Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

There clearly aren't enough TRUE GRIT reviews in the world, so here's Capone to tell you have great it is!!!

Hey everyone. Capone in Chicago here.

Sometimes, filmmakers put together something that is so strong, so perfect, so abundantly great that they make it look easy, and you wonder why everyone making movies can't produce something this close to flawless. Ethan and Joel Coen's TRUE GRIT is just such a film, an effortless work of perfection that captures a sense of place and period so convincingly that you are taken aback by how effortless it all seems. The Coens haven't always reached this level of moviemaking, but they do so with alarming regularity with such works as BLOOD SIMPLE, MILLER'S CROSSING, BARTON FINK, FARGO, and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. Now, if I didn't name your favorite Coen Brothers movie, it's not because I didn't like it. But in all of their other films, I could see them trying maybe a little too hard. Nothing wrong with that, but when I stumble upon one of these five films (and TRUE GRIT will be added to the list) on a movie channel, it gets watched to the end because I don't even notice the time passing.

I love that the Coens decided to make a much better adaptation of Charles Portis' novel than the 1969 version starring John Wayne. I don't despise the original TRUE GRIT at all, but it's never been a favorite of mine. I can't remember if it was Roger Ebert or Gene Siskel who said it first, but they were always perplexed when someone remade a classic movie. Why not remake a bad movie and make it better, they wondered. That's not exactly what has happened here, but it's damn close.

True Grit is not the story of Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges, haven shaken off the CGI glitter of last week's TRON: LEGACY), a drunken, worn-down U.S. Marshall hired by a child to find the man who killed her father. All of that surely happens, but if you go in thinking Cogburn is the focus of the film, you've been misinformed. In fact, it's the young girl Mattie Ross (the magnificent newcomer Hailee Steinfeld) who sits at the center of this story as all manner of lawman and villain cross her path in the search for the outlaw Tom Chaney (a weirdly affected performance by Josh Brolin). Mattie has come to town to ship her father's body back home to her mother and take care of his affairs, which in her mind includes finding his killer.

At one point in the film, someone refers to Mattie as "the bookkeeper" of her father's business, and with that little throwaway line, we understand that Mattie is the brains of her family. Steinfeld's performance sometimes makes you forget to breathe. Her enunciative delivery is unlike any I have ever seen from an actor her age. And she easily matches wits and intellect with everyone she comes into contact with, whether it's a business transaction that requires some expert haggling or she is working out a fair arrangement with Marshall Cogburn. I am in no way knocking the performance Bridges gives at all. The first time we see him clearly, he's testifying in court about men he killed, and it's one of the funniest things I've seen all year due exclusively to his deft delivery.

The third member of the small posse out seeking Chaney is a Texas Ranger named LaBoeuf (pronounced La-Beef and played with an odd tint by Matt Damon). More than once during the course of the story, we get the distinct impression that LaBoeuf might be coming onto Mattie, but strangely enough it doesn't feel as creepy as it sounds. Instead, we get the sense that the Ranger comes from a place where girls Mattie's age are getting married to men his age, so he doesn't even consider him looking at her in that way inappropriate. Other times, he treats her like the child that she is, especially when she lets her emotions get in the way of the mission at hand.

I saw TRUE GRIT twice in the space of a couple of days, and it wasn't until the second viewing that I really noticed some of the small moments that accented the more obviously skillful tactics at hand. The Coens' screenplay is one of their best, with small touches in the language that are both period specific and just damn fine wordsmith-ing. There are almost-unnoticeable ways in which the characters pronounce certain words that I loved. Notice the way Damon says "Adios," and try not smiling.

And gradually over the course of this fine story, you begin to realize that it is not about finding the bad guys; it's about the very real bond that forms between Cogburn and Mattie. We get more than one scene where Cogburn is just running at the mouth about his life, failed marriage, and all of the other things that had plagued him over the years. Sure, it's humorous, but it's also the stuff that friendships are built upon. In a strange way, when they finally do cross paths with Chaney, it's a rude and unwelcome reminder that there's a mission at hand and that now all of this enjoyable conversation must end.

Turns out Chaney is running with a gang run by Lucky Ned Pepper (an almost unrecognizable Barry Pepper), who turns out to be one of the most interesting characters in TRUE GRIT. He seems like an outlaw with whom logic and reason are two of his most skilled weapons. Lucky Ned doesn't really come into play until the final act, but when he does, other facets to Cogburn emerge that continue taking us by surprise, and each time that happens, you love the man just a little bit more. And while you're at it, watch how brilliantly Brolin plays Chaney. He's slow on an intellectual level, but if you give him enough time to let the gears turn slowly in his brain, he's capable of making some damn smart choices

TRUE GRIT is sheer joy for film lovers, from Roger Deakins striking cinematography to Carter Burwell's lovely score to each and every perfectly cast extra whose dusty, sunken faces add character and authenticity to every scene. The Coens have always excelled at selecting the perfect faces for every role--big and small. The story is hardly a complicated one to follow, but there is so much going on in every scene that it takes two or three viewings to really soak it all in, which I was happy to do. Even sequences that seem like throwaway moments are loaded with character development, especially the squabbles between Rooster and LaBoeuf about the reputation of Texas Rangers vs. Cogburn's own flawed past. Just writing about TRUE GRIT makes me want to go see it again just to make sure I'm not forgetting any of its glory. If you are even questioning at this point whether or not you want to see this movie, I have nothing more to say to you until you make the right call.

-- Capone
Follow Me On Twitter


Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Dec. 22, 2010, 4:25 p.m. CST

    Elvis was a hero to most...

    by TitusPullo

    ... but he never meant shit to me you see. Straight up racist that sucker was. Simple and plain. Mother fuck him and John Wayne!!! ..... All hail The Coen Bros.!!!!

  • But it'll probably be edited eventually, so nobody would know what I was talking about.

  • Dec. 22, 2010, 4:47 p.m. CST

    Have great is it? ... and brownroastlikesubstance,

    by openthepodbaydoorshal

    it won't be edited, don't worry.

  • Dec. 22, 2010, 4:48 p.m. CST

    great review

    by maxwell's hammer

    I was starting to get a bit perturbed by some of the overly bombastic reviews being posted, but you described everything there is to love about the film perfectly without also trying to impress everyone about how awesome you are with over-the-top proclamations of cinematic sublimity.<BR> <BR> Capone captured the essence of the film perfectly everybody. If you want to know whether "True Grit" is worth seeing, this is the review that best makes the case.

  • Dec. 22, 2010, 4:50 p.m. CST

    reads more like advertising than a review

    by jb

    when there are too many adjectives it is a dead giveaway that some marketing flunkie wrote it. especially the last paragraph. "Just writing about TRUE GRIT makes me want to go see it again" ...uhh nice try... maybe the studio sends in the "reviews" and the staff here just puts their name on it.

  • Dec. 22, 2010, 4:59 p.m. CST

    'has' great.

    by alice133


  • Dec. 22, 2010, 5:54 p.m. CST

    Editor to the O.R. STAT!

    by JumpinJehosaphat

    I've been with this site since its humble beginnings and have been quite happy to see Harry and company succeed. But, I have to say enough is enough. There seems to be a distinct lack of decent editorial processes at play. I know you guys work your nuts off for this site, but the end product is suffering. With such talented voices on this staff, there's no reason for the continued litany of basic errors. I have typically ignored all the spelling and grammatical flaws, chalking them up to the site's scrappy history. Well, those days are over and this site has got to start embracing better standards of journalism. It's gone from being cute in that rough-hewn sort of way to just being sloppy for no good reason. I ask that the staff at AICN find ways of improving the content. I'm finding less reasons to stick around, despite the years of enjoyment I've gotten from this joint. So, please, fellas! Up your game!

  • Dec. 22, 2010, 6:04 p.m. CST

    Telling us have great it is?

    by professor murder

    Is that like, All your base are belong to us. ??

  • Dec. 22, 2010, 6:13 p.m. CST

    thejewhunter, I think you mean "Have?"

    by CountryBoy

  • Dec. 22, 2010, 6:20 p.m. CST

    Can't wait to see have great True Grit is!

    by MattmanReturns

  • Dec. 22, 2010, 6:25 p.m. CST

    Differences between Hathaway's version and the Coens'

    by abcdefz7

    SPOILERS There are some differences -- who kills Chaney, La Boeuf doesn't die -- but it's essentially the same story. The main difference is perspective; Hathaway's version is greatly focussed on Cogburn, and the Coens' version is more Mattie's story. It's really, really solid work. There are only a few moments here and there where I'd say it's *inspired*, but it's definitely a solid, craftsman-like movie. Bridges' performance is great -- the trailer gave me a nagging doubt, but he's fantastic. Steinfeld's great, Damon is great, Brolin is great, Pepper is almost great. Cinematography is superb. The only element that I thought was weak was the score. I'm usually all over Burwell's stuff, but this one's not among his best. I haven't seen THE KING'S SPEECH yet, but I'd say this is my number two movie of the year. THE SOCIAL NETWORK TRUE GRIT EXIT THROUGH THE GIFT SHOP TOY STORY 3 INCEPTION NEVER LET ME GO HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON SHUTTER ISLAND BLACK SWAN THE TOWN

  • Dec. 22, 2010, 6:38 p.m. CST

    The REAL True Grit comes on TCM @8 pm TONITE!

    by HollywoodHellraiser

    All this comparison is BS! You be the judge so AICN can quit this nonsense of sucking the Coen dicks!

  • Dec. 22, 2010, 7:09 p.m. CST

    I'm excited about this film and can't wait, but...

    by NiceGuyEddie19

    For one thing, I wish people would stop calling it a remake - it is an adaptation of a novel that has been previously been made into a movie. For another, I'm getting tired of the plethora of unfavorable comparisons to the John Wayne version. It was a different time with different sensibilities, a different kind of iconic star in the lead role. A direct comparison between the two doesn't make much sense, since filmmaking in the avant garde, violent style of the Coen brothers wouldn't fly back when John Wayne's version was made.

  • Dec. 22, 2010, 7:09 p.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    I don't even wanna see this for fear of being let down by the hype. Like what happened when I saw Children of Lesser Men.

  • Dec. 22, 2010, 7:18 p.m. CST

    good review except

    by mrsheldrake

    While Wayne is the star of the original, the story is still really about Mattie. And the criticism of his performance is just surreal--I was there, fella, and it was one of the most praised performances of its day. It's really weird that making this new version--and I hear it's quite good--requires taking a big, stinking shit on the original, which is also quite good, and was a breakthrough role for Glen Campbell AND Kim Darby. It's just...dumb. I can only report personal experience, that everytime I watch 1968 version, I am taken with it from the first scene to the last, and the big scene with Wayne charging the gang is huge, silly and wonderful. It's stupid even to think I'm in the position of defending the film, when it doesn't need my defense. That said--I'd throw out every Star Trek movie ever made and start over, so I know how they feel. Yes, even Khan.

  • Dec. 22, 2010, 7:19 p.m. CST

    @ niceguyeddie19

    by abcdefz7

    Not to argue, but have you seen it yet? This is about as textbook classic filmmaking as you can get -- not avant garde whatsoever. Heck, there's even a moment that amounts to an iris shot. And to say that this is more violent than what was allowed in 1969? Don't forget THE WILD BUNCH opened just one month after TRUE GRIT.

  • Dec. 22, 2010, 7:45 p.m. CST

    @ abcdefz

    by mrsheldrake

    >>Don't forget THE WILD BUNCH opened just one month after TRUE GRIT. Yup. True Grit was Western comfort food. And it was mighty tasty. Wayne himself made nastier movies after.

  • Dec. 22, 2010, 8:09 p.m. CST

    As a matter of fact.....

    by DrPepperPHD

    The Wild Bunch opened 1 week(6/18/69) after Hathaway's True Grit(6/11/69) in the U.S.

  • Dec. 22, 2010, 8:13 p.m. CST


    by DrPepperPHD

    It's fantastic! <p> "Steinfeld's performance sometimes makes you forget to breathe."

