When word was out that the Coen’s follow-up to last years A Serious Man was going to be a remake of a classic western movie, many were excited to see what they could do with this under-appreciated genre. What was actually put on screens was ultimately dissapointing and this review is going to contain a lof of, ‘for a Coen brothers film, this is surprisingly ….’.

To begin with, for a Coen brothers film this is a surprisingly dull script. Having never read the book it is impossible to tell how closely they followed the original book (although looking at the wikipedia page for both it appears like it is pretty close), but the story that is presented is far too simple for the excellent world the Coens have created. Typically, the Coen’s material is nuanced with superb characterisation and snappy, polished dialogue. They have faltered on a couple of occasions, The Ladykillers is apparently pretty awful and Intolerable Crulety was a bit of a misstep (although it does have some redeeming features), but they typically produce good, interesting modern cinema. True Grit is at heart a bit of a lifeless screenplay and it feels like they they pulled their punches a bit.

The main actors all play their parts quite well, with special mention having to go to Hailee Steinfeld’s accomplished portrayal of the young Mattie Ross. For such a young actor, she had a wonderful screen prescene and really carried the film along its rather dull storyline. Jeff Bridges competently does his bit as the gruff Rooster Cogburn, but there is nothing there to challenge this accomplished actor. Matt Damon is woefully miscast in his role and his Texas Ranger character feels like it could have been completely omitted without affecting the movie in any way.

So the problem then does not lie with the acting, rather the script and the storyline. For instance, watching the movie, it is difficult to know what to make of the main villains of the piece. Are we expected to fear them (like Javier Bardem’s excellent villain in No Country for Old Men)? If that is the case, then the script gave no real tension on the part of the main two villians. In fact, the impression that we are left with is that one of them is a pretty reasonable guy and the other a complete idiot. You could say that they were trying to make the point during this time there did not exist a stereotypical, Hollywood style good vs evil. Rather there was a whole raft of normal people doing whatever they could to take advantage of the situation without the typical passion for good or evil deeds that we are used to in movies. If this is the case, if the Coens wanted to give the impression that the notion of good/evil didn’t really apply in this time, then they did it in a very hamfisted fashion. One particular scene, where the Bardem’s character finally manages to capture the young girl out for his blood was such a missed opportunity. The film grammar and tone was suggesting that something dark and uncomfortable was about to happen, but the resolution of that scene was pathetic.

While this movie is worthwhile watching and a must for any Coen brothers fan, far better modern western movies are out there ready to be appreciated. The Proposition (another movie with links to Nick Cave) and The Unforgiven are better made and have much more depth and nuance.