So, I actually thought this movie was kind of bad. That quote pretty much covered my experience -- my sister and I saw the movie together, neither of us had read the novel nor seen earlier adaptions, and we spent the first like, 50 or so minutes just exchanging bewildered looks every couple scenes. We were pretty lost. Eventually we got in step with the movie, but many of the scenes were diminished by the narrative confusion (for me, at least). We came out of the movie thinking it was an absolute mess.
To be fair, I think the messy sequences was (obviously) intentional, and I could feel that, even when I was caught off guard or confused by a flashback. The movie definitely had a style. But that's not enough to make up for a badly told story, imo. The fragmented nature of the movie was pretty, but it felt to me like I was watching a series of artful commercials or a giant montage.
It felt very disordered and granted that was intentional, but I still didn't understand like, the pay off? I'm just not sure what we gained from the nonlinear narrative, beyond an excuse to skip transitions. Confusion, I can get over. But it was frustrating that there was no real reason for it. A lot of emotional scenes didn't land, because they didn't have the buildup to earn their punch. The characters felt like sketches/archetypes, not real people. I didn't feel very connected to them -- save for Amy -- which is the real rub.
And, while I'm always thankful for cultural sensitivity, the movie went out of its way to be woke in way that pulled me out of the story and felt kind of unnatural and dishonest for its period. (Lol, that said, I did appreciate Amy's scene and the marriage is an economic propsition line. It was so great, it worked for me just as an awesome speech, even if it came too early for me to feel its weight as a character moment.)
The movie just felt kind of shallow, honestly. The style kind of reminded me of the flashback sequences of Zack Snyder's Superman movie. (Which like now strikes me as an absurd comparison, but whatever, it did.) Like -- okay, pretty, atmospheric, and I register what you're evoking, but it's not particularly sincere and I feel nothing. That being said, like 100% this movie was still 10x better man of steel. Obviously. I feel bad comparing the two, cos I remember kind of detesting that movie, and I actually didn't detest this.
There were moments that were awesome enough to enjoy beyond all my other shit. Amy's speech for one, but also just Amy. Greta Gerwig's adaption had such a wonderful Amy, and I think she deserves a lot of credit for that, along with Florence Pugh. I genuinely enjoyed her enough to wanna rewatch parts of the movie, she was just a delight. And there was also the scene early on, Jo burning Beth's hair, which I also loved. The loudness and wildness was so great, and I could feel being in that room. It was also like so much a scene of girls being girls, which is something I don't often get to see on screen, and rarely get to see fully appreciated for what it is. Which really, as I write this, reminds me that there's enough to like about this movie to not shit all over it. It had some genuinely great moments.
Still, on the whole, I thought it was kind of a bad movie. I did consider that maybe this movie wasn't meant for me (someone unfamiliar with the story), but that wasn't a satisfying excuse. I watched the 90s adaption of Little Women (the Winona Ryder) a while after seeing this one, and I was surprised how much more I enjoyed this story, and its characters. (Again, except for Amy, I def missed Gerwig and Pugh's version of Amy while watching the adaption.) Anyway, this is only relevant cos it makes me feel more like Gerwig's adaption really fell short of the story.
Anyway, whew. That's most my impression done. Genuinely sorry to anyone reading this far into this post. Truly didn't mean to write a massive essay. My bad, guys.
