The dialogue (and almost everything else) is almost identical to the 1969 original. Aside from small differences to make it appear more 'authentic', this movie is a copy. Not a re-make. Why did they bother?

Jeff Bridges gets to put his own spin on the character of Reuben "Rooster" Cogburn, first portrayed by an Oscar-winning John Wayne in the 1969 film adaptation. Rooster is hired by a very plucky 14 year old girl, Mattie Ross (debuting Hailee Steinfeld), who wants to avenge her father. Dad was murdered by the cowardly Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin), who made out for Indian territory and who may now be riding with an outlaw, Ned Pepper (Barry Pepper), and his gang. They are joined by a determined Texas Ranger, LaBoeuf (Matt Damon), who wants to arrest Chaney for a crime committed in the Lone Star state.This new version of the Charles Portis novel was scripted and directed by the great filmmaking brothers Joel and Ethan Coen, who treat the material respectfully, even reverently. The dialogue is antiquated, yet quite literate, and it truly comes to life when spoken by this well-chosen cast. The story is straightforward and without filler, the pacing very efficient. Serious at times (and funny at other times), the film never veers too far into melodrama. It hits the ground running, with an older Mattie (Elizabeth Marvel) narrating and giving us the back story of Mr. Ross' killing. Two frequent Coen brothers collaborators work some real magic: cinematographer Roger Deakins, whose widescreen compositions are wonderful, and composer Carter Burwell, whose music is breathtaking.Bridges completely disappears inside the role of the surly, tough, hard drinking marshal, while Damon gives one of his better performances. Brolin and Pepper don't show up until around the 80 minute mark, but do extremely effective work. As soon as you meet Chaney, you know you loathe him; he's that much of a heel. The strong supporting cast includes Dakin Matthews, Paul Rae, Domhnall Gleeson, and Leon Russom; it's also great to see Jarlath Conroy from George Romeros' "Day of the Dead" as the undertaker. But young Steinfeld leaves the greatest impression, giving us a heroine who is capable, determined, and very mature for her age, a girl who can hold her own dealing with a character like Stonehill (Matthews)."True Grit" 2010 is sometimes violent (and strikingly so), but is basically just a good, solid example of impassioned storytelling that maintains viewer interest for the better part of two hours.Eight out of 10.

Terrible. People didn't speak like that in the late 19th Century. I have early recordings from around the turn of the century, and except for an Eastern accent, people actually spoke in contractions just like we do today! They wouldn't be that hard to understand. Some dialog coach decided that every word should be spoken without contractions in a robotic manner. I tried to keep it out of my mind, but the delivery of almost every actor was so stilted that I couldn't continue after 20 minutes of "See Dick run. Run, run, run. See Jane. See Jane run. See Spot run, run run run." It ruined the movie for me. I don't care what happened in it. I deleted it from my queue.

One annoying thing about the contemporary film scene, is that we find ourselves occupying a similar state as cinema goers did in the early 1930's. It's that creative expression in cinema and indeed television is subject to heavy scrutiny, from agencies looking to exploit opportunities to create capital from some controversy. An example of such would be the contrived controversy over the character Simple Jack in Tropic Thunder. The result is a kind of mealy mouthing within scripts to placate numerous sensibilities.This is what I feel must've occurred with the 2010 version of True Grit, all the toothsome material from the book has been omitted, it's in effect, a bowdlerised adaptation. Worse though, is the pointless deviation from the source material which completely guts one scene in particular and seems motiveless.After watching it, my overwhelming feeling was, why bother, why did they actually spend the time an money making this flic? The original version stands up much better as a piece of cinema and interpretation of the novel and has become a something of a classic, albeit a misunderstood one.