Audio Reviews - True Grit - Audio review

Tags:  movie review, audio, spill, spill.com, true grit, jeff bridges, coen brothers, matt damon, josh brolin

• 
  

  February 14, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Dane said ...

  Just saw the film. Didnt really get what all the fuss was about, the 3 leading actors were really good and the movie itself was solid but not worthy of the pedestal that most have put it on.

  Maybe its because id heard such good things from so many and my expectations were raised too high?

• January 08, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Todd Anderson said ...

  I really liked this movie and found it to be both true to the original and a fresh remake. Humorous in some places and gritty in others, I personally think that this is one of the years best. 

   

  High Full Price

  
  
• 
  

  January 03, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Devin said ...

  For what it's worth, I don't necessarily dislike Ebert and wasn't specifically attacking him in my comment. My sole implication was that Korey (et al.) should reach that level of fame.

• December 30, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Evan Nash said ...

  Just saw it. How the hell is Hailee Stienfeld's role a supporting one? Jeff Bridges is in more of a supporting role than she is. Josh Brolin is five minutes of this film, tops. High Rental.

  
  
• 
  

  December 29, 2010 at 9:30 AM, said ...

  I think yall went the wrong direction by comparing this movie to the original, considering the original was based off of a novel. I've heard that the Coenn brothers have not seen the 1969 version of the film and went solely off of their knowledge from the book (which was a great book by the way).

• December 27, 2010 at 3:58 AM, said ...

  A low matinee, and i think that's being generous. Honestly, this could have been sooooooooooooo much better if it had been at least a half hour longer. Also, the score was terrible and hokey and kind of annoying. Anyways, yeah the performances are excellent and most of the direction is great. However, I HATE the fact that every award Hailee Stienfeld is nominated for is Best SUPPORTING Actress. I'm sorry, but FUCK YOU awards organizations! She's in every single scene of the movie! Her older self NARRATES the damn thing! She's fucking brilliant in this movie, and Jeff Bridges is clearly the supporting role, but his undeserved Crazy Heart win got HIM all the attention when the movie is all about her. This is the one time I will say, even though his performance was great, FUCK THE DUDE.

  
  
• 
  

  December 26, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Slain said ...

  Full Price, definitely. One of my favorite movies this year. I've seen the John Wayne version of this too, and this adaptation is much more faithful to the book. It's not a remake...

   

  My favorite part of this movie was that it wasn't just an insane, crazy western, it was more of a drama, and when the action scenes started, they were that much more intense because of the development of the characters that was built up and you really cared about what was going on. The beginning was a bit slow at points, but that wasn't a problem because there was a good build up. Good review though guys, I always respect that you give your own opinions and don't really give a shit what anyone else thinks.

• December 25, 2010 at 10:52 PM, said ...

  I like tacos

  
  
• 
  

  December 25, 2010 at 4:39 PM, said ...

  Somebody mentioned the phrase "Siskel and Fatass," and I laughed.

• December 25, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Greg said ...

  Ebert gave that review possibly out of a knee jerk nostalgia, it still just an opinion, one of many. For the record he wasn't as enthusiastic with the following films. Why his review chaps your hide ( your literally carrying a link around) is probably another issue, it seems overly obsessive to me. But this kind of got off track with my main question, what does Ebert have to do with the True Grit thread here?

  
  
• 
  

  December 25, 2010 at 6:52 AM, noah christiansen said ...

   Compared to most other movies this year "True Grit" was great. This really isnt the kind of movie to nit-pick on. It wasnt about the action, it was about the journey. Who gives a toss if it was slow in the first part, it was propelled by good acting, good writing, good cinematography ect.

       And on another note, Please don't comment on movies before you go see it. It's fine if you did'nt like it, just go see it first.

• December 25, 2010 at 4:58 AM, said ...

  ...why would I tie myself in knots when they slam the prequels? I just established that I wasn't a fan of those movies by lambasting Ebert for writing a positive, even glorified, review of the first movie. Did you read the link? He doesn't deconstruct anything in that review. Did you even read my comments? I thought it was clear that I wasn't a fan of the prequels, but I'll lay it out for you: I strongly dislike the prequels and the greedy rat bastard that created them.

   

  Anyway, there's a difference between opinions and shitty reviews. Telling people a film is good is not the same thing as telling people you liked the film. If you liked either the prequels or Minority Report - hey, that's your opinion. But don't try to argue that they're good films, because they are not. There are objective standards with which films are able to analyzed, and by any of those standards both The Phantom Menace and Minority Report are absolute  garbage.

   

  I am a fan of Mr. Plinkett and his reviews, as well. I don't think I've seen a more thorough (let alone entertaining) review of a shitty film than his review of the Phantom Menace.

  
  
• 
  

  December 25, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Greg said ...

  So your dander is up about review that's about a decade old, how interesting. You must tie yourself in knots when Korey and Crew slam the prequels even now. By the way there are more than a few reviews I disagree with Ebert myself, but I respect his opinions and not personalize a film because someone else didn't care for it.

