Ground’s too hard. Them men wanted a decent burial, they should have got themselves killed in summer.

Like most everyone who loves movies, I have a great admiration and respect for the Brothers Coen. Joel and Ethan are a rarity in the filmmaking world these days. Rather than make mega-commercial extravaganzas they create mostly off-beat character-driven stories in most every genre there is — and if there isn’t a genre that fits whatever the latest is they’re cooking up, they go right on ahead and create one of their own. Better still, these two multi-talented Oscar winners seem much more interested in creating a lasting cinematic legacy as opposed to changing the world or telling us how to vote. Not everything they create is universally accessible, but that has to do with the rhythm of a sometimes peculiar muse always in search of greatness, as opposed to a politically divisive approach to their signature way of telling a story. Which isn’t to say you won’t find large political and social themes at play in some of their best work. Those things are there and are usually what elevates the eccentric into something that sticks to the ribs.

But it’s also  fair to say that both auteurs frequently seek to explore nihilism as a theme, the futility of life and living in a world without purpose. Though tonally different, most recently, “Burn Without After Reading,” the Academy Award-winning “No Country for Old Men,” and especially “A Serious Man,” delivered grim stories without any real hint of redemption or sympathy. Sometimes, as was the case with the magnificent “No Country,” this approach resonates; the whole point is in witnessing the power of the human spirit to fight its way through a cold, indifferent and harsh world like a flower through the crack of a sidewalk. But sometimes it doesn’t work and the end result is something cold, distant, and a little off-putting. “True Grit” is one of those times.

The pieces are all there. Who better to fill John Wayne’s shoes than a beloved Jeff Bridges whose already formidable charisma has only increased with middle age?  The music score, photography, production design and direction are as impeccable as expected, and the supporting cast, most especially Hailee Stainfeld as Mattie Ross, the young girl who hires Bridges crusty, aging Marshal to avenge the murder of her father, are all top notch. But what’s missing is what resonates, an emotional heft promised to us when the story opens with a quote that raises our expectations…

You must pay for everything in this world, one way and another. There is nothing free except the grace of God.

 …but never really pays off like it should.

(more…)

Recently New York Times blogger and humanities professor Stanley Fish referenced my Big Hollywood review of the Coen Brothers’ remake of John Wayne and Henry Hathaway’s True Grit. Though I have reviewed a film or two for various publications I’ve never thought of myself as a film critic. So Professor Fish referring to me as such was certainly interesting, if not flattering.  Agree with my review or not, I am glad a western is making money, but Professor Fish had more heady matters on his mind.

Fish’s main point is that in the new True Grit, purposely there is no relationship between physical heroism and virtue. To the professor physical heroism is displayed by almost everyone in the new film, “‘good’ and ‘bad,’ and the universe seems at best indifferent, if not hostile.” He sees young Mattie Ross as far more heroic for her acceptance of the world as random and brutal, Jeff Bridges Cogburn’s heroism is merely an after thought. The professor didn’t in the least misunderstand my desire to instead see the kind of heroics John Wayne displayed in the original film when he takes on the outlaw gang single-handedly with his “Fill your hands, you son-of-a-bitch!” charge to glory.

Justifiable violent responses to real life threats are often not random. America has always had common men heroes and well trained professionals who can reach down deep into themselves and find the kind of inner courage needed to risk life and limb to save the life of another or stand up to the evil and power hungry. The elitist left who for the time being control most of the public debate on popular culture would have us believe that all is relative. Despite the current “no tolerance” foolishness in American schools, sometimes you have to hit back, and hard, or else the bully will take far more then just your lunch. You’re own personal dignity is indeed something worth fighting for. (more…)

When the Coen brothers, Joel and Ethan, announced that they were going to remake True Grit, it sparked all of the usual arguments about the merits and demerits of such undertakings.

The first film, released in 1969, sits in the mid-upper tier of movies made by its star, John Wayne (as well as winning him his only Oscar), and as such has achieved a kind of classic status among both Wayne fans and lovers of good westerns. There is a brand of theatergoer who maintains that there is no need to craft fresh takes on successful pictures, any more than we need new painters to dutifully re-imagine a masterwork like Da Vinci’s Last Supper.

