Here are what some of the sites I follow had to say about True Grit:
From The Ludovico Technique (full review):

It’s just a shame to see the Coen Brothers abandon their tenacity and hard-edged cynicism in favor of folksy charm. With True Grit, they’ve made an accessible, spunky little western-comedy that’s as beautifully composed and formally presentable as they come – it’s also about as empty as those glass whiskey bottles that a scruffy Rooster Cogburn so casually discards.

From Not Just Movies (full review):

Just as the filmmaking duo put Cormac McCarthy’s anti-thriller on the screen with remarkable fealty, they adapt Charles Portis’ novel faithfully, more faithfully than the 1969 film starring John Wayne. Portis’ book is a light read, enjoyable but sprinkled with contradictions it never addresses. In sticking to the letter of the novel, the Coens transpose those issues and undermine them without turning the material against itself.

From The Dark of the Matinee (full review):

This movie takes those Coen-isms and dots a grim and classic tale with them. In many ways it contains touchstones of all their greatest films, while still being very faithful to the source material. While flawed, the resulting tale of payback is a sobering look at a desire for justice the law cannot provide, and the sort of damage it can do to a person’s conscience.

From Random Ramblings of a Demented Doorknob (full review):

Still, the third act wasn’t a complete waste. Unlike No Country, there were some redeeming factors in its finale. And the overall film was definitely worth seeing. Between the writing and humor, the good cinematography, and the (mostly) great acting and directing, True Grit is a fine western. Was it my favorite western I’d seen this month? No, but it wasn’t the worst, either. I say it’s pretty far up there in the most enjoyable, though.

And of course, from Manohla Dargis from the New York Times (full review):

[The Coens] have been surprisingly faithful to the tone and idiomatic tang of Mr. Portis’s novel, perhaps because its worldview suits their ironic purposes. The whiskey-soaked Rooster still likes to “pull a cork,” as he does in the book, and the Coens and Mr. Bridges get into the boozy spirit of things with slurs and pratfalls.

What did you think of True Grit?

Peter Morgan, who’s written fantastic films like Frost/Nixon, and The Queen, wrote the script for Hereafter.  It’s kind of a lite version of Babel, the story spans three seemingly unrelated stories across cities (San Francisco, London, and Paris) that end up sharing more in common than is immediately apparent.  There’s the authentically talented psychic (Matt Damon) who calls his skill a curse.  There’s a French television journalist, who died for a few moments while in the throes of a Sri Lanka-esque tidal wave, and has what she decides is a vision of the afterlife.  And there’s a young Brit, who loses his twin brother in an accident, and his heroin-addict mother to social services.  And in the most forced, and unbelievable scene in the film’s two hour run time, the three meet up at the London Book Fair.

Eastwood does deserve praise for the particularly well shot opening scene involving the French journalist and the tsunami she’s swept up in.  It’s tight, and dramatic and feels dreadfully realistic, literally eliciting a level of anxiety rare for even horror films.

The early scenes in France take place in French, and only turn to French-accented English half-way through the film.  But Eastwood’s antiquated version of Europe, where hospitals are quaintly historical, and secluded buildings nestled up against picturesque mountains, seems overly-simplistic.  Similarly, his British characters are never demanded more than to have serious vices, and even more serious faces.  A bit of multi-dimensionality would have have added to the ruminative tone.  Despite these complaints, Eastwood still provided a certain amount of satisfaction when it comes to these characters.  They may not be the most compelling characters, but on some level, I cared about where they were headed, and even more so, where they ended up.

Most off putting about the film, however, is its entire view of the hereafter.  It rings overly nostalgic, but at the same time, tepid in its convictions.  Perhaps this is the cynic in me.  The subject matter clearly discourages a definitive stance on the issue.  It is, after all, something no one really has first-person experience.  However, Eastwood had an opportunity to take us their with the film, and bring us back to make our own conclusions.  Instead, sentimentality, and a scarcely believable love story take center stage.

3 out of 4 stars

There is no plot in this film.  Really, there’s not.  It follows two friends, both named Gerry, as they wander into the desert to go to a ‘thing.’  After getting half way to the ‘thing’ they decide to turn back, but they get lost.  For (as I count it) four days, they stumble around the desert looking for their car, climbing hilltops.  Not only are the two both named Gerry, but they use the word gerry (probably why it’s not capitalized on the poster) as a transitive verb, meaning to screw up.  The dialogue is completely useless, never discussing anything of value.  In fact, the most interesting topics talked about are Pat Sajak, and a fictional video game.  Click here for mindnumbing memorable quotes.  The best part of the whole film is the cinematography, which was brilliant.  Filmed in the Salt Flats of Utah, the scenary is breathtaking, and a welcomed contrast to the situation the two twenty somethings find themselves in.

The film is more experimental than it is a coherent narrative.  Director Gus Van Sant chose (well, he was forced by budget constraints) to preserve film.  This led to extremely long shots (some approach ten minutes).  One shot focuses in on the profiles of the the two Gerrys (played by Casey Affleck and Matt Damon who also co-wrote the script with Van Sant) as they walk side by side.  For ten minutes.  In silence.  It’s understandable why this movie decisively split critics.  It seems that Van Sant, feeling a little icky after going so mainstream with his previous three films: Psycho, Finding Forrester, and Good Will Hunting, decided to return to his minimalist indie roots, but went a little too far in that direction.  Despite all the these complaints, I couldn’t bring myself to turn off the film.  Gerry, for one reason or another, fascinated me, and even though I saw another fantastic movie immediately after it, I couldn’t stop thinking about Gerry after both were over.  Check it out if you think you have the patience.

3 out of 4 stars

Rottentomatoes: 61% – Cream of the Crop: 50%

Gerry