The Odyssey - Spoilers and Random Thoughts

My spoiler-free review of The Odyssey conveys the gist of my thoughts on the film, but I had a lot of stray branches I wanted to touch on that warranted its own post. So this will be much more disjointed and filled with SPOILERS.

IMAX 70MM

As a Nolan fan, I go into his films wanting to like them. Actually, I want to like everything I see, but with Nolan I’m willing to rewatch a film a few times if it isn’t clicking with me the way it is with others. This is what happened with Oppenheimer, which took me multiple viewings to fully enjoy. (I plan on revisiting Dunkirk again in the future, because I was very underwhelmed with that one while others consider it his best work.) Anyway, it’s something I’m aware of, and it’s why I usually like to put some time between watching his films and reviewing them. I take the format I watched them in into the equation, as well. In this case, it was 70MM IMAX.

The Odyssey is the first film I’ve seen in 70MM. The closest IMAX to me (in Evansville, IN) is standard. I was able to make the trip to Indianapolis for this film, however, finally seeing a film in 70MM. I was taken aback at first with the height of the screen, but I ended up loving the format. 

The point of all this is that there were factors at play that amplified my enjoyment of this film, and only time, and smaller formats, will tell if this one will keep its place among my favorites of Nolan’s filmography. But right now, I really fucking liked it. 

The Logical Follow-up to Oppenheimer

For most of the film, the only issue that was forming was Odysseus’s guilt and reluctance to go home. It didn't click with me what the problem was. He won the war, so what was the problem? The deception of the Trojan horse and the sack of Troy are so embedded in culture that I never even thought of the emotional impact of such betrayal and misery. So when he revealed all of this to Penelope and Athena (who is in the form of a priestess executed in front of him), it hit me hard. This is a man reckoning with the death and carnage brought on because of his plan, which he sees reaching beyond just Troy as he set the example that the rules of hospitality no longer need to be honored. This is just like the back half of Oppenheimer in which he takes indignity and indignity because he feels like he deserved it. 

Oppenheimer was criticized (most notably by well-known subtle person James Cameron) by some for not showing the effects of the bomb and instead focusing on Oppenheimer’s personal experiences. Since he was not there when the bombs dropped, the film would not show them. The focus is instead on his feeling of guilt which is manifested quite effectively in his victory speech (that isolated scream gives me chills no matter how many times I hear it) and his imagination of stepping through charred bodies. 

With The Odyssey, Nolan gives you the bomb and the guilt. We witness the sacking of Troy as Odysseus watches on in horror. I don’t think this is Nolan responding to Oppenheimer criticism. It’s just that this time he chose a story in which the creator of destruction personally witnessed it, as well. Anyway, there should be no bullshit complaints this time about literally showing what the main character feels guilty about. 

On a side note, I thought the casting of Benny Safdie as Agamemnon was interesting since he played Teller in Oppenheimer, who focused on surpassing the atomic bomb by developing hydrogen weapons. He’s the arbiter of destruction here, as well, wanting war with Troy no matter the reason. His characters also end their screen time in both films with a woman looking at them quite angrily, in both cases deservedly so.

Costumes and Casting “Controversy”

First off, I think the vast majority of people being bitches online about the casting and the costumes of this film are either bots, people who never planned on watching the movie ever anyway, and/or racists/transphobes. This is why I didn’t want to even acknowledge it in my actual review because it’s so fucking stupid. But I’m a creature of the internet, so I’ll get into it a little bit.

The Lupita Nyong’o shit is just racist, plain and simple. This is a modern film about a fictional epic, the cast is who it is. Beauty is famously in the eye of the beholder, so if she’s not beautiful enough for you, then fine, but don’t be a bitch about it. She’s great in the small amount of screen time she has, by the way. Nolan needed an actress in a dual role that could convey supreme sadness in one scene and righteous fury in another, and he chose well.

Also, if you’re pissed off about Nyong’o, but you’re okay with Matt Damon or any of the other non-Greeks playing Greeks, then that says it all. It’s a fucking movie about a mythological story, so it’s not going to be “historically accurate,” whatever the fuck that means anyway. I fucking hate the internet sometimes.

The other target of online bullshit is the casting of Elliot Page. At first, people thought he was cast as Achilles, but it turns out to be Sinon, the soldier left behind to convince the Trojans the horse was a gift. I’ve seen some people post things in defense of the casting along the lines of “Calm down, he’s not playing Achilles.” I get that since Achilles was supposed to be a huge warrior (my Humanities professor complained about Brad Pitt being too small for the role back when Troy was coming out). But even if he was Achilles, who gives a fuck? It’s not like Achilles would have a big role in this film if he was featured in it, so I don’t get the outrage. It’s all just transphobic bullshit, and it’s exhausting. For the record, I thought Page was great in the role, especially in the speaking dead sequence. 

