were over all bad. The girl was whining the entire movie. And both Matt Damon's and Jeff Bridges characters were both boring and underdeveloped. Expand
6 of 39 users found this helpful633
All this user's reviews
1
DorrbeckerJan 23, 2011
Incredibly boring movie. Dull and pointless remake. I would much rather just watch the original. The Coens have sold out. I could only see bunch of pedophiles rating this movie so high.
0 of 4 users found this helpful04
All this user's reviews
0
MrMooveyFeb 13, 2011
This was a waste of time. The original was a classic western. This was a weak attempt to recreate
True Grit. The characters were forgettable, the story was drawn out, the performances were okay but compared to the classic, in every case this
This was a waste of time. The original was a classic western. This was a weak attempt to recreate
True Grit. The characters were forgettable, the story was drawn out, the performances were okay but compared to the classic, in every case this came up short.. This may have been the worst movie I have
seen in a long time. i usually pride myself on seeing quality movies. Maybe the rent was due......
Expand
0 of 4 users found this helpful04
All this user's reviews
1
xishnik100Feb 19, 2011
THis movie Bored me to death. Jeff Bridges had great acting, but thats about it. Plot was boring, storyline was boring, i dont really see how movie critics enjoyed this so much. Much to simple. All of these movie critics are just havingTHis movie Bored me to death. Jeff Bridges had great acting, but thats about it. Plot was boring, storyline was boring, i dont really see how movie critics enjoyed this so much. Much to simple. All of these movie critics are just having nostalgia from the older release of the movie. Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
3
CinemanAug 1, 2012
I have to admit that, before watching the film, I wasn't a fan of the original and was surprised that anyone thought it deserving of a remake. The original was far too much of a comedy for what was supposed to be a revenge film and KimI have to admit that, before watching the film, I wasn't a fan of the original and was surprised that anyone thought it deserving of a remake. The original was far too much of a comedy for what was supposed to be a revenge film and Kim Darby's performance was far too cartoonish. I imagined that the Coens would probably go far in the other direction and create an extremely violent film that might better fit the theme of revenge.

I was surprised to see how little their vision differed from the original and how poor the acting was. Jeff Bridges played a caricature of all his recent performances and was unintelligible for long stretches. His chemistry with Maddy was non-existent, partially because she was again portrayed as a one-note "girl with spunk" rather than as a real character whose moods and reactions change with the action. If she's an interesting film character, it's because she's a young woman driven by physical revenge - not because she "spunky". I'm stunned by the critics' accolades for her performance, which was most notable for its unrealistic staccato line delivery, especially in her repartee with the horse dealer. I realize that, at 14, the Coens were responsible for her performance, but it was painful.

If there's ever been a less credible portrayal of a Texas Ranger than Matt Damon's, I thankfully haven't seen it, and wouldn't want to. I had the sense that he knew it wasn't working but couldn't back out in mid-film. His accent wavered by the minute. Though the role was as cartoonish as in the original, Glen Campbell captured the persona far better.

Though I almost missed Josh Brolin's performance because I occasionally have to blink, his 6 lines of dialogue were delivered with a bizarre, raspy growl for no apparent reason. (Matt Damon marvels at Brolin's inspired delivery in an accompanying commentary!)

Barry Pepper's performance is the best in the film, but even then it's bizarre to see him perfectly mimic Robert Duvall down to the voice. Again, as in so many points in the film, you just wonder "why bother"?

Though the original was far from a great film and far from Wayne's best, it was better than this remake. The original actors were better in their roles, and even Kim Darby's Maddy - cartoonish as I found her -shared an obvious affection for John Wayne that was glaringly missing from the remake.
Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
3
KivaJun 24, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. First of all I don't like westerns. When i first saw the trailer I thought that True grit is going to be my favorite movie. The trailer shocked me with action and passion but what i got after watching that film was nothing. Who would even think making that extremely boring film with no sense. It had a good script about the girl who wants to find the murderer who killed his father and i liked in the end that the girl cuts her arm. That's what i liked of this boring film. I give it 3 for the plot and the landscapes. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
2
LaMagiadeVirueAug 1, 2013
Una pobre, muy pobre remake de la versión original del 1969. Si esta bien, es buena la historia en partes, pero me quedo con la versión original de John Wayne.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews