Hail, Caesar!

Have you heard the name Eddie Mannix? I hadn't. He worked in the film industry for years as a "fixer," making problems go away for Hollywood studios with its stars, productions and films so everything ran as smoothly as possible. A natural idea for a feature flick, right? You bet. Here's the latest from the Coen brothers, 2016's Hail, Caesar!

Working for a major Hollywood film studio in the early 1950's, fixer Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin) is good at what he does. No, he's great. If a problem comes up with a movie in production or the studio's stable of stars, Eddie pulls some strings, pays off this guy, massages this situation...and poof, it's gone! Well, there's a pretty big problem. One of the biggest stars on the lot, Baird Whitlock (George Clooney), has gone missing with no trace. Baird is starring in the studio's blockbuster biblical epic in the lead role and every hour he's missing is costing oodles of money. No one's quite sure what happened until Eddie receives a ransom note demanding $100,000 for a group called 'The Future.' What to do? Eddie gets the money from the studio to pay them off, but that's just the start of his problems as all sorts of drama appears around the studio lots.

The idea for this film dates back to the early 2000's when the brother director duo, Joel and Ethan Coen, originally intended to do a like-minded film set in the 1920's about a play based in biblical times. It sat around for years before the brothers finally tackled it again and here's the finished product. The Coen brothers and their films can be an acquired, oddball taste so here's a quick moral of the story. If you like their previous movies (especially their comedies), you'll like/love 'Hail.' If not, it's probably more of a mixed bag.

What appealed to me most about this film was the absolute love the Coen brothers have for film and movie history. 'Hail' is set in Hollywood's Golden Age of Film when studios ran things with an iron fist, where stars were owned by said studios, and America was still (well, mostly so) innocent and naive. Even when they're having fun in quasi-spoof form, there is evident love of the history of film everywhere. Much of it -- as the Coens are known for -- is snappy, knowing dialogue throughout, brief asides, seemingly throwaway lines, underplayed deliveries that pay huge dividends. It's also the look of the film with cinematographer Roger Deakins (he's kinda good) giving the story a distinct visual look that changes from scene-to-scene in a good way. The same for Carter Burwell's score (another Coen favorite) that is able to delicately bounce among genres from epic to western, heavy drama to musicals.

In basically a complete departure from his previous pairing with the Coens, No Country for Old Men (he also worked with them in True Grit), Josh Brolin gets to play the straight man through all the lunacy and craziness as studio fixer Eddie Mannix. Oh, and he still manages to get some laughs along the way. He's the heart of the movie, the baseline it always comes back to. It's fun watching him navigate one perilous situation after another seamlessly, always knowing what to do, how to fix it and most importantly, how to spin it. The most important part of the character? It is something that reflects the general tone of the movie. Through all the craziness thrown his way, Eddie loves movies and what they represent to audiences. Maybe all the drama and long hours he goes through wouldn't be worth it to many people, but Eddie Mannix loves films and the feelings they can produce in its audiences. A bit of a thankless part but one Brolin manages to make his own.

The movie as a whole is more of an ensemble though. Brolin's Eddie is the point man, navigating us through one studio situation after another. The biggest focus goes to that actor named George Clooney who you may have heard of. His Baird Whitlock is a great character, a bit of a doof, a pretty actor, and a tad on the naive side. I don't want to give away who/what kidnapped him, but it provides some truly funny moments as Baird gets duped into the plan. As for the rest of the ensemble, there's Scarlett Johansson in Esther Williams mode, Ralph Fiennes as an English director of spectacle films, Channing Tatum in Gene Kelly mode, Tilda Swinton in dueling roles as twin sister gossip columnists, Frances McDormand as a mousy film editor, and Jonah Hill as an accountant of sorts who helps the studio get themselves out of a variety of different jams. These are all smaller parts though so don't expect it to be a Channing Tatum movie or Scarlett Johansson movie. These are the definition of supporting parts.

By far though, the best performance here goes to Alden Ehrenreich as Hobie Doyle, a star of B-westerns in the vein of Gene Autry/Hopalong Cassidy/Roy Rogers. A man of few words on-screen, Hobie is forced to take part in a very distinguished, high-class film -- directed by Fiennes -- that...well, makes him talk. What a hilarious character, and it works so well because Hobie seems like such a genuinely nice young actor, especially on his date with a Carmen Miranda-inspired actress (Veronica Osorio). There's not much meanness in Hobie, just a nice guy thrust into some Hollywood dramatics. His enunciation scene with Fiennes is sublimely perfect and perfectly underplayed. No matter who he's on-screen with, Ehrenreich steals those scenes and makes it look easy as he does it.

