Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER

Cranberry

Little Women (2019)

Recommended Posts

I haven't liked a Little Women adaptation since the 1949 version (that may be because it was the one I watched the most as a kid, although I watched it again recently and I still adore June Allyson's Jo), but this one may change that. 

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/06/exclusive-first-look-greta-gerwig-and-saoirse-ronan-little-women

Quote

Gerwig shot on location in the book’s Massachusetts setting, where Alcott and her three sisters grew up. The director researched locations that the family could have inhabited, and in some cases, ones they really did—like the schoolhouse where Alcott’s firebrand father, Bronson, taught. “It gives gravity to what you’re doing,” Ronan says. “The physical place really reminds you of the story you’re trying to tell.” Gerwig also relied on paintings from the era, to give the film a vividness that the black-and-white and sepia portraits of the era couldn’t accomplish. An 1870 painting by Winslow Homer called High Tide created the texture for the beach scene; costume designer Jacqueline Durran modeled Jo’s look after a figure in the work.

Everything in this article sounds promising...

Quote

Alcott never married, prompting modern speculation about her sexuality. (In the book, Jo wears men’s clothes and laments her femininity, which adds to that speculation.) In Little Women, Jo’s friendship with Laurie is proving ground for a different kind of gendered relationship.

“Jo is a girl with a boy’s name, Laurie is a boy with a girl’s name,” Gerwig pointed out. “In some ways they are each other’s twins.” A subtle connection between the two in the film is their wardrobe; Durran had them swap articles of clothing throughout the story.

The only thing giving me pause is Emma Watson. I like Emma Watson as a person, but her acting can be a little lacking, and everyone else in this movie is so good (Meryl Streep is Aunt March!) that she might look worse in comparison. I know some people don't like Emma Stone, but I do and I'm bummed that Watson replaced her.

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/film-tv/a22830604/little-women-remake-spoilers-casting-rumors-greta-gerwig/

  • Love 3

Share this post


Link to post

12 minutes ago, Cranberry said:

I haven't liked a Little Women adaptation since the 1949 version (that may be because it was the one I watched the most as a kid, although I watched it again recently and I still adore June Allyson's Jo), but this one may change that. 

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/06/exclusive-first-look-greta-gerwig-and-saoirse-ronan-little-women

Everything in this article sounds promising...

The only thing giving me pause is Emma Watson. I like Emma Watson as a person, but her acting can be a little lacking, and everyone else in this movie is so good (Meryl Streep is Aunt March!) that she might look worse in comparison. I know some people don't like Emma Stone, but I do and I'm bummed that Watson replaced her.

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/film-tv/a22830604/little-women-remake-spoilers-casting-rumors-greta-gerwig/

That's my favorite version too. Followed by the 70s one which follows the book a lot more closely, Winona Ryder one in third and the 1930s one in last place. I'll watch it but I'm not expecting it to beat 1949 one.

  • Love 3

Share this post


Link to post

Huh, I wonder who is playing John Brooke? Is Rupert Grint available to play opposite Emma? 😉 Too gimmicky?

I liked the 90's version of LW, and was a little salty about them doing another version so soon, Meryl or no Meryl. I never liked the 40's version, because I found June Allyson's Jo to be obnoxious. As far as this new adaptation, I might give it a shot. I'll just have to swallow my dislike for Laura Dern, much in the same way I did for Susan Sarandon's Marmee.

  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ChicksDigScars said:

Huh, I wonder who is playing John Brooke? Is Rupert Grint available to play opposite Emma? 😉 Too gimmicky?

I liked the 90's version of LW, and was a little salty about them doing another version so soon, Meryl or no Meryl. I never liked the 40's version, because I found June Allyson's Jo to be obnoxious. As far as this new adaptation, I might give it a shot. I'll just have to swallow my dislike for Laura Dern, much in the same way I did for Susan Sarandon's Marmee.

James Norton is playing John Brooke.

The 1994 version is having its 25th anniversary this year; Hollywood didn't wait nearly as long to remake Spider-Man. There were two versions of LW that came out last year (one for TV, one a modern-day update), but it's a great story and I think remakes lead to more people watching older adaptations, than would have otherwise. In an ideal world, every young person would find movies from before their time innately appealing, but that's often not how it works. A remake can drive people to watch other versions, like the actors in them, want to see more of their movies and a classic film fan is born. And if the remake sucks, the old version is still there.

*

7 hours ago, Cranberry said:

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/06/exclusive-first-look-greta-gerwig-and-saoirse-ronan-little-women

Everything in this article sounds promising...

The only thing giving me pause is Emma Watson. I like Emma Watson as a person, but her acting can be a little lacking, and everyone else in this movie is so good (Meryl Streep is Aunt March!) that she might look worse in comparison. I know some people don't like Emma Stone, but I do and I'm bummed that Watson replaced her.

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/film-tv/a22830604/little-women-remake-spoilers-casting-rumors-greta-gerwig/

Meg isn't the most challenging role of the sisters (a reason I think Emma Stone ultimately bailed on the project, even if she used awards campaigning as an excuse), so Emma Watson will probably fare well enough.

Edited by Dejana
  • Love 4

Share this post


Link to post

"My" version is the 90's one forever, but I will see any remake of it. I didn't like the BBC one last year.

I hope this one's good, although it kinda bugs me that not a single one of the March girls is an American actress. 

  • Love 10

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, I don't like the look of this one at all. Aesthetically, the '94 adaptation is the best with its rich colors and textures.

Casting-wise, I'm not thrilled that so few of the cast members are Americans, to start. And while I enjoy many of the actors they cast I think they're all wrong for their roles. The only one who seems semi okay to me is Pugh as Amy but even then Ronan seems like she would've been a better fit for that role. Watson is too modern and, for me at least, perpetually Hermione-ish.

  • Love 4

Share this post


Link to post

Not a single one of the little women is American. I guess that shouldn't bug me, but it does anyway.

I actually don't think Pugh looks that good as Amy, that seems like miscasting to me. And honestly, I really believe the only way to do Amy is to use two different actresses, because no actress in her twenties is going to be believable as a 12 year old (especially Florence Pugh, who already looks older than she is).

  • Love 12

Share this post


Link to post

I guess if an American can play Bridget Jones, we can have non-American actresses playing heroines from the great American novel?

I was initially excited about this, but I'm feeling pretty meh after that trailer.

  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Minneapple said:

I was initially excited about this, but I'm feeling pretty meh after that trailer.

Same, I think it looks bad. Timothée Chalamet looks too young to be on screen with Jo.

Share this post


Link to post

My version is the one that has lived in my mind ever since I first read the book and then reread it.  Some of the colors are too chemical (didn't exist in the late 1800s) and back then people just didn't have the money for everyone to have a new best dress more often than every other year.  

That their hair is all wrong strongly suggests that TPTB didn't bother to read the book, much less become familiar with Alcott's other books to set a feeling for time and place.

  • Love 8

Share this post


Link to post

The 1949 version is such a classic with so many wonderful actors and actresses. Margaret O'Brien stole every scene she was in.  It's 70 years old and still packs a wallop. Will be interesting to see if the 1994 version still holds it's own in 2064.

  • Love 3

Share this post


Link to post

Hm... I think this might have potential? But yeah, the trailer makes it come across as too modern and chopped up. And it's really, really heavy-handed about Jo being an unconventional protagonist not interested in the typical romance plot that's been prescribed to female characters since forever. Which...I agree that this is a strong motif in the book, but IMO the trailer was really awkward and used all the sledgehammers to try and bring this across. Perhaps it's better done in the movie?

And yes, IMO Laurie looks too young. The story works if Jo and Laurie are peers, here they don't look the same age. Anyway, I'm willing to give it a chance. Every modern adaptation of the book has to change one aspect completely anyway: Marmee. IMO the character in the book comes across as really of her time and all the pronouncements she makes to the girls about how they should behave are adhering to very, very restrictive gender norms (and that one time she let that bird starve to death to teach them a lesson....jeez, sadist much?). The 1994 version did away with that (and rightly so) and the new one will have to do the same, I'd guess.

Edited by katha
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

I liked the trailer and I'm looking forward to the movie.

I was looking around for reaction to the trailer and wow, I did not realize how many people were up in arms over Jo and Laurie not ending up together and Amy's character just in general. 

I thought Amy was a brat when she was a kid but I also just thought she was a kid. And I guess I have the really unpopular opinion of thinking it makes sense that Jo and Laurie weren't meant to be. 

  • Love 17

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Chaser said:

And I guess I have the really unpopular opinion of thinking it makes sense that Jo and Laurie weren't meant to be

BLASPHEMY!

  • Laugh 5

Share this post


Link to post

I think it looks good! The colors are more muted but it looks pretty. Still not sold on Emma Watson (and wondering if she was barely in the trailer for a reason), but Ronan looks like she'll be a good Jo. 

  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Camille said:

BLASPHEMY!

I make no apologies! 😌

20 minutes ago, Cranberry said:

I think it looks good! The colors are more muted but it looks pretty. Still not sold on Emma Watson (and wondering if she was barely in the trailer for a reason), but Ronan looks like she'll be a good Jo. 

Yeah...I kind of cringe thinking about Emma trying to hold her own against Saoirse. She’s the biggest question mark for me in the cast. 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, katha said:

IMO the character in the book comes across as really of her time and all the pronouncements she makes to the girls about how they should behave are adhering to very, very restrictive gender norms (and that one time she let that bird starve to death to teach them a lesson....jeez, sadist much?). 

Of course Mrs March comes across as "of her time"...the author wrote the book right after the Civil War.  Just like Susan Sarandon ('94) and Emily Watson ('18) gave portrayals more...acceptable...for an audience of *their time.

But Alcott based the character on her own mother, who was no simpering, fainting matron.  Marmee teaches the girls responsibility and (esp in Jo's case) self-discipline.  She saw the characters of her daughters clearly and encouraged the artistic temperaments of both Jo and Amy.  Her most resonant (though frequently overlooked) line in the book was how she'd rather her girls be "happy old maids" rather than unhappy wives.  Pretty forward-thinking for the Victorian Era.

And, I gotta defend her against this accusation of bird-murdering.  Pip was Beth's responsibility, which she abandoned in favor of her piano during that infamous week.  The sad lesson of her dead pet foreshadowed how she'd end up overdoing her care of the Hummels.

  • Love 16

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Cranberry said:

Still not sold on Emma Watson (and wondering if she was barely in the trailer for a reason), 

I'm willing to bet her accent goes in and out. I like Emma Watson but I'm confused about her casting in this role.

Share this post


Link to post

There's another Alcott book that you might want to read to get more of a feeling for what life was like then.  It's free and on line.  It's called "An Old-Fashioned Girl".

I know the book because my Grandmother gave it to me because it was one of her favorites and she felt the heroine was true to her time and economic conditions.  

Turn off the TV and your cell phone and find a comfortable chair and a pet.  Immerse yourselves in the late 1800s.

  • Love 6

Share this post


Link to post

Not another Little Women remake. Why not move on to Good Wives and Little Men? It would be interesting to see the second generation plus the other kids at the home.

  • Love 5

Share this post


Link to post

7 hours ago, Minneapple said:

I'm willing to bet her accent goes in and out. I like Emma Watson but I'm confused about her casting in this role.