  It's about being a adult not a little kid.

  ..and just for the record Phantom Menance does sucks, Redlettermedia on Youtube does even a better job than Ebert by deconstructing the idea and execution of the film. 

  Have a strong drink before watching them John.

• December 24, 2010 at 11:29 PM, said ...

  Alright, so maybe I don't hate the guy, but at times he definitely seems like he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Read his Phantom Menace review. "Star Wars: Episode I-The Phantom Menace, to cite its full title, is an astonishing achievement in imaginative filmmaking." Bam. Right there. This guy has been reviewing films for what, four decades?

   

  And if that wasn't bad enough, watch or read what he thought of Minority Report (2002). This is a little more personal for me, but that movie (if you can remember it) fucking sucks. I absolutely despise it on every level, and I could go on, but I'll just say that Ebert raved about this particular movie, calling it "a triumph--a film that works on our minds and our emotions. It is a thriller and a human story, a movie of ideas that's also a whodunit." Which, put simply, is not true. At all. The film is full of ridiculously retarded plot holes that a goddamn child could point out, and the writing is absolutely horrendous. I hate, hate, HATE Minority Report.

  
  
• 
  

  December 24, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Angel said ...

  I second G-Man where's all this Ebert hate coming from? I've never seen his show but I occasionally read stuff on his site and he lives up to his name,.

• December 24, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Greg said ...

  @John Henry Eden, Devin

  Considering THAT fatass has been off the air for years, just kind of wondering what shoe horned logic brought on this attack?

  
  
• 
  

  December 24, 2010 at 6:13 PM, said ...

  I haven't seen the movie but it looks like crapppp but i might still watch it

• December 24, 2010 at 6:51 AM, said ...

  @Devin

   

  This was me when I read "Siskel and Fatass." Seriously, I was drinking some ice water and I nearly soaked my monitor. I can definitely echo that sentiment, though - Ebert can go fuck himself.

  
  
• 
  

  December 24, 2010 at 6:23 AM, teppei said ...

  It's an instant classic in my book, and it feels like one I just pulled off a book shelf. Somehow those crafty brothers were able to bring the humor of Oh Brother Where Art Thou to the odd and brutal danger of Millers Crossing. I mention both those, because they're both period pieces, but I think they drew on the same kinds of inspirations that made those films so sublime. It's beautiful to look at, and it's constantly funny. Watching those 3 ride off reminded me of the dynamic of the Soggy Bottom Boys. Riding with the new 3 stooges is a joy, they're obvious differences and bickering couldn't wipe a smile from my face. But then suddenly with a crack you remember, they're out  in some bad lands. It's got grit, yet it's got magic and heart. It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it certainly the flavor I like. I reckon a lot of people will really dig it's flow. That girl at the center of it all, is the very definition of break through performance. Her character's one of those foot stepping no-it- alls, you just can't help but love. She definitely had balls, they were smart to make the movie focus on her. I wouldn't waste anytime seeing it. In my opinion, this movie year saved the best for last.

• December 24, 2010 at 5:51 AM, Devin said ...

  These audio reviews remind me that the critics on this site are well-informed, analytical film fans. I'm blown away that Korey doesn't have his own television series like Siskel and Fatass.

  
  
• 
  

  December 23, 2010 at 11:14 PM, said ...

  I thought it had a good story and good action when there was action, but i say that the last 30 minutes were rushed and i think it would be better if maybe chaney captured mattie, and maybe it was Cogburn and Labeef chasing after Chaney and his gang for a little bit, Cogburn and Labeef splitting up, then have the big battle between Cogburnand Ned and his gang it may have created a little more suspense. Another thing is that I wish they showed a little more of Cogburn's shoot first then ask questions personality a little more. Overall, Full Price, and i wish that the villains were more menacing because they didn't show much of them being evil. Overall I give it  full prce, but it could've benn a little better. and I agree with people not being able to understand what Jeff Bridges was saying because half the time i couldn't understand anything that came out of that guys mouth or should i say "robble robble robble" 

• December 23, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Jake Smith said ...

  I don't know about this. I mean, I hate the Coen brothers.

  
  
• 
  

  December 23, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Jordan Kauffman said ...

  I just got out of the theater for this one. Maybe its just me being biased having lived in Texas for a short time but this movie was incredible. Everything from the atmosphere of the town and the clothes they wear, to the cold stare in the eyes of the main characters during there moments. I loved this movie and would like to hear anyones responses otherwise

• December 23, 2010 at 6:24 AM, said ...

  Indeed. To be fair, though, this is a bit racist:

  With a lot of blacks, there's quite a bit of resentment along with their dissent, and possibly rightfully so. But we can't all of a sudden get down on our knees and turn everything over to the leadership of the blacks. I believe in white supremacy until blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don't believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people.^[43][44]

   

  
  
• 
  

  December 23, 2010 at 6:11 AM, teppei said ...

  right you are, mate. Still a stretch to make it a race issue

Post Comment