Travis Scott is another inclusion that has bothered some, but not so much for his role. The end credits feature a Scott song. Once again, so what? I saw one clickbait post saying it would be like “if Schindler’s List ended with an Imagine Dragons song.” First off, the comparison makes no fucking sense; at least pick an artist from that time period if you’re going to make that joke. Second, the film doesn’t “end” with the song; it plays over the credits. You know, the same way Tenet had a Travis Scott song play over the credits? I’m not even a fan of Travis Scott’s music, but I don’t care if his music plays over the credits. 

There were also plenty of complaints about the costumes. Most recently a picture of Jon Bernthal was released in which he was wearing a simple leather doublet. Dipshits online were complaining that this would be more suited for hunting than for war. Well, he wears it while hunting pheasants (or some other such bird). It’s just a perfect example of “Wait until you see the movie before you criticize it.” 

The other costume that caught shit was Agamemnon’s exaggerated armor. I thought it looked odd myself in the first trailer, but in the film it’s used to great effect. Agamemnon is the real reason behind the war, so the armor works as this imposing dark image a few times in the film, and it’s a powerful visual each time. It’s my favorite costume choice in the film.

“Who is your daddy, and what does he do?”

Some of the dialogue from the trailers has been scrutinized, most notably the use of “dad” and “daddy” and Matt Damon yelling “Let’s go!” as the soldiers run seemingly into battle. This is the only pre-release stuff that did give me pause. It didn’t take me out of the movie or anything, but yeah, couldn’t we just go with “father”? Although Pattinson uses “daddy” to mock Holland, so I guess that works. But if there was one thing I’d change, it would be that. But, again, it did not bother me at all during my viewing.

The “let’s go” moment is another example of not knowing the context. The scene is not a battle charge; it’s Odysseus and his men fleeing the dead. I think it’s okay to yell “Let’s go!” in that scenario. I think people were assuming it was more like a Deadpool and Wolverine “Let’s fucking go” kind of moment, but that’s not the case. For me, I didn’t even know people had an issue with it until after I saw the movie, and it certainly didn’t stick out to me while watching it.

More importantly, the daddy issue in this film is interesting to look at in regard to Nolan’s filmography. Cobb in Inception is trying to get back to his kids. Cooper leaves his children for (nearly) their entire lives, and seems especially indifferent to his son who he just thinks will be fine without him. Oppenheimer has to have someone else keep his child, and his children don’t factor into his life seemingly at all in the film. And Batman…well, we all know about his father since we’ve seen his death committed to film a half a dozen times at this point. 

And now we have The Odyssey, the ultimate coming home story. Telemachus barely remembers his father yet his life is dominated by his absence. And when Odysseus finally makes it home, they get one bonding slaughter and it’s, “See you later, son, I’m sure you’ll be a great king.” Some have theorized that this is Nolan’s way of conveying his own guilt for being away from his own children while making films. I don’t know about that, but one thing is for sure: he’s making it loud and clear that he doesn’t think fathers are all that necessary in the raising of children. Something tells me he has a real “hand’s off” approach to parenting. 

We Live in Annoying Times

As I stated above, I go into all movies wanting to like them, so it annoys the fuck out of me when people seem to want to hate something, especially out of racism or transphobia or any other misguided hatred. I didn’t comment on any of that crap in my review because I want this film to be judged by watching it.

And all this isn’t to say if you dislike The Odyssey then that means you’re racist or whatever. It’s perfectly fine to dislike it for legitimate cinematic reasons. But if you hate it before you even watch it, you’re just wrong. 

For me, even the thought of these "issues" left my mind as I watched the movie because I found the whole experience so immersive. And hopefully, that's the case with anyone else distracted by this nonsense.

Final Randomness

I’ve rambled enough, but I did want to mention a couple other things briefly. 

This isn’t exactly a comedy. In fact, I was kind of surprised by how dark the story was in content and tone. But there are a couple very funny moments. First, Corey Hawkins taking an arrow right to throat as he tries to say “Odysseus” really got me. And John Leguizamo (who was the surprise of the movie for me) has the funniest line when he asks, “Did we win?” (or something like that; I’m awful at remembering exact lines) after the battle with the suitors. It was just the perfect moment of levity after such a prolonged sequence of righteous violence.

Speaking of violence, I didn’t know this was R-rated until I heard the third “fuck.” There was certainly more blood than other Nolan films, but it wasn’t gratuitous or graphic enough to assume an R-rating. I suppose that pig sequence played a factor because those transformations were fucking gnarly. 