Watson's casting was pretty last minute, not long before the production began filiming. Emma Stone had the role of Meg but  dropped out saying she would be too busy with promoting The Favourite to make LW.

https://variety.com/2018/film/news/emma-watson-emma-stone-little-women-1202911028/

Given that peers such as Jennifer Lawrence and Brie Larson managed to win Best Actress while filming action movies outside of California during Oscar sesson, awards watchers were a bit skeptical of Stone's explanation. Anyway, that's when Watson got the call.

Edited by Dejana

Share this post


Link to post

I guess I'm in the minority that I enjoyed the trailer? I've seen 4 versions plus a "in name only" Lifetime adaption and I always find something to enjoy about them. I mean, I saw the 1949 and 1994 versions and loved both pretty well, and thought that the Jo/Bhaer relationship was done equally well in both, although the ending in the '94 version is just superior over the '49 version.   Also the Jo rejection scene were great in both of them.

I was kind of "meh" about the 1978 Lori Partridge and Jan Brady Little Women, but I did think Susan Dey was great casting.

I even enjoyed the Hallmark-like modern version from last year that had Lea Thompson as Marmee and flopped hard. I wasn't really feeling Lucas Grabeel as Laurie, though. He felt horribly miscast and the rejection scene didn't work for me. I did enjoy Jo/Bhaer, although for me what really sells that particular version is Jo and Beth. Like the 1978 version, there's a scene where they're on the beach (although in this one it's winter) and I think it's pretty beautiful. I'm also kind of surprised that for something that was distributed by a Christian company, there's also pretty little religious invocation throughout the movie.

On 8/14/2019 at 12:07 AM, Camille said:

I'll watch a version that has Jo and Laurie get married.

The one version of Little Women that I really thought they'd go with this was The March Sisters at Christmas, a Lifetime modern version which pretty much just gave them the names and then setting it as a Christmas where the adult girls are trying to renovate their home because they don't want their parents to sell it. Justin Bruening and Julie Marie Berman had pretty good chemistry in that and it was the only time I ever really believed that Jo could've have seen Laurie as anything more than a brother. Alas, it didn't, and that felt like the one time where I really wanted it to end that way.

There was also a Little Women web series by the defunct Pemberly Digital, although I didn't get through it. They did the outstanding Lizzie Bennett Diaries and the relatively good Emma Approved. They imagine the books as a series of vlogs set in the modern day. It looks like they tried to revive the Emma series but they didn't get enough patrons to fund it. Disappointing, but Youtube has changed so much in the past 5 years and it's hard to fund content.

Edited by methodwriter85
  • Love 4

Share this post


Link to post

I guess just shoot me now.   Ok I'm a big reader.  From get.  I have enjoyed and/or plowed through all of the "classics".  

The magic of  "Little Women" is lost on me.  IMO, the most boring story on the planet.  Yammer, Yammer, whine, whine.

Is there even a point to this story? A climax? A plot? A revelation?

Adore my Liz Taylor, but even she can't keep my eyes open.  The magic of DVR, I have recorded and tried every damn version.

The story goes absolutely nowhere.  I suppose I'll never get it.  It's not for lack of trying.

  • Love 10

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, zillabreeze said:

I guess just shoot me now.   Ok I'm a big reader.  From get.  I have enjoyed and/or plowed through all of the "classics".  

The magic of  "Little Women" is lost on me.  IMO, the most boring story on the planet.  Yammer, Yammer, whine, whine.

Is there even a point to this story? A climax? A plot? A revelation?

Adore my Liz Taylor, but even she can't keep my eyes open.  The magic of DVR, I have recorded and tried every damn version.

The story goes absolutely nowhere.  I suppose I'll never get it.  It's not for lack of trying.

Are we the same person?  Because I have never ever been able to tolerate this book.  I can't make it through the Katharine Hepburn version and won't even attempt the June Allyson.  I did watch Winona Ryder's take and liked it because it was so pretty.  I will never get over Laurie and Jo not marrying and I know Laurie married Amy just to spite Jo.

I watched the trailer and for the life of me, can no longer stand Meryl Streep.  And why does Jo not have chestnut hair????

