Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Saw the new "Little Women" tonight (dir by Greta Gerwig), and I thought it was beautifully done. She stayed pretty true to the story, but changed up the order. It wasn't done as "linearally" as you're probably used to. It was a little difficult to follow in a few spots, but it was different enough that it wasn't just a straight remake of the multiple previous versions.
Saiorse Roanan and Timothee Chalamet were wonderful, as was the actress who played Amy (can't remember her name). I could see possible Oscar nods for them. Not sure the movie itself was strong enough for Best Pic or Best Director, but it was still enjoyable.
I saw it this evening with my daughter and we both liked it. I thought Laura Dern did a very good portrayal of Marmee. Also thought Emma Watson did a very good job, as Meg.
Despite liking the movie, I don't think it was as good as the version with Winona Ryder and Christian Bale.
I saw it yesterday, and thought it was a very fine adaptation (and the portrayal of adult Amy was especially good). I did wonder whether someone who had never read the book would be able to follow the story, though.
I haven't read the book, but I have seen previous adaptations. So I'm familiar with the story of course. I do agree that it could be confusing for anyone who isn't already familiar with it.
It follows pretty closely to the book. This version does jump from current to the previous several years through-out the film, which can seem confusing at times.
Also the ending with Jo was different than I remembered.
Last edited by Wintergirl80; 12-27-2019 at 02:25 AM..
Also the ending with Jo was different than I remembered.
That’s your memory playing tricks on you. Jo’s ending in the film is the same as in the book. (Friedrich Bhaer is younger in the movie than he is in the book, though.)
My only gripe was that -- again! -- most of the actresses playing the "little women" were different in physical appearance from how they were described in the book. If I remember correctly (and I have read Little Women at least eight times, although not recently), Amy was described as tall, slender and fair (not a little on the short and plump side); Beth was described as having soft brown hair and blue eyes (not a red-head); and Jo was described as being quite homely, with her chestnut hair being her "only beauty". However, that being said, the personalities as portrayed by the actresses were exactly right, in my opinion. (Meg was described simply as being pretty and a "beauty", which does describe Emma Watson, I think.) I think my biggest issue with Jo being pretty, or at least physically attractive, is that it takes away from the fact the a young woman might be unattractive, but she can still be successful AND find love. Another quibble is that they showed Little Women being completely written when it was first published, when in actuality, Part 1 ended with Meg's engagement, and Part 2 was not completed until a year or two later, after Part 1 was such a success and the public clamored for a sequel. (However, I can certainly understand why it was done that way for the movies.)
Still, the pluses definitely outweighed these minuses, in my opinion. I also, btw, liked how they chose an actress who could portray Amy at age 12 and also in her early 20's. I usually find it off-putting to have different actors portray the same character at different ages. They hardly ever get it right, imo.
I also very much enjoyed Chris Cooper, Meryl Streep, and Laura Dern as Mr. Laurence, Aunt March, and Marmee; and I very much liked the art design, music, and costumes.
Last edited by katharsis; 12-27-2019 at 03:08 PM..
That’s your memory playing tricks on you. Jo’s ending in the film is the same as in the book. (Friedrich Bhaer is younger in the movie than he is in the book, though.)
An older Friedrich Bhaer is the only thing I did not like about the 1994 version. I do love the 1994 female cast though and Christian Bale as Laurie. Since Friedrich is younger in this newer version, I would like to watch it.
An older Friedrich Bhaer is the only thing I did not like about the 1994 version. I do love the 1994 female cast though and Christian Bale as Laurie. Since Friedrich is younger in this newer version, I would like to watch it.
But that's how he is in the book and in the movie with Katherine Hepburn and the other version with Elizabeth Taylor. The point was that Jo was new to the city and the "professor" was more mature and was able to help her sort through her dilemmas.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