The ensemble leans toward a story with more moments than a linear plot. 'Hail' has all these great singular moments that work exceptionally well. Mannix sitting down with representatives of different churches to see if their prestige biblical epic is God-approved is priceless. Tatum's "On the Town" dance scene is ripe with innuendos and judged solely as a choreographed dance scene, a treat to watch. Johansson's swim scene looks ripped out of an Esther Williams movie, albeit with a great twist as a capper. The movie is full of these memorable moments from one scene to another that makes it fun to see where things will go next, regardless of a less than pointed, linear story. The Coen brothers script and a remarkably talented cast holds it all together and then some.

Fair warning, it will probably help your enjoyment here if you have some knowledge of Hollywood and film history. 'Hail' isn't necessarily a laugh out loud comedy. It gets its laughs from a sly line here, a clever reference there, a line inflection that brings that line to life. If you're a fan of film and movies in general, the guts and business of making those movies, Hail, Caesar! is for you. It isn't doing so hot in theaters, but I absolutely loved it. Highly recommended!

Hail, Caesar! (2016): *** 1/2 /****

Unbroken

Just a few years ago, Louis Zamperini was a name generally lost in the annals of history. He accomplished a lot, one remarkable thing after another but in the grand scheme of things? LOST in the history books. Then, a little book called Unbroken, by author Laura Hillenbrand, was published back in 2010 and EVERYBODY knew the name. It was and is a great read, a tribute to the human spirit. A huge bestseller, it was only a matter of time, right? For what you ask? For the film adaptation of course. That's today's review, 2014's Unbroken.

This is a movie that defies a straightforward plot description. It tells the slightly condensed story of Louis Zamperini (Jack O'Connell), a young Italian-American man who grew up with his family in California. Putting a troublesome childhood behind him, Louis finds his niche as a runner, eventually becoming a world-class runner who competes at the 1936 Olympics. But this stubborn, fiery young man is about to be tested as the world is thrown into WWII as a bombardier on an American bomber flying missions in the Pacific. That plane will go down with no warning in the Pacific, he will fight through a survival ordeal adrift fro longer than anyone ever has, and be moved from one brutal Japanese prison camp to another over two-plus years. What helps him survive one horrific ordeal after another? What pushes him to keep on fighting, keep on hoping and keep on surviving?

I loved Hillenbrand's non-fiction book, racing through it in a week or so. It was a book that raced through my entire family with my parents, cousins, aunts and uncles also reading it. So to say I was excited when I found out it was being adapted into a film? Yeah, an understatement. The talent assembled to film that adaptation is a big reason for the excitement, starting with Angelina Jolie directing and Joel and Ethan Coen writing the screenplay with Richard LaGravenese and William Nicholson. Just because Louis's story is so all-enveloping, any book to film adaptation is a daunting task. How do you encapsulate so much in a reasonably timed movie? I think Jolie did as good a job as possible with this remarkable true story. It's not a movie you're necessarily going to love. Instead, it's one you watch and appreciate, and for me, question how Louis and all those around him made it through World War II in a Japanese prison camp.

This is a brutal, uncomfortable movie to watch, and that's as a PG-13 film. If this was an R-rated film...my goodness. It would be nearly impossible to watch. Jolie's direction is solid throughout, a personal story of survival that does an impressive job navigating Louis' life. O'Connell is the star, but through some flashbacks we see Louie growing up (C.J. Valleroy as young Louie, John D'Leo his older brother), and how he goes from a street punk of sorts to a world class runner. With cinematographer Roger Deakins shooting the film, it's a beautiful finished product, artsy at times without hitting your head with its art. Composer Alexandre Desplat's score is okay, nothing too flashy but doing a good job supporting the ever-increasing drama.