That’s it for now. I hope to watch this film again soon, probably in standard IMAX. And who knows, once I’ve had a chance to watch it three or four more times, maybe I’ll write some more nonsense about it.

The Odyssey - Adding to the Nolan Hype Pile

Christopher Nolan is one of the only filmmakers whose every project is a cinematic event. If filmmakers are the modern equivalents of the ancient poets, then who better to bring the definitive version of The Odyssey to the big screen (preferably in 70MM IMAX)? That may sound like hyperbole, but Nolan has exceeded the highest expectations so many times that greatness should be expected, and Nolan has delivered once again.

The story of The Odyssey is basically common knowledge, but I’ll still keep this as spoiler free as possible. It’s the classic tale of Odysseus (Matt Damon) returning home from the Trojan War and all the obstacles that keep him from doing so. The film hits all the highlights you’d expect (the cyclops), and includes some of the lesser known moments (the Laestrygonians). The Trojan War obviously looms over the entire film, as well. In other words, this film is as big as it gets; in story, in budget, in scope, in camera (the entire film was shot with IMAX cameras), etc. Nolan condenses it down to just under three hours, though it seems to fly by despite the film’s subject being a seemingly never-ending journey. 

The Odyssey has almost everything except the gods…kind of. Nolan went with something between featuring the gods as active participants and eschewing them entirely (as done in Troy). While Odysseus sees Athena (Zendaya) in visions throughout the film, no actual god makes an appearance. Despite that, The Odyssey still features plenty of supernatural elements. It’s a nice balance that allows for extraordinary sequences without getting too silly (there’s no bag of wind here to blow them off course). 

The realistic presentation of the supernatural elements is vital because this is a dark, R-rated adaptation. Rather than tell the simple story of a war hero trying to get home, Nolan presents each obstacle as a manifestation of guilt keeping Odysseus from his home. This is no triumphant return, and his home, now crawling with evil suitors (led by Robert Pattinson at his sleaziest), doesn’t seem like the home he left anyway. Death and misery follow Odysseus, and it affects his entire family and kingdom, even without him there.

That darkness makes The Odyssey a surprisingly emotional film. Nolan has been (wrongfully, in my opinion) described as a cold filmmaker, more focused on spectacle than emotion. Even if that was the case (and it isn’t), The Odyssey would be the perfect subject matter for such inclinations. Instead, Matt Damon, in arguably his best performance, portrays Odysseus as a man wracked by guilt who is slowly broken down throughout the film. It’s certainly a physical performance, but Damon keeps it grounded, and he makes you care about this man, even with his faults. 

Beyond Damon, this is the story of Telemachus (Tom Holland) and Penelope (Anne Hathaway), Odysseus’s son and wife. Their story with the suitors could have easily felt pedestrian in comparison to Odysseus’s supernatural exploits, but they provided the heart of the film, pushing familial loyalty to its limits. Holland and Hathaway are great, and there isn’t a weak spot in the cast. The standouts were John Leguizamo (who also has the funniest line), Ryan Hurst, Jon Bernthal, Samantha Morton, Himesh Patel, and…look, there are a lot of great actors in this and it’s silly to list them all when you can just check the IMDb page if you’re curious. 

The performances and action are expectedly great, and Ludwig Göransson has cemented his place as my favorite working composer. Perhaps the most surprising and important element is the pacing of the film. Of course a film about The Odyssey is going to be long (but good for Nolan keeping under three hours), but it never feels long. Every moment feels necessary, even when a lot of it is just there to reinforce the themes of loyalty and loss. No scene or sequence goes on too long, and the moments that could feel ponderous (such as the long stay on Calypso’s island) are smartly broken up as framing devices to keep things moving.

The pacing provides an electric energy to the film. The buildup to certain sequences is so intense that even when I knew what was going to happen, I was left jittery by the end. The score, sound design, emotion, and action all come together in a special way that left me feeling excited in a way few movies ever have. Or maybe it was just because it was my first time watching a movie in 70 MM IMAX, but I think it was more Nolan than IMAX.

This is more than I could have ever hoped for from an adaptation of The Odyssey. It made me wish this movie had been around back when I was still teaching high school English (though I would have had to show it in carefully edited clips). It has the tone, scope, emotion, and pure entertainment worthy of a classic epic. Perhaps I’m only adding to the Christopher Nolan hype pile with this review, but The Odyssey is the kind of film that reminds me why I love movies so much in the first place.

