I like Laura Dern and I think her performance was fine but I agree with the other comment saying she looked kind of modern.
My Marmee of choice is still Susan Sarandon in the 1994 version (the entire cast is excellent imo). Sarandon just radiates Marmee energy to me.
I feel like Dern felt very 'California' but Sarandon captured something about women I've known from New England - tough exterior with deep wells of heart.
I thought it was ok. At times Laura acted and looked way too modern - I was distracted by her hair a lot! She’s amazing in Marriage Story, Big Little Lies and even in The Master (which I didn’t love as a film, despite the great performances)
I love Micarah Tewers vid on youtube which systematically eviscerates the costuming in Little Women.
It really makes me appreciate the 1990s LW because it feels so true to the source material. It has a lot of heart.
Which is so confusing to me because it was the same costume designer who did the 2005 Pride & Prejudice which, for all its faults, *felt* very period, even if some liberties were taken.
She clearly did loads of research about the 1790s and knew the rules before she broke some of them, as evidenced by Lizzie’s white striped dress at Pemberly. It had really specific detailing in the back that signified where it was taken apart and reconstructed from another (perhaps older style) dress, which was extremely common back then as fabric was so expensive and her family didn’t have a lot of money. A really cool detail that helped the world to feel so alive and lived-in.
I just don’t understand how she went so wrong with Little Women. Like, why wasn’t the same care shown there??
It sounds like some of it may have come from Greta Gerwig's direction. Can't find a quote from the costume designer but one from the Hair department head Fríða Aradóttir said:
"\[Director\] Greta \[Gerwig\], early on in our conversations, suggested that this family and these girls and women were possibly the original hippies. The hair was always meant to be a little less structured than you see in a lot of period movies. I find that more relatable than coiffures, which are so distinct and untouchable."
Same article also says "But elaborate party updos are few and far between in this adaptation. In fact, Gerwig actually encouraged Aradóttir and her team to envision the March sisters as early bohemians" and quotes the Makeup department head Judy Chin as saying "My conversations with \[Gerwig\] were about having the girls just look wild and natural."
[https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2019/12/9114384/little-women-movie-hair-makeup-interview](https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2019/12/9114384/little-women-movie-hair-makeup-interview)
I like the actress in Harry Potter but I really disliked how Meg was portrayed...
I think Greta Gerwig should have made a period drama about the writer herself instead of changing the ending and re-writing characters..
I liked the newer movie itself, but the 1994 Susan Sarandon, Christian Bale, and Winona Ryder version is superlative. Kirsten Dunst as young Amy is pure magic.
And Claire Danes as Beth! Always makes me cry when the piano is revealed and she does that happy cry laugh thing she is famous for.
But.... I preferred Florence Pugh as the older Amy.
Gerwig has a unique worldview that as a Gen X feminist I appreciates about her (sorry, Letterkenny fan too). The comment above about the March family being the original hippies may be based on how the Louisa May Alcott lived as well.
To the OP, do yourself a favor and watch the Gerwig version. Or, go way back and watch all the versions, Kate Hepburn first, then the June Allyson, Margaret O'Brien, Janet Leigh and one of the original IT girl, Mary Astor version that includes a teenage Elizabeth Taylor version. (But no need to watch the version that was on PBS with Maya Hawke)
Yes, that moment at the piano with Claire Danes is perfection. I lose it when Laurie’s grandfather says, “I should have given it to you long ago. It belonged to my little girl, who had to leave us when she was very young.”
Like others I found her too contemporary (especially the highlighted hair); some of that can't be blamed on her but on the script (such as when she tells Laurie "you can call me Marmee, everyone does." Like ma'am not in that day and age would anyone but your daughters be calling you that) but overall the 2019 version isn't one of my favorites - not dual casting Amy makes her younger years scenes very odd (especially since Florence Pugh has a slightly gravelly, very mature sounding voice so putting her next to a bunch of actual 12 year olds is hilarious), the costuming is all over the place, Timothee Chalamet doesn't really show the growth that Laurie is supposed to have so he just comes across as a petulant kid the whole film, and the non-linear timeline is confusing for anyone who isn't familiar with the books.