On the other side of the debate are those who see good reasons for taking another swing at this piñata. Ever since the appearance of Wayne’s Grit, many fans of the novel — which first appeared forty-two years ago as a Saturday Evening Post serial written by Charles Portis (1933–) — have been keen to see a cinematic version that hews far closer to the plot of the book. Others see remakes as akin to a contemporary orchestra re-recording — and in the process re-interpreting — a famous piece of classical music, imbuing it with their own particular sonic signature. Seen in this light, the announcement of a new True Grit was a welcome one.

So now that the movie is out, who is right? Is the remake ill-advised, or a welcome addition to the western canon? Does the 2010 version have what it takes to make it a classic in its own right, or is it destined to be forever overshadowed by the 1969 original? (more…)

There are some films considered so sacred they should never be remade. “Gone with the Wind” would be one of them, “Citizen Kane” and “Vertigo” still others. But the new Coen Brothers’ take on “True Grit” presents an interesting challenge to the idea that you can’t possibly top greatness.

The original “True Grit” came out in 1969 and earned the legendary John Wayne his only Oscar, for the colorful, oversized role of a cantankerous U.S. Marshal named Rooster Cogburn. But even as he did a great job playing a feisty, one-eyed lawman traveling with a young girl and a sidekick on the trail of some ruthless killers, the Oscar that Wayne received for the role is largely considered a career honor that paid tribute to his dozens of other classic Westerns in the waning years of his career. It’s still one heck of a tribute, as plenty of other iconic actors never even earned that kind of respect from the Academy.

But the new “True Grit,” while sharing the same basic plot and characters, is defiantly its own film – a darker, funnier, more intense take on the hunt by Cogburn and the 12-year-old girl Mattie (Hailee Steinfeld in a stunning debut performance) as they and a bounty hunter named LaBeouf (Matt Damon) search for the gang led by Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin). It’s also a more spiritually layered film, with the trio’s mission a quest for divine justice and retribution against the wicked who once traveled across the Wild West.

The reason why writer-directors Joel and Ethan Coen are able to make such a different film – one that is rightfully stirring Oscar buzz as a likely Best Picture contender – is that they claim they have never seen the Wayne film, and instead have been solely inspired by the novel that came before even that original cinematic take. Written by Charles Portis, a wickedly funny writer from Little Rock who wrote a few minor classic novels in the 1960s and ’70s before opting for obscurity in the tradition of Harper Lee and J.D. Salinger, “True Grit” was largely brightened up for its original trip to the theaters. (more…)

You just have to glance at my Big Hollywood contributor’s photo to realize that I love a good western – the cowboy hat with the tux kind of give it away. So it was with much anticipation that I awaited the release of the Coen Brothers remake of the classic western True Grit which helped John Wayne win his well deserved Best Actor Academy Award in 1969. I’ll admit to a certain amount of prejudice here. When John Wayne puts the reins to his horse in his teeth, levers that big looped Winchester carbine, pulls his Colt’s revolver and hollars “Fill your hand you son-of-a-bitch!” Well, it’s one of my favorite scenes in any film ever made, beautifully summing up Wayne’s legendary status as the most American of icons. Unfortunately, despite the considerable talents of Jeff Bridges, the Coen Brothers and others the new film literally throws that great cinematic moment away.

For those too young to have seen the original, True Grit, based on the excellent Charles Portis novel tells the story of precocious young Mattie Ross who hires a boozy, tough-minded U.S. marshal to bring in her father‘s killer from 1880s Indian territory, a large chunk of what is now Oklahoma. Her stubborn caveat is that she gets to come along. Indian territory (that’s what they called it – not Native American Territory) was a no man’s land where the Choctaw, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Creek and Seminole settlements sometimes gave uneasy safe haven to American outlaws on the run from Hanging Judge Parker’s U.S. Marshals in neighboring Arkansas.

John Wayne was and is this country’s most popular screen legend, still in the top ten in the Harris Poll every year. Yet he was often an unsung actor, though one who could fill the screen and entertain like few of his profession before or after him. It’s not that the 2010 True Grit is a bad film, it’s not, but it’s not a great film either. The Coen Brothers version just make you realize how much more entertaining the Wayne and Henry Hathaway directed True Grit really still is.  In their effort to give us a more down and dirty version of the Old West, though the Wayne film is hardly sanitized, they’ve made this new version dull and uninspiring. Co-writer and co-director Ethan Coen said that they wanted to do the film from fourteen year old Mattie’s perspective and make it tougher and more violent. In the process they merely aped the original and duplicated most of the best scenes and dialogue, virtually verbatim. (more…)

Yesterday I walked into my local supermarket to find they already had a massive Christmas tree up ornamented with gift cards. Yes, it’s quickly approaching “The Most Wonderful Time of the Year,” and that means gifts to buy, preferably before you find yourself scrambling from store to store in a panic on Christmas Eve.

