The Coen Brother’s take on the novel True Grit by Charles Portis proves to be rather entertaining. Unlike the book, we do not see things only from Mattie’s perspective. We are able to see the whole picture and not just listen to her feelings specifically. Overall, the story told in the book remains the same as that presented in the movie; Mattie seeks out help from Marshall Rooster Cogburn in an attempt to find her father’s killer. There were a few scenes cut out from the book and LaBoeuf’s character was greatly changed in my opinion. The particularly effective portrayal of Mattie by Hailee Steinfeld was in my opinion what made the film an overall success. She does personify the character in the book. She is witty, savvy, and does not conform to the word no. In the book I grew annoyed at times because we would always seem everything from Mattie’s perspective, I enjoyed that the movie did not focus too much on her thoughts. Jeff Bridges also portrayed Rooster Cogburn very well in the movie I think he was true to the brutal ways of Cogburn. He showed no mercy and really did have True Grit. LaBoeuf was a character I disliked in the novel; however, I did not really care for him at all in the movie. I was rather upset that his role in …show more content…
I for one am not a fan of “old west” movies as they tend to be cliche and overrated. True Grit was neither of those things. It came across as a well developed story and there were no gaps in the storyline. I enjoyed everything besides the cut of one of my favorite scenes. I think I would recommend the movie rather than the book for one reason. Due to the fact that the book is told in Mattie’s perspective she over explains things and reading her thoughts almost becomes tedious over the course of the novel. In the film we see Mattie’s character from an outside perspective, it’s refreshing and doesn’t let us get as easily annoyed with her. Both the film and the novel are entertaining pieces of
While watching the movie, I could see that the main characters in the book, both their names and traits, were the same in both the movie and book. However, aside from that there were many different as...
One of the main products of this movie that popped out to me was the stars. They all seemed to be great actors even though I only knew one of them. For example, I thought that Ian Michael Smith did a great job portraying Simon Birch. He made the movie cute and funny all at once. I also thought that Joseph Mazello did a great job portraying relatable feelings in the movie. You could tell by his facial expressions what his mood was. All the actors did a great job and I can’t pinpoint one of them who did worse than the
Stark contrasts exist between the description of the characters and emotional content between the book and the movie. This may be mainly due to the limited length of the movie. In the movie, Rat Kiley who is telling the story seems gentler. In the book they make it seem like everything Rat says is exaggerated, but the movie does not stress that fact. “Among the men in Alpha Company, Rat had a reputation for exaggeration and overstatement, a compulsion to rev up the facts, and for most of us it was normal procedure to discount sixty or seventy percent of anything he had to say” (O’Brien 89). Also, the movie emphasizes the fact that Rat Kiley fell in love with Mary Anne Bell. He himself says he loved her towards the end of the movie. A character that people may tend to have sympathy for is Mark Fossie. In the book, one may not feel for Fossie. The movie shows the character having more feeling especially after he couldn’t find Mary Anne. A third character that is portrayed differently in the movie than in the book is Mary Anne, who is the main female character of the chapter. The movie stressed the fact that Mary Anne wanted to learn more about the Vietnamese way of life. There was a scene in the movie where Mary Anne spent time with the Vietnamese soldiers learning their language and how to cook their food. They also show her going ...
In the movie, they missed things or changed parts, but they also quoted the book quiet a lot and make the story more a like. Most of the most important parts were in the movie. They missed one of the camps that Corrie was sent to and the didn’t show much of the 100th year party of the watch shop besides a picture. I liked the book way more than the movie because the book had more detail and made you understand what that part of WWII was like more than the movie does. In the book Corrie is learning how to have more faith and trust in God more but in the movie, she had a lot of faith the whole time and she didn’t struggle with that as much. I enjoyed reading about that because it made me feel like I’m not the only one that struggles.
