by Sebastian Kluth
I am a huge fan of Western movies and also of Matt Damon's acting and that was why I was really looking forward to this movie. I haven't seen the original with John Wayne but I have seen other movies starring him and know about his strong presence and particular acting even though I largely prefer the Italian Westerns and their actors and think that John Wayne is somehow overrated. After many positive reviews and an entering at the list of the top movies of all times on this site, my expectations were quite high for the new version of True Grit and then crashed dramatically down. I won't say that it is a bad movie but I would honestly say that it is a rather boring that is saved by the great actors, the magnificent landscapes and the movie score. True Grit is neither a True Hit nor the True S*it.
The movie is a rather slow paced character study where the actors do a very well job, especially the young and talented Hailee Steinfeld as stubborn young girl Mattie Ross that wants to chase the killer of her father with the help of the often drunk, used and pitiless but rather smart Rooster Cogburn played by the very convincing Jeff Bridges. Matt Damon plays a young, modern and somewhat emotive Texas Ranger but is less convincing as usually. On the other hand, I didn't see any sadness, fear or despair in the role of Mattie Ross, a young girl in a stranger town that has lost her father recently; her only emotion was her stubborn sense of vengeance. Rooster Cogburn did a slightly better job and shows his two sides as a prudent tutor and nostalgic storyteller but also as an alcoholic with a quite grey life. But even though Rooster saves Mattie in the end, I miss somewhat a closer contact between them, a developing relationship between them and I would have liked to see a more intense final ending between those two characters. I was also surprised to see that the development of the character was abruptly broken when Rooster got suddenly heavily drunk out of the blue after so many sacrifices during the chase and I thought that inappropriate. The role of Matt Damon seemed strange to me, sometimes he acted like an arrogant and pitiless ranger and later as an almost warm-hearted friend. Some people may call this a developing and profound characterization but I rather saw the whole thing as an unconvincing lack of continuity. Every time I thought that there would be an interesting and tension filled relationship between the characters for example when the Texas Ranger left the group to chase the bad boys on his own and enter in conflict with the other two main characters, nothing really happened or evolved. But what really left me disappointed were the roles of the evil guys. They had nothing menacing, nothing bad and nothing outstanding apart of the embarrassing and unnecessary bad buy that was imitating animal noises to cut off the little rest of atmosphere and tension in the movie.
And with this allusion comes my next important point. The whole story was rather boring and tensionless while the main idea could have been interesting. Something like a convincing final duel or intense chase between the good and the bad was missing. A part of a few shooting scenes, there was a lack of action in the movie as it tried to touch a rather emotional, nostalgic and finally dramatically and philosophical style. That could have been another interesting approach, but the movie even failed from that point of view. The nostalgic speeches of Rooster about his wife, his career and his demons are completely random and not very touching, the thoughts of the young girl are quite linear and predictable while Matt Damon showed two different attitudes in a rather disturbing than convincing manner.
Many good ideas that could have given something special to the movie have been left out in my opinion. If the bad boys and their three hunters were marching through a territory of the Indians, I would have liked to see a cause of conflict between them. But the good and bad guys were just randomly galloping through rather beautiful landscapes. But the whole chasing story is somehow based on a few unbelievable coincidences. The fact that the girl meets the murderer of her father was predictable and the way how she met him was quite unoriginal for example. I also thought that the killer had nothing menacing at all. He was afraid of the young girl and almost begging and crying face to face with the leader of the gang (who were those guys anyway?) but should have been a cold hearted and legendary murderer across several states? These lacks of logic and some boring points throughout the whole movie could not have been hidden only by a few sympathetic word plays or jokes throughout the whole flick.
When there is a random story with many coincidences and less convincing characters, even the greatest actors, the best movie score and the most beautiful landscapes can't quite help to completely save this movie. I would have preferred a more original or even unique story and not a remake of a rather average western. I think that the talent of the actors was wasted in this unoriginal movie. Only those actors save this movie from being an absolute faceless average Western like "Appaloosa" or worse. That's why I don't really understand the whole hype about this movie. I would only recommend this flick to collectors that would absolutely see any film with Matt Damon or Jeff Bridges and those who adored the original flick. But sadly, the great times of the brilliant westerns have gone a long time ago. With this kind of movie they won't come back either even if I would hope so.