With that in mind, here are five drool-worthy stocking stuffers for the cinemaphiles in your family, all of them due to be released in the next few weeks.

__________

1. Frank Sinatra: Concert Collection (November 2, 2010, $54.99 at Amazon)

Get hep to this, man: seven discs containing fourteen hours of TV specials and filmed concerts, with Ol’ Blue Eyes joined by Ella Fitzgerald, Count Basie, Gene Kelly, Antonio Carlos Jobim, John Denver, Bing Crosby, and of course Dino. Four of the specials have never been released, and a host of isolated TV clips are thrown in for good measure. Top it all off with a 44-page booklet chock full of rare photos and scholarly commentary, and the Chairman of the Board is truly back in all his scotch-soaked glory.

The seventh “Bonus Disc” sounds like the perfect thing to have playing in the background while you are decorating your tree: a “Happy Holidays with Bing and Frank” color TV special. (more…)

In the Age of the Hollywood Sucker Punch, betting your time and dollars on movies and TV is more perilous than ever.

As often as not, you can expect to fork over $20-$40 at the theater expecting to laugh, cry, and be entertained. . .

. . . only to find yourself trapped in a widescreen, 3D, surround sound, stadium-seated liberal indoctrination chamber.

With TV, you can dedicate months and years to becoming a dedicated fan of a series. . .

. . . only to suddenly start getting lectured on what creeps you and your family are by dint of your politics/religion/gender/race/fill-in-the-blank.

Closing in on two years patrolling the mean streets, Big Hollywood already has dozens of posts that document these lies, cheap shots, and propaganda in grim detail. Amidst the cultural carnage conservatives step ever more gingerly, sifting through the rubble for scraps worth investing in.

One way most of us navigate this minefield is by discerning which actors — big, well-known, picture-opening actors — are worth trusting on name alone. No one has a perfect record, but the best gain our confidence by routinely choosing projects that hew to some modicum of quality, decency, and fair play. You may not agree with the underlying message or political slant of their movies, but that’s not the point — it’s completely possible for conservatives to love great liberal movies and vice versa. Rather, these actors convince us over the course of their careers that they aren’t likely to sucker punch their fans, or to embarrass their country, profession, or family by allowing politics and prejudices to tarnish their public reputations and filmed entertainments. (more…)

—–

This looks fantastic. Normally the idea of present-day Hollywood remaking a film made ionic by John Wayne would make us a little queasy, but the Coen Brothers know what they’re doing and Jeff Bridges is obviously an inspired piece of casting. In the brief flashes the newly minted Oscar winner is seen here, there’s little doubt he completely owns both the screen and the role.

The story looks as though it will stay pretty true to the original: The snake pit, “fill your hand…,” and all that. It’s the closing title – ”Retribution” — that likely tells you where the Coens are headed theme-wise.

We likey. (more…)

A good argument can be made that the period 2000-2009 was the single worst decade for movies in Hollywood history. Unfortunately, judging by what we’ve seen so far in 2010, the next decade could conceivably dip even lower into mediocrity. Over just the next three months, theaters are set to debut yet more anti-conservative rewritings of history, yet more anti Prop-8 propaganda masquerading as entertainment for the masses, yet more heaping piles of torture and snuff porn, and much else that looks eminently skip-worthy.

So what’s left for those of us looking for things like stirring heroism, rousing action, and solid family-friendly entertainment? If you had to pick five films appearing between now and the end of the year that look decent enough to take a chance on, what would they be? Here’s my shortlist, sorted by release date:

______

YouTube -- click here to watch in full-screen

Red (October 15)

A blissfully silly, cartoonishly hyper-violent trailer. A formidable array of talent seeming to have the time of their lives as they chew up the scenery, with normally stately and self-serious Oscar-winners like Helen Mirren and Morgan Freeman hamming it up next to Bruce Willis and John Malkovich. A premise that sounds something like Spy Kids for adults. Sounds good to me. (more…)

I did two things Sunday night I usually don’t do: I tuned into CBS and watched an awards program. They were actually the same thing, as I watched the CMA Awards on CBS. While I was told repeatedly the CMAs are a country music awards show, my question is, “Where were the country folks?”