  • Dec. 22, 2010, 8:52 p.m. CST


    by Raymond Shaw

    just saw "True Grit" and was me it seems that the original version was more faithful to the book (except for the ending). My gripes (some mild spoilers ahead) 1) The hanging scene when the Indian starts to speak and is cut off by having a hood placed over his head...well it's different form the book and to me violates to the spirit of the book 2) It seemed strange not to show any interaction between Rooster and LaBoeuf before they leave (the 1969 script dealt with this more effectively) 3) The changes in the group chasing Ned Pepper was awkward..LaBoeuf joins Mattie and Rooster, then leaves them, then joins them again then leaves them and then joins them again..and for all the praise being heaped on the script how about when he leaves them for the last time at night before they go to sleep but is still close enough to hear a shot after daybreak??? 4) the scene with the mule was not done very well. In the book it reveals a lot about Roosters code of ethics when he releases the mule that the boys were tormenting 5)The scene when Rooster is carrying Mattie at the end is filmed mostly in closeups of Roosters face alternating with Matties me that just doesn't work, the 1969 version was more successful with this sequence. On the plus side: Barry Pepper was great, the guy who played the horse trader was almost as good as Strother Martin, they kept the lines from the book "Keep your seat, trash" and "A Methodist and a son of a bitch".

  • Dec. 22, 2010, 9:50 p.m. CST

    This may be sacriledge...but I never liked John Wayne

    by tritium

    in ANYTHING, with the exception of "The Searchers"...and even that I thought was a passable performance. I just do not think the guy could act. For me, personally, I think part of the problem is the same thing I have with some of the early 1930's thru 1950's style of acting. Many of Hollywood's "greatest" actors and actresses would emote in a very stiff and stilted manner, exactly as if they were reading from a script. I never got the sense that anyone was having a real-life conversation. Now, I realize that is the style of acting and it was a product of it's time...perhaps it is a carryover from Theatre. I guess I am more intrigued by the cinema verite style in which dialogue seems effortless and extemporaneous. I think the art of movie acting began to go through a revolution with Brando and Dean...and on thru the Strasberg school. Performances became more relaxed, and delivery of lines become more realistic. I think Spencer Tracy is probably my favorite actors from the pre Brando and James Dean era. To this day some of the best acting, and direction of actors occured in the late '70s. As one example, (and using a genre flick), the direction and acting in "Alien" is incredibly realistic. Just like conversations if real life, people talk over each other, or interrupt others in mid-sentence...or complete someone elses thoughts. Just watch the scene where they are having their first breakfest after coming out of cryo sleep. Or, the scene after Dallas has been killed, and Ripley, Lambert, Carter and Ash are debating what to do and how to proceed. In no instance in this movie does it feel like the actors are just reading lines. Rather, there is a dynamic interaction of dialogue...which can sometimes get confusing when multiple parties are speaking at the same time, but that is just like real life. Well, I have really gotten off topic. My original point was...well, I guess I have forgotten. End of rant.

  • Dec. 22, 2010, 11:01 p.m. CST

    The book is fucking great

    by Simpsonian

    It's short and an easy read so there's no excuse; check it out.

  • Dec. 22, 2010, 11:05 p.m. CST


    by Ricky Retardo

    You may not "think" the guy could act, but John Ford did. I think he knew more about cinema than you do.

  • Dec. 22, 2010, 11:39 p.m. CST

    As Jackie Gleason used to say...

    by beane2099

    "Mmm Have great it iiiiiiissssss!" Fantastical. Just Fantastical.

  • Dec. 23, 2010, 12:31 a.m. CST


    by mrsheldrake

    exactly. and it's a fun, bravura, Hollywood Star performance. He's just great in it. I think the Cowboys came right after, there was string of movies he did based on "literary Westerns". I loved the Cowboys when I read it, but that was when I was 12. I remember it was taboo and adult. I just have to laugh. A hard critique of Wayne's True Grit is all about squeamishness about a style of movie, not about whether it's a bad movie or not. And if you don't like Glen Campbell, well, brother, he's about 1000 times more likely as a Texas Ranger than Matt Damon, the Eternal Boy.

  • Dec. 23, 2010, 2:29 a.m. CST

    The UK have to wait until mid February for this

    by SoupDragon

    Thanks to the glut of Oscar bait pictures crowding up the January schedule. Changing the release date back to early Jan would be welcome a Christmas present for Coen fans over here.

  • Dec. 23, 2010, 3:58 a.m. CST

    Just noticed that Capone's characture doesnt have a left ear

    by Googam_Son_of_Goom

    ..and now it really bothers me. Unless, of course, Capone is also missing that ear. Anyway, great review. There is no way that I am not seeing this one.

  • Dec. 23, 2010, 4:14 a.m. CST


    by LastPairOfSocks

    Anyone see the trailer for this thing yet? Good lord!

  • Dec. 23, 2010, 7:43 a.m. CST

    Tomorrow night

    by SithMenace

    Can't wait.