"Elysium" and "Beowulf": An Unlikely Comparison

Okay, obviously I have been less than inspired lately as this is my first post in over a month.  I've still been watching movies and stuff, but nothing has really excited me all that much.  Also, school has begun so I'm much more focused on teaching than writing about movies.  Teaching literature does allow me to think about movies in a different light, which means that I have had a little inspiration for writing something about Elysium.  This is not a review.  I'll still write a lengthy review here and there, but only if the movie makes me think and stays with me after watching it.  Unfortunately, Elysium didn't stick with me all that much.  So I'll start off with a very short opinion about the film itself, then go into a comparison to the epic poem Beowulf.  This is where the teaching literature stuff comes in handy.  I gave my seniors a few writing assignment options after they finished the poem, one of which asking them to compare it to the hero's journey of a modern action film.  I try to complete all the assignments I dish out (partly to see if it works as an assignment and partly to see if I can come up with anything good), and this is my entry.

 

Short Review

 

I loved District 9.  I liked Elysium.  There are some great moments and Matt Damon makes for a good hero (Sharlto Copley makes for an even better [and crazed] villain).  I felt like I was watching two films shoehorned together, though.  I just thought things started moving by too fast, and it became too simple.  I suppose District 9 ends the same way, but I felt more connected to that world and that character than I did to Matt Damon's character.  Overall, a fine sci-fi film with some commentary on health care and whatnot that entertains, but doesn't really resonate. 

 

*I'll be SPOILING the crap out of Elysium from here on out...

 

Beowulf Comparison

 

Beowulf can be compared to pretty much every action movie, so let’s look at a recent one: Elysium.  In Elysium, Matt Damon does not begin as a powerful man.  In fact, he seems weaker than most, accepting a low-key life of straight work after a career in theft.  Once his death becomes imminent, however, he is literally upgraded to badass Beowulf status.  Damon is outfitted with an exoskeleton that gives him much needed superior strength to get through his final days.  This essentially turns him into that unique physical hero that Beowulf was. 

"I always thought Matt Damon was kind of a Streisand..."
But he look's like he take on about nine giant sea-beasts
with that exo-skeleton on.

In Beowulf, Grendel and his/its mother represented pure evil, literally crawling out of some kind of primordial evil slime to bring death and misery to Earth.  The ultra-rich floating utopia of Elysium represents that pure evil in the world of the film because they have the ability to provide much-needed cheap health care, but simply choose not to.  This is an interesting contrast to the epic poem because the high-low dynamic has been reversed.  The bright, shining example of all that is good in Beowulf, Heorot, is at the top of a hill while Grendel and his mom are down in the muck.  Of course, Earth would be considered the muck in Elysium, but it is not filled with pure evil.  Instead, the innocent and the good live in this dirty, lower level while the truly evil spend their time on top of the hill.  Basically, things have been reversed and Matt Damon must right these wrongs, with a little help, of course.

Which brings me to why Damon can’t be compared to Beowulf completely as a character.  Yes, he has the exoskeleton, but he needs help.  He needs a lot of help, actually.  Damon doesn’t really know how all the gizmos work, so he’s dependent on the criminal element to help him with his quest.  Without Spider, Damon would fail completely.  This is the opposite of Beowulf, a superhuman who not only doesn’t need weapons to defeat Grendel, but he doesn’t really need his men, either. 



Grendel...

There are quite a few similarities, however, when you consider Kruger to be the Grendel of Elysium.  If there was a character that was meant to be seen as true, violent evil, it would be Kruger.  His handler (symbolic mother) Jodie Foster is certainly just as evil, but in a more political way.  Kruger enjoys killing and getting his hands dirty.  So, of course, Damon must stop him.  When they finally battle it out to the death, Damon must rip off Kruger’s exoskeleton, rendering him much less harmful.  This is the equivalent of ripping off Grendel’s arm.  Beowulf couldn’t leave it at just that, and, in the poem, eventually tracked Grendel down and finished the job by cutting off his head.  Damon doesn’t decapitate Kruger, but he does place a grenade on him to make sure Kruger stays dead. 

Kruger as Grendel works, but Foster as Grendel’s mother is a bit lacking.  She is certainly the more dangerous of the two for most of the film, but her end is anti-climactic to say the least.  Damon does not track her down and defeat her with some magical weapon.  Instead, her own (symbolic) child stabs her with a shard of glass, and she pretty much accepts death.  Damon doesn’t really have all that much to do with her death.  I found this to be unique, but unsatisfying, and it also messes up this comparison.  The best connection I can make to this is the idea of Grendel having mommy issues (as he does in John Gardner’s novel from Grendel’s perspective, Grendel).  Still, Grendel killing his mother does not literally suit this comparison, which is unfortunate.