Where was the modern Loretta Lynn? You know, a simple country girl who just loves to sing walking the stage in a homemade dress and an out-of-date hairstyle. Where were George Jones and Dolly Parton? Where were Willie, Hank Jr., and Merle? Why are the Country Music Awards being held in Las Vegas and not Nashville, Austin, or Branson? The problem is that in country music today, the last thing you want to be is “country.” It used to be “I was country when country wasn’t cool.”  But now, to paraphrase the great Mr. Jones, if you are country, that isn’t cool. (more…)

As the 82nd annual Academy Awards rolled into their third hour, I started joking on our live blog about how the winners and presenters were so well behaved they were leaving me nothing to write about. In fact, it’s just the opposite. How many Hollywood Behaved Badly pieces can one man write in a lifetime? Well, it’s probably my destiny to find out, but what a pleasant surprise not to have to write one this morning.

Last night, no one said anything insulting or divisive. Not a word. Not a sound. Not a peep. The whole of the Kodak Theatre offered a brief but completely unexpected respite in their ongoing Culture War against traditional America and chose instead to behave like, well, movie stars.

No idiocy directed our way in the form of poorly disguised jokes or irony, no hey-hey goodbye shots at Bush, no gushy shout-outs to Obama. With ObamaCare on the precipice there wasn’t even a lone moralizing salvo fired on its behalf or a cheap shot launched towards the Tea Parties, Sarah Palin, or Fox News. It was like someone gave a magic wand to those of us who want to like Hollywood again, and it worked. Because this is how it’s supposed to be. (more…)

Last week there were a few nice surprises when the Oscar nominations were announced. The media mainly focused on the surprise Best Picture nomination of “The Blind Side,” but there was another surprise in the best supporting actress category: Maggie Gyllenhaal in “Crazy Heart.”  To no one’s surprise, Jeff Bridges earned a best actor nomination for the same film, and hopefully this award attention will  help to spread “Crazy Heart” to a wider audience because this is one great film that should not be ignored. 

In writing about “Crazy Heart,” many critics have focused on Jeff Bridges’ grand performance. Bridges does give a great performance and many expect him to win the gold. Mr. Bridges portrays Bad Blake, a struggling country singer who survives off of what his name used to mean. Blake lives off the money he earns from small shows at bowling alleys and bars after once serving as a mentor to another artist who has made it big.

Near the beginning of the film, Blake is interviewed by an aspiring journalist (Maggie Gyllenhaal), anxious to learn more about the singer.  The film develops from there as Blake, the loner, begins a relationship with the younger woman. As that relationship builds, he’s given a chance to change his life and decide what kind of person he wants to be. Does he want to continue to hold a grudge against his fellow singer who succeeded and left him in the past? Or does he want to continue moving along playing show after show without finding something or someone worth settling down for? (more…)

“I apologize for being less than what you probably expected me to be.”

In director Scott Cooper’s “Crazy Heart,” Jeff Bridges plays Bad Blake, a creatively-stifled, self-destructive former country music star drowning himself in whiskey and self-pity before finding a second chance in the love of a woman and her four year-old son. If the story sounds familiar, it should. In 1983, star Robert Duvall and screenwriter Horton Foote won well-deserved Oscars for their poetic, understated work telling almost the exact same story in “Tender Mercies.”  You won’t mind, though, because both “Crazy Heart” and Jeff Bridges are nearly as good. And if some kind of loyalty to The Mighty Duvall makes you resistant to checking out this near-retelling, fear not. He’s not only on board as a producer but brings great color and character to a supporting role, as well. He even sings a bit!

“Crazy Heart” defines the idea of a simple story well told. One glimpse at the trailer and we all know where the plot beats will lead, at least through the second act. We know that Bad Blake and small town reporter Jean Craddock (Maggie Gyllenhaal) will fall in love and that this is certain to bring about some kind of personal and professional reformation for the has-been booze hound. What we don’t know is “how” that story will be told or where it will end up, and it’s in the telling that “Crazy Heart” soars. (more…)

I do a bit in my nightclub act about how hard it is to make a suspense thriller in Hollywood today because of political correctness. If you make a black man or an Arab the bad guy; that’s racial prejudice. If you make a woman the villain, you’re a sexist. If a gay man or woman is the heavy then you’re a homophobe and in today’s Hollywood there is no more dangerous career move than going up against GLAAD.

So today most filmmakers opt for the politically correct solution of demonizing the only target that doesn’t fight back; corporate America! And who is it that runs all the corporations in America? Rich, fat, middle-aged white men! (more…)