  • Dec. 23, 2010, 7:55 a.m. CST


    by filmcoyote

    And no one ever got an Academy Award for the money they bring to the industry rather than their real acting talent! I actually love Wayne in True Grit and don't begrudge his Oscar - even though it was firmly a "we love him and it's the best thing he's done even if not actually the best of the year" award - but to argue his winning an Oscar proves he's a good actor is laughable. He was a great star and stars are what Hollywood is about. Stars are as necessary are deserving of praise as actors, it's frustratingly uncommon to find an actor who become a star, but it does happen. Great stars can turn in a great acting performance, they just don't bother very often because it's not asked of them - and Wayne epitomised that ethos. He won for True Grit because, while perhaps not a great performance, he was trying. He realised it was a great part and didn't just deliver his usual autopilot performance. The Oscars have a long history of awarding effort and longevity, especially amongst popular stars and filmmakers that bring in a lot of cash to the industry, whether truly deserved or not.

  • Dec. 23, 2010, 8:06 a.m. CST


    by mrsheldrake

    " and didn't just deliver his usual autopilot performance. " Again, I have to laugh. I reckon I'll just kick back on this one, because John Wayne doesn't need the likes of me to defend him as an actor. Not all actors are character actors.

  • Dec. 23, 2010, 10 a.m. CST

    What horseshit

    by larry burbridge

    John wayne may not has been a strasberg trained actor, but he had what so many of todays so called actors dont have.....presence. when he walkin on the screen you noticed it. you can say that for others too like Bronson, Lee, Marvin, and Eastwood, who while not classically trained are magic on the screen. That cant be taught. and most of the new actors out today DONT have it.

  • Dec. 23, 2010, 10:02 a.m. CST

    @bringingsexyback So true man

    by Count Screwface

    Dude... yeah the AICN staff is just stripping down and pouring milk all over their bodies for this movie. It's good but Jesus Christ, it's not the movie of the century. I am aware the whole thing is subjective, but this Grit hype has got to be squelched. I'm still waiting for a review that points out how underwhelming it is, despite phenomenal performances by the actors.

  • Dec. 23, 2010, 10:12 a.m. CST

    im sure this version is good

    by larry burbridge

    but the original was a great flick. Im a big fan of the coens, and I certainly dont mind that they remade this, but the original stands on its own. As for actors from that era being stilted. how about john garfield, orson welles, cagney, bogart, Muni?

  • Dec. 23, 2010, 10:13 a.m. CST

    im sure this version is good

    by larry burbridge

    but the original was a great flick. Im a big fan of the coens, and I certainly dont mind that they remade this, but the original stands on its own. As for actors from that era being stilted. how about john garfield, orson welles, cagney, bogart, Muni?

  • Dec. 23, 2010, 12:27 p.m. CST

    Hopefully this has a better near-ending

    by Shaner Jedi

    than No Country for Old Men. My favorite Coen's pic is still Hudsucker.

  • Dec. 23, 2010, 6:20 p.m. CST

    Saw this flick yesterday...

    by fettitular

    Quite good, as expected, but a bit overrated. The 3rd act almost killed it for me. The final 20 minutes or so featured a bunch of coincidences and contrivancies. And it was wrapped up a little too neat and tidy for my tastes... But despite the weak script, it had fantastic performances from all involved (duh). I generally don't like "MAAAAATT DAAAAAMON", but he was awesome in this. Jeff Bridges should win the oscar. Not just nominated, but fucking WIN. As should the little girl. What an impressive film debut for lil Hailee!

  • Dec. 23, 2010, 6:22 p.m. CST

    Also featured a nice, albeit simple score.

    by fettitular

    Can't neglect the score, it's the backbone of every film! Still the most underrated aspect of film-making...