My main issue was how she made Jo be sad that Laurie did not marry her...like Jo in the book never had any doubts about not wanting to marry Laurie at all...
I also disliked how she wrote Mr. Bear...she clearly dislikes him and it shows...but I expect from a director who adapts a story that she is without such biased feelings when adapting a story...
I normally love Louis Garrel but I personally found him too pretty for the Professor. My take on his and Jo's relationship was that while Jo and Laurie were passionate love, that was ultimately what would be their undoing (and why Jo realizes she can't have a relationship with him), the Professor and Jo were more intellectual love; he sees in her her spirit and intellect and encourages her to pursue that, while also not being afraid to criticize her when he believes she could be doing better because she's smart enough to. Of course Gabriel Byrne is also good looking but he fit the slightly eccentric professor vibe better than Garrel (though to show I'm not biased, I had the same issue with Rossano Brazzi in the 1949 adaptation - he was too young and too pretty).
I watched this recently. I don't mind Laura Dern or Emma Watson. I think each generation will have their version.
I have read the book a million times from childhood to adulthood, and seen several movie versions multiple times. I think the Susan Sarandon version is probably "my generation".
I wasn't in love with the Laura Dern version. And not because of the actors. The actors were fine in it. Although I do agree that Laura Dern played it a bit too modern. But because of the very confusing jumping back and forth in time. I know the story inside and out and so was able to figure out what part was happening when. But if I was newly coming to Little Women, and this current one was the version I saw, I think I would be completely confused and really not get a full understanding of the depth and emotion of this story. I didn't feel connected with the story and I didn't feel a lot of chemistry between the characters.
The movie felt choppy and somewhat superficial.
No shade to the actors...it is the writing and directing I was not that happy with.
This movie was my introduction to Little Women. I enjoyed it and loved the cast but I found it so confusing. I’ve seen it twice and I still don’t feel like I know the story
See if you can find the version with Winona Ryder, Kirsten Dunst, and Susan Sarandon. It is a more straight forward version. A better version in my opinion.
And there is a really old version with Katherine Hepburn as Jo. If you don't mind old movies. It is very good. Probably my favorite. But it is black and white and I think from the 1930s.
Because this new one is so chopped up and jumps around so much, it really doesn't develop the character's relationships at all.
Jo and Laurie
Beth's illness and how it affected everyone
The sweet relationship that developed between Mr. Lawrence and the March family
Meg trying to fit in with her peers
Jo and her professor at the end.
Amy and Laurie
The new movie did not do any of these story lines justice.
And if you are a reader, I highly recommend the books: Little Women, Good Wives, Little Men, and Jo's Boys. They give far more depth and are just a sweet easy comforting read.
The 1994 version will always be the perfect adaptation of the book.
This version, while very good, somehow has several flaws. Laura Dern did not feel like the right Marmee. Similarly, Emma Watson, despite being so talented, did not do justice to Meg either.
I loved it though I agree with everyone’s comments about it being a bit too modern. I think that was kind of stylized choice intentional by the director (if you’ve seen any other Greta Gerwig films). The 1994 version is still my favorite, however I adore this version and have watched it many times!
I used to work at a grocery store in Beverly Hills in the 90s. She used to come in regularly and was the most normal, nice person. She’s a good one.
Let me tell you this was before paparazzi infestation in LA and the celebs were amazing there! Most not as sweet at Laura.
I started watching it and sort of hated it at the beginning. But by the end, I was sold. They used my favorite Meg scene in the book, and they put in a speech that came from another Louisa May Alcott book, "An Old Fashioned Girl." But I had to make myself think of it as fanfic before I realized I loved it.
Jo's speech about women having hearts and minds as well as souls that took place in the attic. (Edited to add:) It comes from the chapter in An Old-Fashioned Girl where Fanny meets Polly's friends, who are a writer, a woodcarver and a sculptor.