So we've got a feisty, cocky Italian-American young man as a main character. Who should we pick? How about a red-headed and generally unknown British actor?!? I kid. O'Connell does a fine job as Louis, sporting some dyed jet black hair and some skin-darkening makeup. This is O'Connell's first big role in a major film, and he doesn't disappoint. He brings that right amount of charm and likability to a character early on that goes a long way as we see the hell Louis is put through after his bomber goes down. Dramatically, it is quite a performance, but more importantly, it is an incredibly moving emotional and physical part. From his days adrift at sea to trying to survive the POW camps with little food while being progressively beaten down by his Japanese captors -- quite literally -- we see O'Connell's Louis start to wither away. One of the most moving scenes -- and most uncomfortable -- has Louis forced to hold a heavy wooden rail tie above his head. If he drops it, a guard will shoot him. In terms of survival, it doesn't get anymore cut and dry than that.

Years down the road, I think the role that will be most well-remember is that of Takamasa Ishihara as Watanabe, a brutal, sadistic Japanese guard who earns the nickname 'the Bird' from the prisoners (because what they actually call him would produce worse repercussions) and takes a liking to Louis. What's that mean? He wants to break him down, to grind him down to nothing at all. This isn't just a job though. The Bird enjoys what he does. He enjoys torturing and pushing and beating the prisoners. It's a terrifying performance, one I'm guessing will stir some Oscar buzz. The crazy part? Ishihara is actually a Japanese singer and songwriter with little in the way of acting experience. Well, if the whole music thing doesn't work out....yeah, he's got a future in acting.

Those are the two key parts where the focus remains throughout. It's a better movie because both O'Connell and Ishihara are relative unknowns. We come into 'Unbroken' with no preconceived notions about either actor. Who else to look for? Domhnall Gleeson and Finn Wittrock are excellent with O'Connell as Louis' fellow survivors adrift at sea just trying to hold out until some sort of help (any help really) arrives with Jai Courtney playing another member of the crew. One of the more recognizable faces, Garrett Hedlund plays Fitzgerald, the highest ranking prisoner at the POW camp Louis is sent to. Maddalena Ischiale (Louis' mom), Vincenzo Amato (Louis' dad) and Alex Russell (Louis' brother) play Zamperini's family, but they're not given much to do other than look worried and/or be supportive. No big stars overall across the cast, and the movie is the better for it.

The movie is at its strongest when following Louis' 47-day ordeal adrift at sea and then his two and a half years as a prisoner of war in the Pacific and later in Japan. Reading the book, these segments were excruciating to watch at times, and Jolie does a fine job bringing the real-life story to film. I think the best choice she could have made was focusing mainly on Louis' involvement in WWII. It's just that; focused. I don't know if it is a movie I will revisit anytime soon, but it is an excellent, well-done, moving story that shows how powerful history can be. There are thousands and millions of stories that history has swallowed up over the years. It's cool, informative, moving and educational to see a story like that of Louis Zamperini brought to life. Easy to recommend the film, and if you haven't already, definitely give the book a try.

Unbroken (2014): ***/****

O Brother, Where Art Thou?

Joel and Ethan Coen are the movie director equivalents of chameleons. They do a little bit of everything from a horrifically violent, dark crime thriller like No Country for Old Men to genuinely funny (and still horrifically dark) comedies like Burn After Reading with all sorts of classics and near-classics among their filmography from Fargo to Big Lebowski, Blood Simple to Raising Arizona. But how about a story based (even loosely) off of one of literature's greatest works? A daunting task for sure. That's 2000's O Brother, Where Art Thou?

It's 1937 in the deep South and three convicts, Ulysses Everett McGill (George Clooney), Pete Hogwallop (John Turturro) and Delmar O'Donnell (Tim Blake Nelson), have managed a daring escape from their chain gang. Their reasoning? Everett told his fellow prisoners that he hid away a huge treasure from the robbery that ultimately landed him on the chain gang. He's only got a few days before the treasure's location is washed away, a valley being turned into a lake as part of a hydroelectric project. Chained together at their ankles, the fugitive trio is working against the clock, the road ahead of them full of obstacles both external and internal amidst a gubernatorial race as well. All sorts of people stand in their way, both those hoping to help them and those trying to stop them and in some cases, stop them. Time is running out, and Everett has a secret up his sleeve.

There just aren't too many directors out there with more visual and storytelling style than the Coen brothers. How many directors could pull off a transition from a poem from classic Greek mythology to a similar story in pre-WWII deep south with a heavy reliance on folk music, quirky characters and an episodic story that could be called downright random? Not too many as I sit here writing this review. The Coen Brothers on the other hand make it look pretty effortless. It is a fun movie from beginning to end, the generally random shifts in tone, humor and laughs moving things along at a brisk pace in a 107-minute movie. In other hands, things might have gotten bogged down but that certainly isn't the case here. A very solid, entertaining movie.