Edited by PaulaO
  • Love 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, PaulaO said:

Are we the same person?  Because I have never ever been able to tolerate this book.  I can't make it through the Katharine Hepburn version and won't even attempt the June Allyson.  I did watch Winona Ryder's take and liked it because it was so pretty.  I will never get over Laurie and Jo not marrying and I know Laurie married Amy just to spite Jo.

IKR?  My BFF is a reader nerd.  We love our books!  This one we cannot even tolerate.

Read, watched, all thousand remakes. Tried and tried. Trying to find what we may be missing.

It's fucking awful. The most boring book on the planet.  A total waste of film to try again.

  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post

Count me in on this (too many people to quote). I don't hate it, but it never did anything for me the way it was supposedly supposed to, me being a girl/woman and all, the targeted demographic. Having seen the trailer, I've been musing over going to see it and I don't think I'm going to.

And like most people, I hate that Jo and Laurie broke up and he eventually married Amy. If that had been what happened in real life, okay, fair enough. But the fact that Alcott did that purely to spite the readers who were enamoured by the romance is just shitty of her.

  • Love 3

Share this post


Link to post

I love books and TV shows about families who love each other, healthy marriages, etc. This book makes me miss my mother and my sister, so I never make it all the way through, and haven't watched any remakes since the 1994 one, when I was nineteen, which is also my favourite. I put a small hardback version of the book, in with my mother, when we buried her - her mother's day present. 

Edited by Anela
  • Love 19

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Anela said:

I love books and TV shows about families who love each other, healthy marriages, etc. This book makes me miss my mother and my sister, so I never make it all the way through, and haven't watched any remakes since the 1994 one, when I was nineteen, which is also my favourite. I put a small hardback version of the book, in with my mother, when we buried her - her mother's day present. 

That's such a sweet memory. 

Books (not Kindle) are bonding moments in my life, too.

Who ever knows what touches each of us?

  • Love 11

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/15/2019 at 11:31 AM, shang yiet said:

Not another Little Women remake. Why not move on to Good Wives and Little Men? It would be interesting to see the second generation plus the other kids at the home.

Good Wives is actually the second half of Little Women.  The initial publication of the former was premised on the success of the latter.  It starts three years later, after Brooke gets invalided out of the war, and he & Meg get married.

Little Men features Jo & the Professor running their boys' school.  Jo's Boys (And how they turned out) is the last book of the trilogy.   Jo is a successful author and the children of the second book are college students.  Kay Francis was Jo in a classic film version of Little Men, generally only known to TCM fans.

No book is universally adored.  And one whose theme is "Be a good and loving person" is hardly sexy.

But I'm one of those: loved it when I first read it at 8, love it now, when my lips move as I skim the pages because I remember almost every word.

  • Love 16
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

To this day, the final line of "Jo's Boys" makes me tear up:

". . .let the music stop, the lights die out, and the curtain fall forever on the March family."

  • Love 9

Share this post


Link to post

Another one who is a bit skeptical about this adaptation after viewing the trailer. Other than Emma Watson, I don’t know any of the younger actors, so that’s not my issue. I think I will just wait until I start reading reviews by book fans to see what they say before deciding to fork out the bucks to see it in the theater. 

I am a lifelong fan of this book, which IMO is the best LMA book. I’ve read six of the ones meant for kids, as well a collection of her gothic short stories in the ‘80s or so (which are actually pretty fun). Her other kids’ books are more tales preaching the Alcott theory of raising kids, as briefly demonstrated in the Daisy and Demi chapter of LW, but they are entertaining, especially Eight Cousins. 

What I liked about both Alcott and Laura Ingalls Wilder as a girl in 1970s Chicago suburbia was that they were so very evocative of their time and place, both of which were as alien to me as a sci-fi book set in another galaxy. I read other books written and/or set in the past (Heidi, Sara Crewe, etc.), but none resonated with like LMA and LIW did and still do—I have gone out and bought replacements for my childhood volumes of Little Women, Eight Cousins, and the DeSmet-set Little House books, and they all hold up for 53 year old me.