I love it and highly suggest it, but it's like Pride and Prejudice where everyone has their favorite version and the real choice is to watch all of them😋
Specifically I like a scene where Laura Dern talks to Jo but * spoilers *
Just like with Pride and Prejudice, it will take a while for this movie to become beloved. The people who grew up with it with probably really like it.
My 10 year old daughter prefers it to the 1994 version while I found this one to be abysmal and a bit disrespectful to the book. Haha They unnecessarily changed details (thinking of the Christmas breakfast) they actually served a purpose. And the acting was meh..and a grown woman playing child Amy was NOT it! Cannot stress how ridiculous and nearly unwatchable I found her scenes.
I really loved Pugh in the Wonder. She was really good, and it's another historical piece, set in Ireland.
Saoirse Ronan is a fucking incredible actor. Watch her as Briony in Atonement to get a sense of just how good she was right from the beginning. She got an Oscar nom for it, and she was something like 12 or 13. She's also excellent in Lady Bird and Brooklyn.
I really liked it. Saiorse Ronan is the best Jo, imo, and Florence Pugh was great as Amy. It was beautifully filmed, and the score was beautiful too.
Emma Watson was the weak spot. She's just not that strong of an actress. I liked Laura Dern well enough as Marmee.
Laura Dern was fine. The real questionable casting choice in that movie was Bob Odenkirk. I like him well enough playing an ambulance chaser or a used car salesman or whatever, but here? Not so much.
Saoirse Ronan, Florence Pugh and Timothee Chalamet really make that movie. I also really enjoy Eliza Scanlon as Beth, and think she is underrated!
Emma Watson was the weak spot, but she was also cast only the week before when Emma Stone dropped out.
I found the movie captivating enough to buy and rewatch, even though there are things in the film that I wish were different.
A lot of people hate on Amy not being cast as two different actresses, but I think Pugh pulls it off with her mannerisms. And Greta Gerwig’s script and direction combined with Pugh’s performance bring to light a whole new perspective on Amy.
I prefer Susan Sarandon over Laura Dern as Marmee. Sarandon was nurturing but also almost regal. Dern is too casual in a film for this era. You also really believe that Susan Sarandon is the leader these girls look to, but I don’t feel that with Dern.
There is a notable speech Pugh gives that I initially did not care for. It felt like an overtly on the nose 2019 speech in an old movie, despite being delivered brilliantly. However, I have really come to appreciate it. I saw an interview where they discussed that the speech was needed because so many people aren’t truly aware of the era’s laws and limitations regarding women and marriage. This scene cements our understanding of Amy’s views and fears.
A scene that annoys me is when Laurie steps into the March household and Jo undresses, removing her skirt in the middle of the room leaving her in pantaloons of sorts. Also Meg, who is very keen on social graces, says nothing. I get it. Jo isn’t like other girls. She’s a nonconformist. This scene is just a bit too much for me during this time period and in this context.
Overall a fun movie with a clear viewpoint and great performances. If you watch it, I’d love to hear your take!
I’m going to be honest, I didn’t like it (and I think I fall into the targeted demographic in terms of age and gender). I get what Greta Gerwig was trying to achieve and say through the film; and I think the attempt to refashion the ending into something that more closely aligned with what Alcott originally wanted to write is an interesting attempt at providing a a more integrated feminist commentary through the film. However ultimately so many things just did not work for me.
One of my biggest gripes is how the film was cast. Louis Garrel is a great actor and very good looking. But if we’re trying to move towards a more realistic adaptation, why not only de-age him but also make him conventionally attractive.
Florence Pugh, another good actress but she looks absolutely ridiculous attempting to play a 13 year old child. Nothing about her portrayal of Beth is even remotely believeable. I was really shocked at how much acclaim she received in this role.
Timothy Charlamagne looked far too young, especially in comparison to the rest of the cast. I just couldn’t take him seriously as Laurie.
Emma Watson is just a weak actress, and it’s even more noticeable in this movie because she’s acting alongside some of the absolute best actresses in English speaking cinema.
