
My major issue with this film is that, even though Jeff Bridges was actually surprisingly good in the role, he can't hold a candle to John Wayne's portrayal of Rooster Cogburn. No way, no how. Wayne took that part and made it his own and is well remembered for it. I know Bridges won an award for his acting in this picture, but I still prefer John Wayne's acting in this over his, and Wayne won his only Oscar for this role. Wayne was the very image of Cogburn, and he magnificently created a larger than life portrayal of the character, with all his foibles and strengths and colorful language. Another problem for me was the ending: it just wasn't as satisfying to me as in the older version. I have read that the Coen film is much closer to the book, and that's commendable, I just believe the older movie has a more satisfying conclusion concerning the three main characters of Cogburn, Mattie Ross, and LaBeouf. This film's ending left me feeling kind of cold and unsatisfied or like a promise went unfulfilled.
Still, I found it a worthwhile film and I'm glad I watched it. I will say that Hailee Stanfeld's performance as young Mattie was excellent, and she deserves all the accolades she received for her work. She was wonderful to watch on screen, and her interaction with Bridges, Matt Damon (LaBoeuf) and Josh Brolin (Tom Chaney) was believable, interesting, and entertaining. The movie was beautifully filmed, mostly on location, and the Coen Brothers evidently paid great attention to detail. On the whole, an enjoyably diverting film, but for those of us who remember the original movie with a certain fondness, this version just doesn't quite measure up.
I'd like to see a remake of "The good,the bad and the ugly" butI'm sure it wouldn't be as good as the original. Love those old westerns. =)
ReplyDelete