  • Love 13

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't read the book and only seen the '94 version, but I was surprised at how much I enjoyed that movie.  Well-acted, beautifully shot, and has an amazing score.  I miss those in films.

This trailer definitely had a more modern/indie vibe to it, which I didn't like.  I know Greta Gerwig is directing, but I don't know if that fits the tone of the film.

  • Love 6

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know if the trailer feels "modern" to me. Yes, it's heavy on the girl power-but that's because of the nature of the story. It feels like the 94 version, to me, in terms of tone.

I loved the novel as a little girl, and I love most versions put to film. I will likely be seeing this in the theater. No, we don't need another version. But we don't need yet another Marvel/Avengers movie, and we didn't need the last four or five, and yet we got them, because they are like a cancer that won't die.

I'd rather plunk down the money for a movie like this a dozen times over. At least I love most of the characters already-except Amy. I always wanted Amy to die instead of Beth.

I don't think the actor is too young for Laurie. I think SR is too old for Jo, though. As was Winona Ryder, who was still about two years younger than SR when she played the role. I like SR a lot-but Jo is FIFTEEN years old at the start. Why can't Hollywood find a eighteen/nineteen year old-easy enough to pass her off as a younger teen, and to add a little makeup to age her to her early twenties (I think Jo is 23-ish at the end). A 26 year old playing 15 ? Annoying and it takes you out of the moment a little, I think.

I don't think LMA put Amy with Laurie out of spite. It's my understanding that she was told by the publisher that she had to marry all the girls off. Her original desire was always to keep Jo single-so she wasn't ever going to marry Laurie and Jo. It wasn't until I guess her publisher forced her to, that she married Jo off to the professor at the end. I too liked Jo and Laurie, but I think they are the kind of people better off as friends because they are too alike. They don't balance each other-his worse faults are her worse faults, etc. I really don't like Amy-and I hated that Laurie married her-but they are at least an example of two people who compliment each other's personalities.

  • Love 7

Share this post


Link to post

TCM screened the '33 and '49 versions during their "Summer Under the Stars" series last month.  I watched both for the hundred-eleventy-th time.  I love all three of the films, and even bear a grudging fondness for the BBC/Masterpiece Theatre production.  Well, when you start with *that novel as source material, you're already halfway to memorable.

I feel the same about another, even greater "source" book: Pride and Prejudice.  Another story of sisters; another story of the second-eldest-as-main-draw.  There's something I cherish in each Elizabeth Bennet: Greer Garson got her humor; Jennifer Ehle, her smarts; Keira Knightley was closest to the right age of any previous actress, and brought the youthful spark and energy.

And so it goes, with all the Jo's!  Katharine Hepburn *was Jo IRL -- the fiercely independent, uncompromising artist.  When you know about the actress's life, you understand her Jo all the better.

June Allyson was the tomboyish Jo, starting from her first appearance.  She jumps the front gate but falls flat on her face.  Then she sticks out her chin, gets to her feet, marches out, & tries again.  Successfully, this time.

Winona Ryder struck such amazing chem with Christian Bale's Laurie.  After her sisters, theirs is the central relationship in the story, and you bought those two as best friends.  Aaaaannnddd...if you agreed with the premise that Jo and Laurie were too alike to end up together at the end, *this is the Jo that almost changed your mind.

Maya Hawke was the right age, and most closely fits the author's initial description: tall, awkward, gangly, "...a girl who was rapidly shooting up into a woman, and didn't like it."

I look forward to watching This Year's Jo, and seeing what side *she illuminates.

  • Love 13

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/2/2019 at 11:32 PM, voiceover said:

Winona Ryder struck such amazing chem with Christian Bale's Laurie.  After her sisters, theirs is the central relationship in the story, and you bought those two as best friends.  Aaaaannnddd...if you agreed with the premise that Jo and Laurie were too alike to end up together at the end, *this is the Jo that almost changed your mind.