Through all the zaniness in the deep south, we follow our intrepid trio on their journey. The chemistry is pretty perfect, Clooney, Turturro and Nelson showing off that effortless chemistry that simply works. The Coen brothers also wrote the script, their quirky humor showing through in the three convicts. Clooney as the vain, motor-mouthed, ultra-confident Everett, the unofficial leader of the group. His preference for Dapper Dan hair pomade consistently gets him and his traveling companions in trouble, his insistence on looking his best (he wears a hair net to sleep to not muss his hair) providing some great moments. He uses $20 words when a $1 word would cut it. His long rambling monologues are pretty great, a man trying to show others how smart he is. Turturro as Pete is a bit of a wild card, prone to frustrating outbursts as their plan unravels. The best characterization goes to Blake Nelson as Delmar, the sweet, thoughtful and generally naive convict who simply has a nice, positive outlook on life.

These three out-there escaped convicts are searching for Everett's buried treasure from an armored car robbery. But naturally, what do they end up doing? They become renowned folk singers, Everett thinking quick on his feet to name themselves The Soggy Bottom Boys (based on The Foggy Mountain Boys, their hit song a cover of Man of Constant Sorrow. Whether it's the Soggy boys singing or T-Bone Burnett's folk-heavy soundtrack, the music is a hugely successful, essential ingredient to the movie's success. The music is always there, always catchy, driving the story forward, the score transitioning scene-to-scene. It's the music and style that works, the Coens using digital color correction to give 'Brother' an almost washed out, sepia look to the story. All those little things that add up to a really enjoyable movie.

We've got three crazy characters to follow across the south, but following Homer's footsteps in The Odyssey, our trio meets some odd characters on the road. Part of the fun is figuring out who's who in relation to the poem. We've got a loving-life bible salesman (John Goodman), a gubernatorial candidate (Charles Durning) seeking reelection, his hot-chasing opponent (Wayne Duvall), Everett's frustrated wife (Holly Hunter) and her new beau (Ray McKinnon), infamous gangster Baby Face Nelson (Michael Badalucco), down on his luck musician Tommy (musician Chris Thomas King), a blind radio programmer (Stephen Root), the sheriff (Daniel von Bargen) in hot pursuit, the blind seer (Lee Weaver) who warns the convicts of what awaits them and lastly, Pete's cousin (Frank Collison) who's curious why Pete just showed up...in chains.

When the Coens decide to do something, they commit to doing it right. From the set design and style to the script and the characters, their movies create these little worlds that are folksy and real and authentic. A very enjoyable movie with some great parts and a lot of laughs. An easy one to recommend.

O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000): ***/****

Inside Llewyn Davis

Maybe more than any other film that was considered for some Academy Award nominations, 2013's Inside Llewyn Davis landed with a thud when the nominations were actually released in February. It picked up just two nominations -- for Best Cinematography and Best Sound Mixing -- but won neither. Should it have picked up some other nominations? That's for others to decide. What isn't up for discussion is that awards season success aside, this is a good movie.

It's 1961 in New York City's Greenwich Village and Llewyn Davis (Oscar Isaac) is looking for work and more importantly, some money. A folk musician with a bit of a following, Llewyn released an album with a partner in recent years, but he's on his own now and struggling a bit to get by. His name has a reputation -- somewhat -- as a talented musician who's also a bit flighty. Mostly though, Llewyn wants to sing, to perform, to get his name out there and really to take his career to the next level. He's nearing rock bottom though, his money running out almost completely. It's the dead of winter and he's overextended all his relationships, his friendships, his business connections. He feels he's close, but he just needs that one break...if he can find it.

Another movie that proved difficult to write a one-paragraph plot synopsis. From the Coen brothers, Joel and Ethan, 'Inside' is a stylish, well-told, throwback-type story that follows about a week in the life of a struggling musician. It's easy to see why there was some outrage when it didn't pick up any prominent Oscar nominations. I'll get into some real analysis later, but the gist is this; it's a really good movie. Not quite a comedy, not a straight drama, it's just good.