Lennie was explained as a beast in the book and, "his shoulders could fill the doorway." In the movie he was stronger and bigger than the others were but not to the extreme amount that the book portrayed him to be. Every other thing about Lennie was extremely as the book told it.I felt that the movie was wonderful and I loved it as much as I loved the book. I would give the movie a 10 because it was so great. The only parts that I didn't like were in the end it didn’t make me as sad as the book made me feel. I felt so into the dream the Lennie and George shared that I was sad when it was destroyed.
Some of the characters in the novel, like Lennie, are portrayed differently in the movie. In the novel, Lennie is said to be “a huge man” (2), but in the movie he isn’t very big, although he is bigger than George and some of the other characters. In the movie he is stronger and bigger than the others, but not to the extreme amount that the book portrays him to be. Also, Lennie is depicted as very mentally challenged, which is shown by the way he speaks. Whereas in the book, Lennie is said to have a mind of a young child instead of being disabled. As well as Lennie, Curley’s wife is represented a little bit differently. In the movie,...
The movie is, most likely, done well enough to intrigue its intended audience. It captured the theme and story line of the book. It falls short, though, when compared to the beautiful, sensitive and contemplative prose of Natalie Babbitt. One could only hope that a viewing of the film will lead the watcher to try the book and be delighted all the more.
I was overall pleased with the movie, because it stayed fairly close to the book's descriptions and the storyline. The storyline didn’t change except for the Hound dieing. The book and movie had many more differences and a lot of similarities yet they had the same storyline.
I have only included what I have to believe are largely important plot gaps and differences in the movie version in comparison to the book one, and so I apologize again if I have missed any other major ones. Forgive me, please.
Charles Portis’s famous novel True grit published in 1968 was the basis of both the 1969 and the 2010 movie. The 2010 movie by the Coen Brothers covers a lot of stuff from the book, but I think they made the character Mattie a lot different then the book. In the book Mattie was a 14 teen year old girl who wasn't afraid of anything, and was not afraid to take revenge on her fathers killer Tom Chaney. Some of events in the movie made her look tough but the actor was too nice and cute to play Mattie. They also made her way more emotional than in the book. Even though they covered most of the events of the book I still don't like the way they made the movie.
The book and the movie were both very good. The book took time to explain things like setting, people’s emotions, people’s traits, and important background information. There was no time for these explanations the movie. The book, however, had parts in the beginning where some readers could become flustered.
One thing that can make a book good is characters. In the book, there were many more animals in the farm. The movie did not show many animals except for the main animals. Even thought this is a small difference, it can be noticeable. In the book, Mollie was a character.
No one could have played Rex better than Woody Harrelson. The director did a respectable job of casting people who would have looked like the author described them in the book. Overall, the movie did a fantastic job of portraying the major events and showing the overall theme of the book. Watching the movie, you notice a few differences. For example, Lori has glasses on and in the book, she did not get glasses until later in the story.
Merriam Webster says grit is defined as unyielding courage in the face of hardship or danger. Angela Lee Duckworth’s opinion about grit being the key to success is true and correct. Her points about the kids that didn’t have the highest IQ but were the grittiest and were the most successful in the class showed that grit has to do with success. Another point that she makes is that talent doesn’t make you gritty. Just because someone has more talent than another person doesn’t mean that he or she is better. Hard work beats talent when talent doesn’t work hard. The final point that Angela makes is that growth mindset is a good way for building grit. Angela said that growth mindset is the belief that the ability to learn is not fixed, but can be changed with your effort.
I believe that hard work is the real treasure of a person because without hard work we cannot achieve our dreams and goals in life. No one can achieve success without doing hard work. It starts when we stop looking for alternatives or shortcuts towards success. We need to remember that there are no short cuts to success. Hard work, complimented with an intense desire to struggle and to achieve success is the only sure way of reaching success that you have always wanted. Hard work is one of the secret for us to be successful in life. Laziness and sluggishness makes one’s life a curse and only hard work can make your life a blessing. We cannot work hard if we don’t have goals. The meaning of goal according to Wikipedia is a desired result of a