...and his mother.

Moving beyond Grendel and his mother, Beowulf eventually fights a dragon, which leads to his death.  Of course, there is no dragon in Elysium, but Damon’s final fight ends in his death, as well.  You have to get pretty symbolic here, but you could consider the system that keeps millions of people sick to be the dragon.  It works quite well when you factor in the dragon hoarding a treasure in Beowulf.  The dragon of Elysium is guarding the portable med-pods, which is certainly the most valuable treasure in the world of the film.  This is also where Spider’s help makes Damon more like Beowulf.  Sure, Beowulf didn’t need help taking out Grendel and his mother, but when it came to the dragon, he needed the help of a lone warrior, Wiglaf.  Everyone else had run away scared, only Wiglaf remained to help and to ensure Beowulf’s final wishes were fulfilled.  Spider is certainly the Wiglaf to Damon’s Beowulf. 

Is Elysium a full-on adaptation of Beowulf?  Of course not, but even the adaptations of Beowulf aren’t all that faithful (most adaptations try to add dramatic moments that didn’t necessarily exist in the poem).  It's safe to say that this comparison is not a stretch, though.  It just goes to show that the earliest hero quest stories out there still live on in our modern storytelling.

"The Adjustment Bureau"

The Adjustment Bureau - Written and directed by George Nolfi, starring Matt Damon, Emily Blunt, Anthony Mackie, John Slattery, and Terence Stamp - Rated PG-13

The Adjustment Bureau is entertaining and compelling but, more importantly, it raises some interesting questions.



The Adjustment Bureau looked like an interesting film when the trailers debuted…then the film was delayed for quite some time, which is never a good sign. Delays don’t always equal disaster and, fortunately, The Adjustment Bureau is an example that a delayed film can be a decent film. It helps that it is also an adaptation of a Philip K. Dick story. To be honest, that can be good or bad as well, but it turns out to be one of the better ones. It’s no Blade Runner, but it’s certainly no Paycheck either.

The film is about David Norris (Matt Damon), an aspiring politician who meets his dream girl, Elise (Emily Blunt). The problem is that he was only supposed to meet her one time. When he runs into her again, it gets the attention of the titular Bureau. Everything in the world of this film is set to a plan written by a creator-type figure known as the Chairman. When the plan isn’t followed, adjusters are brought in. They have the ability to freeze time, travel through a subspace network, and mess with the physics of the regular world. Think of them as the destiny police. Despite these adjusters, David is determined to be with Elise.

This makes The Adjustment Bureau a kind of romantic sci-fi film, which is an interesting label, to say the least. The film works on each level, though. The chemistry between the two leads is palpable and the characters are likable and sympathetic. Simply put, you want things to work out for these two. On the sci-fi end, there is enough visual flair to keep things interesting and the whole idea of the Bureau is left open enough to lead to some of that deep conversation that all sci-fi films aspire to.

Hard core sci-fi fans may be let down by the film’s toned down style, though. The Adjustment Bureau is not a flashy film at all. The closest bit of style it attempts comes by way of the subspace travel the adjusters use. They can open a door in one location and travel to a completely different area. This aspect leads to some impressive sequences and individual shots, especially when the doors are left open for a bit. But the film doesn’t dwell on these visuals very often; they are just part of the story.

The film also stays away from going too deep into the story behind the Bureau. There are hints here and there, but the bulk of the mystery is left up to the viewer. That may mean the film doesn’t create much of a world behind the “real world,” but that is not a bad thing. It’s refreshing to see a sci-fi film that tries to take place in a real world. To be clear, though, there are definitely things happening in this film that are in no way realistic or even backed up by science.

The Adjustment Bureau, based on the descriptions above and especially from the trailers, may seem like a deadly serious film. It is, in fact, surprisingly light-hearted at times. John Slattery (“Mad Men”) looks like a menacing agent in the previews, but in reality he serves as a bit of comic relief for the film. It turns out that these adjusters not only look like white collar workers from the 1950s, they also act like them. Slattery complains about waiting for the case of a career and worries about exceeding his “ripple quota.” This light tone makes the film much easier to accept and makes it quite enjoyable as well.

Lighthearted as The Adjustment Bureau is at times there are still heavy questions asked. There aren’t really any answers to those questions and that is actually the way it should be. Do people actually enjoy films that end with a man in a chair explaining the world to the main characters and/or the audience (I’m looking at you, sequel to groundbreaking sci-fi film)? Films like that insult the audience’s intelligence. Scratch that, they insult the imagination of the audience. The Adjustment Bureau is interesting and entertaining because, in the end, the film is up to you. Some might actually call that lazy screenwriting, and sometimes it is, but when the questions you’re left with at the end are interesting, then that means the filmmakers (in this case writer/director George Nolfi) have accomplished something.