The most obvious place to start is with directors/writers/producers Joel and Ethan Coen. There is a certain style in each and every one of their movies from Blood Simple to Fargo, True Grit to No Country for Old Men, O Brother, Where Art Thou to The Big Lebowski. The stylistic choice here is picking the location, 1960s New York City (with some out of state departures). From the look of the movie with the hairstyles, the wardrobe, the cars, the mindset, all these little things add up to one great puzzle. From beginning to end, you feel like you're in 1960s NYC. The visual is almost bland, washed out colors permeating almost every scene. As for the folk background, 'Inside' has an extreme love and appreciation for the folk music scene of the 1960s. It feels authentic down to the smallest detail, and that authenticity goes a long way. The story drifts at times, it's both dark and funny and dramatic, but it just feels real.

A young actor with a ton of potential, Oscar Isaac nails the lead part here as folk singer Llewyn Davis. He's had key supporting parts in Drive, The Bourne Legacy, 10 Years (where he also sang), and Robin Hood, but this is quite the breakout leading part. For starters, Llewyn is far from a likable character. He has moments where you feel sympathy for him, but mostly, his issues are self-made. We learn why he's on his own now and not working as a duo anymore. We learn how he's got to this spot, and most importantly, we see that desperation and frustration of an artist/musician who just wants his shot at the big time. Unlikable qualities aside, with a general lack of sympathy, I still found myself rooting for Llewyn....only to see him rip that away quickly with some jackass move. Like the story though, this has the distinct feel of an authentic character, a person with hopes and dreams, aspirations that just haven't been there so far. Likable? Nope. Interesting, fascinating to watch? Yes, you bet. Interesting to see where Isaac goes next, especially because many thought he should have picked up a Best Actor nomination for his part.

Those Cohens, they specialize in ensemble casts like nobody's business. I guess talented actors and actresses want to work with them for some reason. I especially liked Carey Mulligan as Jean, a fellow folk singer who has a checkered past with Llewyn including one major current issue. Justin Timberlake is excellent too as Jim, Jean's fiance, a singer who's carved a name out for himself already.  The pairing of John Goodman as existential-thinking jazz musician Roland Turner is a scene-stealer, Garrett Hedlund providing some 1960s beatnik background as beat poet Johnny Five, Llewyn carpooling to Chicago with the odd duo. F. Murray Abraham has a good part as a Chicago club owner who's got some pull with record labels, giving Llewyn an impromptu audition. Also look for Ethan Phillips and Robin Bartlett as the Gorfeins, a middle-aged married couple who love Llewyn and allow him to crash on their couch from time to time. Max Casella also has a fun part as Papi, a club owner who likes Llewyn and keeps offering him different gigs.

An interesting movie for a whole lot of different reasons, most of them positive. The only one I didn't like was a stylistic choice with a framing device at the beginning and end, but it's not a huge deal. In general, there's plenty of things that can/will draw you in. There's a handful of musical numbers performed -- Isaac especially impressing -- with a nice nod to Bob Dylan late if you're paying attention. But across the board, whether it's the music, the story, the style, the acting, it's just good stuff. Enjoy it, appreciate it.

Inside Llewyn Davis (2013): ***/****

Miller's Crossing

Quirky, darkly funny, extremely violent, all trademarks of the films of the Coen brothers, Joel and Ethan. You basically know what you're getting yourself into when you head into a Coen brothers film. While I've liked all their movies -- some more than others -- I've noticed a recurring trend. The movies? They're entertaining and technically? Pretty much perfect. But they often keep you at arm's length, forcing you to watch a story develop without having a huge interest or personal investment in the characters. Win-lose? That was my first thought on 1990's Miller's Crossing.

It's the Prohibition and in an unnamed city, Irish gangster Leo (Albert Finney) rules with an iron fist, his right-hand man, Tom Reagan (Gabriel Byrne), at his side. Leo's power is hanging in the balance though, Tom seeing that things can change with the snap of a finger. The hard-drinking, gambling Tom is caught in the middle and not helping matters by sleeping with Verna (Marcia Gay Harden), Leo's girl. While Leo tries to hold onto his power, an Italian gangster, Johnny Caspar (Jon Polito), is moving quickly to step into what he hopes will be a power void. Able to think things through easily, Tom concocts a plan to get out cleanly, but with so much on the line, nothing is going to be easy, and it's going to come at a bloody price.