Yes, agreed. Those two had fabulous chemistry ! Even though I understood why she rejected him (and knew it would happen, of course), I was like, "Jo, you dumb. "

  • Love 4
  • Laugh 5

Share this post


Link to post

Critics' Choice Award nominations:

Best Picture

Best Actress – Saoirse Ronan

Best Supporting Actress – Florence Pugh

Best Acting Ensemble

Best Director – Greta Gerwig

Best Adapted Screenplay – Greta Gerwig

Best Production Design – Jess Gonchor, Claire Kaufman

Best Costume Design – Jacqueline Durran

Best Score – Alexandre Desplat

Share this post


Link to post

I also really enjoyed this. I loved the increased character development for Amy as well as her romance with Teddy, and I enjoyed the nonlinear narrative. It all felt like little snippet of memory, which is pretty much how you remember your childhood and adolescence. I also thought the framing was pretty clever- that we're essentially watching Lousia Alcott pitching her book. 

  • Love 7

Share this post


Link to post

Sort of worth looking for in newspapers today is an article by two Washington Post reporters.  Brave women who sat down , behind locked doors, and watched a marathon of their own making of movies of Little Women, in order of creation.  

The version I read was in the Chicago Tribune. It's in the Style section of the post but I've used up my Post articles for this month, so I can't copy a link.  It's not particularaly insightful, but it is a different approach.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

I loved it, and going in I didn't think it'd hold a candle to my beloved Winona version. I actually cried when Beth died. I truly like it more than the 94 adaptation.

One exception, Timothee Chalamet.

Jo and Amy were so strong and he was so slight. Chalamet looks like a 14 year old. He didn't seem devastated to be rejected, more like "fuck it," I'm going to go party.

If only Christian Bale was young enough to be Laurie again.

Aunt March and Amy the only practical members of the family!

It is weird that our only (?) classic novel about American girls and they were all British, Irish and an Aussie.

I saw it with a 10 year who I thought would love it, and she thought the timelines were confusing and it was really long. Mostly around Beth's illnesses, I thought the short hair made it obvious, but I think if you don't already know the story it could be hard to follow.

Edited by Megan
  • Love 9

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

Pretty early into the video, it's acknowledged that they're comparing the major film adaptations and not literally every version (sorry, 2018). This is why I never mind remakes for rich source material, because there's always something different to be drawn out of each version.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

I went and saw this today with my mom and sister. We Loved it.

My new favorite adaptation. The cast was sublime, especially Florence Pugh (a scene stealer for me). I wasn’t sure how the nonlinear approach would work but it gave new feeling and depth to the material. 

  • Love 3

Share this post


Link to post

Florence Pugh absolutely steals this one.  Not that anyone else gave a poor showing, but rather that's how much she popped even compared to rest of the stacked cast.  The fractured timeline was a little hard to follow especially since none of the women particularly aged.  The flashbacks did seem to have a brighter, sunnier look to them, which makes sense as that is how we tend to view our good memories, but I could see where it might take a beat to keep up with what was taking place when.  I don't know that I lurved it, and to be honest I never really felt any particular attachment to the source material or the '94 version which is what I grew up watching, but I did like it a lot.  And I can never think of Beth dying without thinking Joey from Friends going, "Beth is really, really sick."  

  • Love 9

Share this post


Link to post

I saw the movie, today.  I liked it, but I didn't love it.  I thought Saoirse Ronan was a pretty good Jo- in fact, I had no problem with the casting, aside from Laura Dern as Marmee.  I thought her approach was too modern, even though LD is a great actress.  Was surprised to see Bob Odenkirk as Mr. March.  I was expecting him to tell his daughters that he had been managing a Cinnabons in Omaha for the past four years.

  • Love 6
  • Laugh 5

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size