This is a film that is much more about ideas than it is about acting, but the leads are very good here. Damon can carry a movie in his sleep these days, but he livens this one up with his charismatic work…it’s easy to believe he is a politician. Emily Blunt does a fine job opposite Damon. She has to handle the more emotional scenes and she is very believable. Slattery, as mentioned above, gives a fun performance. And Anthony Mackie and Terence Stamp add sympathy and a bit of menace, respectively.

The Adjustment Bureau isn’t a sci-fi classic, but it will go down as one of the good Philip K. Dick adaptations, and that’s saying quite a bit. As for the moment, it’s exceedingly rare to see a movie in a multiplex that is willing to ask deep questions that you get to answer for yourself. Take advantage of that and check this one out.


Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

I dug the whole politician aspect of the story, especially the speech Damon gives when he decides to quit playing a politician and speak the truth to an audience.

The idea of someone having a ripple quota is amusing. It makes you wonder how much is too much. Slattery messed with a lot of lives while he was chasing Damon. I loved that Damon even commented on the fact that he was causing an insane amount of ripples by diverting so many taxis. I guess it all just confirms the idea that some humans are simply much more important than others and it doesn't matter what happens to most of us in the "plan."

I also liked the fact that the Bureau was not all controlling and, in some cases, they were just plain inept. Interesting to see a secret society that controls the world that doesn't have total control.

The hats... I was wondering why Damon was rocking the old hat in the previews and posters and whatnot. It made the film look like it took place sixty years ago and it surprised me when that wasn't the case. Glad that there was a reason for the hat. But it does sound kind of stupid when you have to put it in words: a magic hat allows you to travel through subspace.

The bureaucracy was almost like something out of The Hudsucker Proxy what with the way the adjusters talked about kicking problems "upstairs." It just added to the whole comedic element of the film.

"True Grit"

True Grit - Written and directed by Joel and Ethan Coen, starring Jeff Bridges, Hailee Steinfeld, Matt Damon, Barry Pepper, and Josh Brolin - Rated PG-13

The Coens made a neo-western with No Country, now they've made a plain old western. I'm glad they did.

Remakes seem to be almost universally hated in the film community these days but there are some (including me) that don’t get up in arms about every single remake. Why is it so terrible that filmmakers want to give their own spin on a story? Worst-case scenario: it sucks; you ignore it, and then watch the original again. Case in point, True Grit, the latest remake from the Coen Brothers, will probably not replace the John Wayne original in most viewers’ hearts, but it doesn’t hurt to see a new take on the Charles Portis novel, especially when it’s made by the Coens.

The Coens, no strangers to the remake game after 2004’s The Ladykillers, have said that their new version of the story is a new adaptation of the novel rather than of the screenplay and that holds true. This version is definitely darker and more violent than the original. It’s not just about darkness and violence, though. The novel had a bittersweet quality to it and more of a focus on the young heroine, Mattie Ross; whereas the 1969 film focused a bit more on the grizzled antihero, Rooster Cogburn. Enough about the original, though, True Grit is its own film.

True Grit takes place in Arkansas in the latter half of the 1800s. Fourteen-year-old Mattie Ross (relative newcomer Hailee Steinfeld) takes it upon herself to track down her father’s murderer, Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin), who has fled into Indian territory, which is a haven for outlaws. She enlists the help of a hardened, drunken U.S. Marshal, Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) and receives unwanted aid in the form of a Texas Ranger named LaBoeuf (Matt Damon).

At its heart, True Grit is a film about determination and retribution, but it is also a film about the friendship, or lack thereof, between Cogburn, Mattie, and LaBoeuf. There lies the true action of this film. LaBoeuf and Cogburn trade barbs while Mattie decides which man is more admirable. At certain points, it seemed like the two men were more worried about maintaining their dignity in front of Mattie than actually finding Chaney.

Mattie is the focus of the two male leads of the film and she is the rightful focus of the film itself. The rough Old West lawman has been done to death, but the determined fourteen-year-old girl of the Old West is untouched material. Thankfully, the film doesn’t get stuck on the ridiculousness of a young girl hunting a fugitive (although the acknowledgment of the fact does lead to a good laugh or two). Instead, the focus is on her character. Mattie is a stubborn girl who argues for what she thinks is right no matter what. And Steinfeld completely inhabits the character. From her first moments, her steely gaze convinces you that not only can she handle the character of Mattie Ross, but she can even outshine the likes of Matt Damon and Jeff Bridges. She handles the Coens’ rapid-fire witty dialogue with complete sincerity and ease. Steinfeld is easily the best part of the film and deserves some recognition this awards season. (For the record, she did win the IFJA’s Supporting Actress award.)