In his 1990 review, Roger Ebert pointed out that 'Crossing' is the best of two worlds; a gangster pic with a film noir setting. At its best, it succeeds because of that. Made on a relatively small budget, it wreaks of authenticity (I mean that in the positive sense by the way) from the 1920s period authentic suits and hats to the classic cars to the weaponry. It feels like we've been dropped into a 1920s city about to be torn apart by a mob war. The look of the movie is incredible, dark colors and backgrounds, shadows everywhere hiding things as needed only to reveal secrets suddenly and shockingly. The heavily Irish-themed score  (listen HERE) from Carter Burwell is hit or miss, but when it works, it really works. I get it. 'Crossing' is a great movie to watch and revel in, enjoying it for all the elements that help make a movie a classic.

Yeah, that's right. Here comes the curveball. Why then do I feel so apathetic to the movie? It was a good movie, but it is missing that special something. The cast -- more on that later -- is immensely talented, the script full of witty banter, surprising, startling violence, and a twisting, turning story that only comes together late. But many reviews I read simply said "You should like this movie if not love it." Not many actually say why so in my head? I'm thinking people like this movie simply because they're told to. Yes, I know there's more to it than that. It's a cold movie, one that I enjoyed but didn't jump into head first. I wasn't particularly interested in any of the characters so as the story threw twists and turns at me, I wasn't surprised, shocked or even that interested. I hear reviewers say "It gets better on repeated viewings." To me, that sounds like a huge cop-out.

Now just because the characters aren't likable doesn't mean the performances aren't worth mentioning. A self-identified 'son of a bitch,' Byrne's Tom is the perfect anti-hero. He's a lead character who is nearly impossible to read, much less completely figure him out. I especially liked the brotherly, even father-son relationship, between Byrne and Finney's Leo. It's the longtime partner and the veteran crime boss, both very talented in their unique fields. Polito is a surprising scene-stealer as Caspar, the Italian (eye-talian according to the Irish) gangster caught up in a developing mob war, and Harden is an out of left field but dead-on pick for Verna, the femme fatale. John Turturro is appropriately slimy as Bernie, Verna's conniving brother, J.E. Freeman as Dane, Caspar's enforcer of sorts, Steve Buscemi as the weaselly Mink, and Mike Starr and Al Mancini as Caspar's on-the-street enforcers. Frances McDormand (the Mrs. Joel Coen) also has a small part as the Mayor's secretary.

Many of the usual Coen brothers touches are there. The violence isn't graphic, but it certainly jumps off the screen. A hit attempt gone wrong on Finney's Leo is a gem, the experienced Irish gangster blazing away with a stolen tommy gun, seemingly never reloading despite firing hundreds of rounds. The sound and visual is indescribable in this extended scene. For the most part, the touches are a little off though. Attempts at that very dark, even sinister, humor felt incredibly out of place and even forced at other times. Other scenes are just plain weird, like Caspar slapping his son for telling him what he had for lunch or a schlub boxer screaming like a little girl while someone else gets beaten. The story is pointed and knows where it wants to go so these outlandish attempts at the dark humor fell short for me.

I'll give credit where it's due though. Emotionally investing? Maybe not, but 'Crossing' is definitely an interesting movie. Many parts felt like the script was trying to tell us something, deliver a profound message. Symbolism is everywhere, leading many fans/viewers to make all sorts of crazy conclusions, many of them oddly related to whether all the male characters were gay. Tom's hat comes to take on a deeper meaning, but what exactly? I can't say I even have the vaguest notion. Maybe this is a movie that would drastically improve with repeat viewings, but while I moderately enjoyed it the first time, I don't see myself revisiting it very soon. I feel like I've been writing this a lot lately, but here it is again. Lots of potential, didn't quite live up to it for me.

Miller's Crossing <---trailer (1990): ** 1/2 /****

True Grit (2010)

My usual stance on remakes is why bother remaking a good movie? There's hundreds and thousands of bad movies made over the years that would benefit from a do-over.  So with that idea, I was both excited and skeptical when I heard the news that the Coen brothers were remaking the 1969 western True Grit.  It's a solid western best known for John Wayne's performance, one that earned him the only Oscar of his already impressive career.  I love westerns, but this was one -- even with its flaws -- that really didn't need to be remade.  Well, my curiosity got the best of me, and all suspicions aside I did want to see this 2010's True Grit.