  • Dec. 23, 2010, 6:23 p.m. CST

    Oh, and a shoutout to Barry Pepper!

    by fettitular

    He fuckin' killed it as "Lucky Ned"

  • Dec. 23, 2010, 7:23 p.m. CST

    Raymond Shaw...

    by eustisclay

    ...just saw this and agree. I really loved the first one and maybe I'm to close to it, but I was faintly disappointed in this. It was a good film, but I wouldn't say great. I rewatched the movie and read the book last year so I could make a good comparison. There just was so much that has been praised in this that I thought was superior in the first one. The horse haggling scene, to me, was much funnier in the first film. I missed the rousing score, I liked how when Wayne and Campbell are taking the ferry, Mattie jumps her horse in the water and paces them to the other side whikle Wayne says, she reminds me of me. The new version doesn't have that line and the men are already across. LaBeof keeps taking off and leaving Rooster and Mattie alone, showing back up at awkward times. The final shootout was much more exciting, and I miss how Wayne reacted to being called a one eyed fatman. And the famous line, "fill yore hands..." well, it was kind of a throwaway in this. Maybe Bridges realized he couldn't top Wayne's delivery so he underplayed it. And some critics are really overpraising Brolin and Pepper's performances. Not that they were bad, but you're led to believe that they had great parts, but they really have little more than cameos, really not that different than the first film. In fact, Chaney's in the first one a little more and I preferred Jeff Corey's performance. As far as Barry Pepper, his teeth made more of an impression than he did. Now as far as the main actors go, I liked matt Damon better than Glen Campbell, but Campbell was hardly as bad some say. But Damon was missing for much of the movie, that surprised me. Another thing, Cambell was like in late 20's when he did this. Kim Dardy was around 20. So when he says the line about stealing a kiss, it was not a big thing. But Damon's 40 and the girl is like 13, so it seems a lot creepier when he says it(especially when unlike the first movie and the book if I remember, he says it after sitting in her bedroom watching her sleep). And while the girl isn't bad, I didn't think she was that great. She seemed a little too modern to me. I liked Darby's delivery, it was unusual which seemed to fit the cadence of the lines. And while she was older, still women aged earlier back then, she seems more like a young woman rather thatn a young girl. And while I know Bridges is a better actor with more range, Wayne owned this part. My girlfriend( who had never seen the original until last year and liked it, but doesn't love it) said that they say Rooster is the meanest marshall, but Bridges doesn't seem mean, just is a cranky old man. She also said that she felt more danger from the John Wayne Rooster. Anyway, I did like the new version. I think if you've never seen the 69 version, you'll really like this. If you have and didn't like it, you may love it. If you saw it and really like it, then you'll like this version. And if you love the first one, well, you'll like, but not love this version. As to which is the more faithful, well, I think the original is more faithful to the plot. Some have complained that it was more of a Wayne vehicle than the book, but so what? Back then, if you went to see a John Wayne film, you be kinda pissed to watch him take back seat to a teenage girl. He did poke fun at his image and gave the others their due, but when it came time to get to business, he gave them their money's worth. But the Coen's may be closer in tone to the book, I don't know. As I said, I love the original movie. I've seen it several times and when I reread the book last year, I'm sure that the movie influenced how I interpreted events. If you've never read the book or seen either movie version, I suggest reading the book first. Then maybe you can watch both films and decide which ones tone seems more fitting to you.

  • Dec. 23, 2010, 8:09 p.m. CST

    The movie was entertaining for sure but...

    by MainMan2001 certainly isn't one of the best films of the year by far. It doesn't even make the list. It's a well crafted film by masterful filmmakers. The best thing about the movie was the girl. She will def be up for an oscar and the look of the film is incrediable but I won't watch it more then once. It does the job it should for a night at the movies.

  • Dec. 23, 2010, 8:54 p.m. CST


    by Raymond Shaw

    I think the 1969 version had the better the sense that it did a better job of translating the book to the screen (though the ending of the earlier version was not as good). The scene of them crossing the river (as you mentioned) was done better in the first film and then Mattie followed them for quite a while before LaBoeuf started whipping her...the fact that she doggedly followed them is a big part of why Rooster started admiring her and stopped LaBoeuf from whipping her -- and Wayne's delivery of the line "No, I don't believe I will" was better. Mattie meeting LaBoeuf at the dinner table and having supper with Rooster before he shoots the rat are all scenes from the book that were done better in the original version. It seems to me that just about every change in the story in this recent version was for the worse. For people who don't want to read the book there is an audio book version (read by Donna Tartt) that is better --more enjoyable, funnier, more moving -- than either film version.

  • Dec. 24, 2010, 7:55 a.m. CST

    Saw it, liked it...

    by larry burbridge

    But still like the original better. Bridges is a great actor, but he just doesnt fill the screen like Wayne