Steinfeld is more impressive than her co-stars, but that doesn’t mean their performances are weak. Bridges does a fine job and gives a very amusing turn as Cogburn. He basically plays it as if Bad Blake from last year’s Crazy Heart was a lawman and there is nothing wrong with that. No one is going to forget about John Wayne or anything, but Bridges does a great job. Damon is just as entertaining as the egotistic LaBoeuf. Josh Brolin and Barry Pepper (who is nearly unrecognizable here) also turn in good performances, Pepper more so than Brolin.

Humor might seem like an odd word in relation to what’s supposed to be a dark western, but this is a Coen Brothers western. The dialogue of any Coen Brothers film is a star in itself and that applies to True Grit. The bickering between LaBoeuf and Cogburn, the bartering of Mattie, the rambling of a strange bear hunter/dentist, etc. is all great and makes what could be boring scenes become funny scenes.

This isn’t a complete comedy, though; True Grit does contain some scenes of sudden and brutal violence (don’t worry about that PG-13 rating, this movie has blood). It is all very effective, but more importantly, it looks beautiful at times. Director of photography Roger Deakins has filmed yet another beautiful film. Teamed up with the Coens, Deakins creates slow, meandering tracking shots, interesting wide shots of great locations, and low-lit scenes of intensity. Add an effective, old school score by Carter Burwell (with great touches that are reminiscent of Miller’s Crossing) and True Grit is a very aesthetically pleasing film.

True Grit may not be the action packed western some may hope for, but if you let the film sink in you realize how effective it really is. Most effective, though, is the Coens’ slavish devotion to the source material. Much like No Country for Old Men, the Coens never stray very far from the novel the film is based on. The ending of the film truly benefits from this. Others may find the film’s finale a bit abrupt or anti-climactic, but it is in keeping with the realistic tone of the rest of the film.

The film is not without its faults, though. The devotion to the source material may go too far at times; most notably with the mentally challenged outlaw who makes animal sounds. A reader will recognize that character, but a viewer may be left confused. Aside from that, there is really nothing wrong with True Grit. If anything, though, a Coen fan may be a bit disappointed by how straightforward the film is. The discussions created by last year’s A Serious Man (my #1 film of 2009) are nonexistent here. You can’t fault a film for abandoning the deep end, but it may keep this film off of top ten lists and the like.

Top ten lists and awards probably don’t mean much to the Coens. They are more likely worried about making an enjoyable and beautiful film and they certainly have accomplished that with True Grit. If you want John Wayne and an ending that comes complete with a bow on top, then by all means, watch the classic 1969 film. If you’re looking for something fun, well-acted, dark, and beautiful, then watch this new version. Remember, it’s not a really a remake, it’s just the Coens’ own vision of a novel and it’s a vision worth seeing.


Random Thoughts

Barry Pepper plays Ned Pepper. I just thought that was amusing. Not since Kevin Dunn acted in a film with a character named Kevin Dunn (Snake Eyes) has such a coincidence occurred. Aside from that, I can’t stress enough how vastly different Pepper looks in this film. His performance will make you wish he had been the main antagonist throughout, although Chaney isn’t truly an antagonist, either, to be honest.

I dug Cogburn’s intro via an outhouse, just a really great way to introduce the character.

I can’t find any confirmation of this, but I am 99% sure that the voice of Lawyer Daggett is none other than J. K. Simmons. It was a nice touch adding his voice, assuming I am correct, that is.

The nearly word for word adaptation of the court scene from the novel was great. It was as if the Coens handed the actors a copy of the novel rather than a script, which is a possibility.

"Hereafter"

Hereafter - Produced and directed by Clint Eastwood, written by Peter Morgan, starring Matt Damon, Cécile de France, and Frankie and George McLaren - Rated PG-13

"It's who you are. You can't run away from that forever!" No, you can't, but you can sure as hell stay as far away from this movie as humanly possible.

What’s the afterlife like? Well, I would rather find out firsthand than sit through the pointless, boring Hereafter again. Yeah, I know, that’s quite the hyperbolic statement, but the latest film from producer/director Clint Eastwood was very disappointing. I went into the theatre expecting an interesting film about a former psychic who converses with the dead (Matt Damon) and his struggle with his “gift.” Instead I saw an overlong melodrama with a terribly plain payoff.