Joel and Ethan Coen have shown a knack for making great movies out of the simplest ideas.  With the talent involved and a strong source novel to work off of by Charles Portis, it would be hard for such two talented directors to mess this up.  I read all the reviews and the on-set reports when the movie was being filmed.  The remake would stick closer to the period appropriate dialogue of the novel and not the 1969 version, it would have little of the comedy Coen fans have come to expect, and most of all it would be consistently period authentic.  I was more skeptical because the trailer looked to mimic the movie, not the book.  And what did I take away? It's a completely unnecessary remake of a movie, but an entertaining and well-made (if a little cold) remake.

After her father was murdered by a hired hand, Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin), 14-year old Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) travels to Fort Smith, Arkansas to pick up her father's body.  Of course, she has some other plans. Chaney rode out of town after the murder and disappeared into the Indian Territory, but no law intends to follow him.  Mattie hires a fat, one-eyed drunk of a U.S. Marshal with a hard-earned reputation, Ruben 'Rooster' Cogburn (Jeff Bridges), to bring Chaney to justice so he can hang for what he did.  A Texas Ranger, LaBoeuf (Matt Damon), is also on Chaney's trail and decides to tag along with Cogburn who inteds to leave the strong-willed Mattie behind. Mattie has other ideas, joining them on the trail as they head into the territory after her father's killer.

Starting with the claims that the Coens insisted on period accuracy, well, it's spot on.  The dialogue sounds like conversations someone would have had in the late 1860s and early 1870s in Arkanas and Oklahoma, a tribute to Portis' source novel.  The pitch, sound and even the give and take of the dialogue sound more authentic than just about any other western I've seen.  That's the whole movie, authentic down to the smallest details.  The west was a nasty place where men would spend days and weeks on the trail without a chance at a bath or a soft bed.  That lack of niceties reflects on how they looked as you'll see in the movie.  Everything from the clothes to the hats to the guns and firearms is real.  This is no glamorized look at what the romantic wild west was like.  This was a time where only the tough survived because if you weren't, you'd be dead in minutes.

If you're going to hire an actor to play a role that many consider to be among John Wayne's best, you had better choose someone who is up to the task.  Wisely, Jeff Bridges does not play Rooster Cogburn like Wayne did, putting his own spin on this already well-known character.  Yes, the basics are there, the ratty eye-patch, the constant drinking, the unkempt look.  Bridges still manages to make Rooster endearing through all his flaws and faults with an honesty and a code of honor that's helped him survive several years working as  a U.S. Marshal.  He isn't a particularly heroic man, but he does what's necessary to get the job done, principles be damned.  Bridges is one of my favorite actors, and I'm glad he was given a chance to play a role like this.  Immediately talk of Oscar buzz started around his performance.  I don't know if it's Oscar worthy, but with a part that could have blown up in his face, he made it his own.

One of the biggest flaws of the 1969 True Grit is the casting of the Mattie and LaBoeuf characters, but here the casting of those two integral parts is a strong point of the movie.  Young 14-year old Steinfeld is a scene-stealer as strong-willed, downright stubborn Mattie Ross.  She intends to see her father's killer brought to justice, and nothing is going to stop her.  Every so often, a glimmer of the fact that she's still a kid shines through, including one early campfire scene.  More than that though, what works so well is her ease in scenes with such accomplished actors.  She has a great chemistry with Bridges especially and shares a great scene with Damon late in the movie.  As for Damon as the Texas Ranger, he too puts his own unique spin on the part.  He's got a twang to his voice and provides a suitable counter to Cogburn's drunken antics.  Brolin's part as Tom Chaney amounts to an extended cameo, and also look for the underrated Barry Pepper as Lucky Ned Pepper, the leader of the gang Chaney signs on with.

So what's missing from the movie? I've thought about it, and just can't come up with anything.  I read Portis' novel years ago and don't remember it making much of an impression on me so I can't say if the tone is dead-on.  It's a beautiful movie, starkly filmed in Texas with Carter Burwell's period-appropriate score playing in the background. The story can be a little slow getting where it wants, but even then it's about 20 minutes shorter than the 1969 version.  There isn't much in the way of action, but when it comes around, it's startling and violent although not as graphic as other Coen brothers movies.  Some major things have changed -- including one key character's demise and another surprising twist in an epilogue -- but for the better.  The ending (like much of the movie overall) left me cold even considering it is scary in how appropriate it is for both the characters involved and the story overall.

