Little Women

playground

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 31, 2011
Messages
1,404
Reaction score
138
Has anyone else had a chance to see this movie? I never read the book or saw older versions of this so I came into the story fresh and HOLY MOLY was this movie great fun for me. Buying this day one when it comes out. Saw it with my girlfriend and we talked about it for like 30 minutes after easily and still do. My favorite movie of the year.
 

shortstorymachinist

The score is still Q to 12!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 22, 2015
Messages
2,166
Reaction score
1,289
Location
Japan
Want to so baaaaad. Keeping my fingers crossed it comes to Japan.
 

Kat M

Ooh, look! String!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 4, 2019
Messages
951
Reaction score
627
Location
Puget Sound
I've read the book a few dozen times and I loved every minute of it. I felt that it hit a near-perfect balance of being faithful to the book and updating the story, characters, and ideas for a modern audience.
 

playground

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 31, 2011
Messages
1,404
Reaction score
138
I've read the book a few dozen times and I loved every minute of it. I felt that it hit a near-perfect balance of being faithful to the book and updating the story, characters, and ideas for a modern audience.


I LOVED every character and how each one had their own real story and moments to shine. I found it especially cute with how the old man loved listening to Beth play the piano and the sweet little relationship they had.

I absolutely lost it at that dance scene and thought Timothee Chamlet was perfectly cast in this too. Honestly, every character was so perfect for their respected role it was outstanding to me. I could have easily watched another two hours of their adventures.

- - - Updated - - -

Want to so baaaaad. Keeping my fingers crossed it comes to Japan.


I'll cross my fingers for you too. This is a movie that MUST be watched. An absolute treat.
 

shortstorymachinist

The score is still Q to 12!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 22, 2015
Messages
2,166
Reaction score
1,289
Location
Japan
I absolutely lost it at that dance scene and thought Timothee Chamlet was perfectly cast in this too.
- - - Updated - - -




I'll cross my fingers for you too. This is a movie that MUST be watched. An absolute treat.

I loved Chamlet in The King, and knowing he's good in this just makes me want to see it even more. I thank you for your finger-crossing service.
 

angeliz2k

never mind the shorty
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
3,727
Reaction score
488
Location
Commonwealth of Virginia--it's for lovers
Website
www.elizabethhuhn.com
I was a little more than neutral on this one. I enjoyed it while watching it, and unlike far too many adaptations these days, it didn't use the source material as an empty vessel for the creators' political feelings. There was a pretty decent balance between the reality of the time period being depicted and modern sensibilities. The trailer had me nervous on that point.

I was delighted to see some lesser-used tidbits from the book added to this movie, like the scene where Marmee talks to the man who's lost a son (or two?) in the war and whose remaining son is very ill. I also approved of the hints of 4th-wall-breaking, with shades of Louisa May Alcott in Jo's endeavor to get published.

The nonlinear structure was clever. It worked, and it sets it apart from the many other adaptations. I wondered whether it might confuse people who weren't familiar with the story, but it seems it didn't.

I thought everyone did well in their roles. No one really stood out to me. Chalamet was a little too slight and boyish for me and didn't have quite the right kind of restlessness, and for whatever the reason the proposal scene didn't land for me. But I liked Ronan's spirit as Jo and Dern's gentleness as Marmee. I did find myself liking Amy more than I usually do. Emma Watson as Meg was...there.

As someone who knows a little about historic dress at this time, I was constantly and unpleasantly distracted by the costumes, which were, for the most part, incredibly far from correct. I could go on a rant about why Hollywood thinks that viewers can't "relate" to characters who are wearing period-correct clothing, but I won't. However, this mostly applied only to the March women (men are almost always more properly dressed in period dramas). In the background, I caught sight of some SPECTACULAR and generally-correct period costumes (either the costume designed didn't care to modernize the background characters' costumes because we aren't meant to relate to them, or else these people are actual costumers/reenactors who brought their own costumes). Amy's 1870s looks, however, are beautiful and generally correct (so it can be done!).

It's still my opinion that Winona Rider and Christian Bale were the best Jo and Laurie (that version is still my favorite). It's also still my opinion that Jo and Laurie should have ended up together, but I'll have to take that up with L.M. Alcott's ghost. Excuse me while I go conduct a seance...

Oh, and you should all go read the book [if you haven't]--it's very good.
 

Barbara R.

Old Hand in the Biz
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
1,963
Reaction score
242
Location
New York
Website
www.barbararogan.com
I saw the recent version and enjoyed it, largely because of the fine acting of the actresses playing the March women. But I thought that deconstructing the time line didn't work as intended. It sapped the movie of the energy and coherence that a more chronological telling would provide. Because the movie jumps around in time, Laurie's behavior in first loving Jo, than transferring that love to Amy, doesn't make sense. It felt arbitrary and sudden. The character was neither well written nor well-acted, although I suspect that the former is the cause of the latter.

By chance the last version of LITTLE WOMEN was on tv, and I watched it. That's the one starring Winona Ryder. It tells the story chronologically, also with fine actors, and IMO it has much more emotional wallop. And Christian Bale gives the character far more depth than the latest version.

Still, IMO, the new one is very much worth seeing--just not all that.
 

Kat M

Ooh, look! String!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 4, 2019
Messages
951
Reaction score
627
Location
Puget Sound
Laurie's behavior in first loving Jo, than transferring that love to Amy, doesn't make sense. It felt arbitrary and sudden. The character was neither well written nor well-acted, although I suspect that the former is the cause of the latter.

IMO that is an issue that dates back to the book. I understand why Alcott made the character choices she did, and I love the concept: a male-female platonic friendship, a less-than-traditional partner for the main character (or Alcott's original idea, the main character just not getting married), but it didn't entirely land for me in the source material.

I really have to see this Ryder-Bale version . . .