Hereafter is about the psychic mentioned above, but it’s also about a little English boy who wants to speak with his dead twin brother. The other third of the story concerns a French TV anchor that has a near death experience and becomes obsessed with the afterlife. The typical mystery of a film like this is the connecting factor. I can understand that the film doesn’t want to go with a standard “save the world” storyline, but the conclusion reached by screenwriter Peter Morgan just seemed pointless.

The other mystery a film about the afterlife deals with is if there is in fact an afterlife. Hereafter may have been much more interesting if the audience didn’t know if the afterlife existed in the film, but we’re shown that it does exist in the first minutes. I would find Matt Damon’s character far more interesting if it was posited that he may be a fraud paraded around by his brother (a very aged Jay Mohr). The confirmation of an afterlife has blinded many people’s reaction to the film. As usual, I used the IMDb message boards to see what was being said about the movie. I found a battle being waged between believers and atheists, with a lot of people liking or hating the movie based solely on their interpretation of an afterlife. My personal beliefs did not factor into my opinion of this film. I just accepted that a type of afterlife exists in Hereafter and that has no bearing on the existence of an afterlife in reality.

Your personal beliefs shouldn’t cloud your ability to notice terribly clichéd dialogue along the lines of “It’s not a gift, Billy, it’s a curse!” Pretty much every line spoken in this film feels like it’s been said one hundred times before and never in a compelling fashion. Not to mention the story is almost never interesting. I was never worried about any of the characters. I didn’t care about any of them at all because the writer spent too much time sowing their misery and forgot to create actual characters. The only description you can give of them is that they cry a lot and are connected by death. I know that the characters in a film about the afterlife don’t need to be lighthearted, but they can be more than shells of humans, at least.

Hereafter isn’t a dialogue rich character study, which would be nearly forgivable if the depiction of the afterlife was interesting at all. But as we see very early on, the afterlife is a vague, foggy nothingness peopled by shadowy, murmuring figures. Eastwood never truly shows us this place, either. We only get glimpses. If the filmmakers were not willing to go all the way with the premise, then they should have left it open to interpretation.

As if this bland movie wasn’t bad enough, it’s also way too long. Clocking in at over two hours, the story could have easily been told in ninety minutes. We are beat over the head time and time again with each character’s misery. The English boy can’t find any real help? The French woman is having trouble coping with near death? Matt Damon is lonely and hates his curse/gift? I could tell all of that after one scene, I didn’t need the subsequent five scenes for each character that etch these ideas in stone.

Despite all of these things, Eastwood is still a competent director. The problems with Hereafter are almost solely with the screenplay. It is all cut together coherently and I never thought that it stayed too long with any one character (actually, it just stayed too long with all of them). The sole action scene at the beginning of the film was interesting, even if some of the CG was questionable. Eastwood knows how to shoot a movie; it’s just not enough to save it.

Maybe you saw a preview for this film and you thought it was about the Matt Damon character and his ability to see into the afterlife. Well, don’t fall victim to the deceptive advertising because that is certainly not what this movie is, it’s only a terrible third of it. Being fooled by the preview isn’t the only thing wrong here, though. I didn’t hate Hereafter because I wanted it to be something it wasn’t. I hated this movie because it was pointless, contrived, and too long. Maybe I just wasn’t patient enough for this one, I don’t know, but I can’t recommend this to anyone. I suggest avoiding this one at all costs.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

So what was the resolution for the little boy, really? He gets some advice from his brother (and did anyone else think that Damon's character was faking that cheesy advice at the end, just like all the impostors before him?), but he is still miserable and he has not accepted the death. His end purpose was to be a mini-stalker for Damon. He ended up being completely inconsequential to the entire plot. And how weird was it that the scene in which his brother saved him by blowing off the hat turned out to be extremely good luck through sibling rivalry? Just when it looked like there was something about the afterlife that mattered in the real world, the screenwriter decided to say, "Nope, just coincidence is all." Weak.

What was with all that Charles Dickens crap? Was it just an excuse to eventually have a Derek Jacobi cameo? It didn't make sense to me and I didn't need three (three!) scenes in which Matt Damon listens to someone read Charles Dickens. Is it not a sign of a weak film when we simply watch a man listen to another work of fiction?

Clint Eastwood needs to stop adding terrible music to his films. The score was thankfully nonexistent for most of the film, but when the French lady showed up this terribly cheesy "French" music would play and it seemed painfully out of place and it was completely distracting.

The cooking class scenes seemed to last forever. Did we really need nearly five minutes of blindfolded taste testing?

Let's recap: Hereafter contains multiple scenes of Matt Damon listening to audiobooks and celebrity readers and tastetesting food whilst wearing a blindfold. Yeah, if you saw this movie, be like me and try your best to unwatch it.