Now no matter how good the 2010 version is it's impossible not to compare it to the 1969 version which I'm planning on reviewing in a week or so.  My biggest question is the iconic scene where Cogburn charges across a field, reins in his teeth, a six-shooter in either hand at Pepper's gang with the famous line 'Fill your hands, you son of a bitch!' Thankfully Bridges and Co. nail the scene and the following fall-out.  So how do I rate this movie? I liked it but didn't love it.  It's nothing particularly new, but it is a good old-fashioned western story, good guys vs. bad guys.  It is completely unnecessary, but I liked it in the end because of the immense talents involved in making it.

True Grit <---trailer (2010): ***/**** 

Burn After Reading

Over a career that's spanned 20-plus years and is showing absolutely no signs of slowing down, the Coen brothers, Joel and Ethan, have given movie fans a long list of often bizarre stories that are successful because of their weirdness. With movies like Fargo, The Big Lebowski, O Brother Where Art Thou, The Ladykillers, and Intolerable Cruelty, the brother directing combo has set a tone for their off-the-wall, extremely dark sense of humor. But of all their movies -- funny or serious -- my new favorite is 2008's Burn After Reading.

Imagine 2004's Crash as a model for this Coen brothers comedy where all the characters are somehow linked, although they don't even know about it. Their stories cross repeatedly in a story of extremely low-level political intrigue that ends up in murder and mayhem. Sounds hilarious, doesn't it? Working with such high quality directors like the Coens must appeal to big name actors because the cast assembled here is as pitch perfect as possible with several stars playing completely against type, their image that has helped make them stars.

A long-time analyst for the CIA Balkan desk, Osborne Cox (John Malkovich) is being reassigned because of a drinking problem which he may or may not have. Much to his wife's chagrin (Tilda Swinton), Osborne decides to write a memoir about his days in the CIA. After some early struggles, the disk with all of Osborne's files ends up in the very uncapable hands of two gym employees, Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand), a middle-aged woman who's decided she's gone as far as she can with this body and needs massive amounts of plastic surgery, and Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt), Linda's dimwitted friend who goes along with her plan for some reason. Thinking they've stumbled on to a jackpot, Linda and Chad attempt to blackmail Osborne into paying for his CD back. So starts events that snowball and gets much, much worse before they'll get better.

The first 30 minutes or so set the stage and introduce all the characters and because of that is somewhat slow. There's also Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney), a U.S. marshal and generally pretty clueless guy who's having an affair with Cox's wife, and Ted (Richard Jenkins), the manager of the gym Linda and Chad work at who is also madly in love with Linda. The pace picks up quickly once they do find the CD, and it never really slows down from there. I'm not talking a chuckle here and there, I mean deep, guttural laughs from your stomach where you feel you're going to pee. It is as dark as dark humor can get, completely born out of the situation these idiotic characters have created for themselves.

While the whole cast is phenomenal, the star is Brad Pitt who has a supporting role and limited screentime as dimwitted but lovable Chad. Pitt has done comedy before, but nothing quite like this. He pulls off the physical humor -- Chad is always dancing with his ever-present IPOD never too far away -- and completely commits to looking like a dork. Here's a fan-made best of Chad moments. I hope Pitt continues with these against type comedic roles. That's not to say the rest of the cast isn't good, but Pitt steals the movie. Malkovich gets to play the straight man and is hilarious because he is playing it seriously. His Osborne Cox is just going through a rough patch that gets worse and worse every day. McDormand does not disappoint either as plastic surgery driven Linda.

What makes this all work (besides the absolute idiocy of the characters' reactions) is the commitment to making this a serious movie. There's no pandering to audiences with easy laughs or clues -- LAUGH NOW, THIS IS FUNNY! -- with the Coen brothers script building to these crazy moments, including one of the funniest scenes ever, a meeting between Chad and Osborne. Selling this all is a perfect score from composer Carter Burwell which sounds like something you'd hear in a political thriller and therefore is completely out of place. It works because it points out the ridiculousness of it all.

As for the last 30 minutes or the movie, think of Fargo's finale and you've got an idea of where this story is going. The bodies mount up and the paranoia grows as everyone assumes someone else is trying to turn them in. It builds to a great ending with J.K. Simmons and David Rasche as two CIA officers trying to figure out exactly what's happening (seen HERE, not the greatest quality). If you enjoy extremely dark comedy or are a fan of previous Coen movies, this one should be right up your alley.

Burn After Reading <----trailer (2008): ****/****