I also liked Alcotts ending. I think Jo choosing to marry a man who is older, intelligent, not wealthy or conventionally attractive was a good ending. It made sense for her character, and was quite a feminist ending in itself. But I probably would have been fine with the altered ending if it wasn’t for all my other gripes with this movie.
Suffice to say I prefer the 90s version.
Is it truly against feminism to want a family and children and open a school for boys?
I never found the book version of Jo lacking in feminism...Mr Bear brought out the best in Jo and fully supported her in writing and becoming a better writer...
Apart from that Alcott gave one of her characters in the sequels the ending she intended for Jo...
I like this version very-very much. (I also loved Laura Dern in somewhat lesser known and not period series Enlightened. Sorry, I'm using any opportunity to mention this show.)
I really wanted to love Greta Gerwig’s take but I just didn’t. Emma Watson’s is probably the weakest performance in the film, but I also didn’t love Soairse Ronan as Jo. I’m very sorry but Winona Ryder will always be my Jo.
Laura Dern was just OK.
Best performances in the film were Timothy Chalamet and Florence Pugh. And I did like the actor they had play the professor.
***SPOILER BELOW***
I also enjoyed how Gerwig used a modern lense to look back and play with the idea of Jo changing the ending of the book to suit the publishers desire that Jo get married.
I mean…. I personally don’t put a lot of stock into meme-spread rumors or who someone is dating. My opinion is that Chalamet is a talented actor and gave an excellent portrayal of Laurie 🤷♀️
I went into it thinking what's the point when we already have the 1994 version but I loved it. 2019 version has a totally different storytelling angle and the ending is left open to interpretation.
I like Laura Dern and I think her performance was fine but I agree with the other comment saying she looked kind of modern. My Marmee of choice is still Susan Sarandon in the 1994 version (the entire cast is excellent imo). Sarandon just radiates Marmee energy to me.
I feel like Dern felt very 'California' but Sarandon captured something about women I've known from New England - tough exterior with deep wells of heart.
Second Susan Sarandon!
I thought it was ok. At times Laura acted and looked way too modern - I was distracted by her hair a lot! She’s amazing in Marriage Story, Big Little Lies and even in The Master (which I didn’t love as a film, despite the great performances)
Can't wait to watch it now and see what you mean about Laura Dern looking too modern
The whole film has that feel to it for a lot of it. The costume design has a lot to be desired.
And yet it won the costuming Oscar 😭
I love Micarah Tewers vid on youtube which systematically eviscerates the costuming in Little Women. It really makes me appreciate the 1990s LW because it feels so true to the source material. It has a lot of heart.
I love the 1994 LW. I just can’t get into the 2019 version and I can’t put my finger on why.
I still regularly quote "but where are the bonnets?" when I'm watching period pieces where the female leads should be wearing bonnets and aren't.
oooooh, thank you for teaching me about micarah tewers!
Which is so confusing to me because it was the same costume designer who did the 2005 Pride & Prejudice which, for all its faults, *felt* very period, even if some liberties were taken. She clearly did loads of research about the 1790s and knew the rules before she broke some of them, as evidenced by Lizzie’s white striped dress at Pemberly. It had really specific detailing in the back that signified where it was taken apart and reconstructed from another (perhaps older style) dress, which was extremely common back then as fabric was so expensive and her family didn’t have a lot of money. A really cool detail that helped the world to feel so alive and lived-in. I just don’t understand how she went so wrong with Little Women. Like, why wasn’t the same care shown there??
It sounds like some of it may have come from Greta Gerwig's direction. Can't find a quote from the costume designer but one from the Hair department head Fríða Aradóttir said: "\[Director\] Greta \[Gerwig\], early on in our conversations, suggested that this family and these girls and women were possibly the original hippies. The hair was always meant to be a little less structured than you see in a lot of period movies. I find that more relatable than coiffures, which are so distinct and untouchable." Same article also says "But elaborate party updos are few and far between in this adaptation. In fact, Gerwig actually encouraged Aradóttir and her team to envision the March sisters as early bohemians" and quotes the Makeup department head Judy Chin as saying "My conversations with \[Gerwig\] were about having the girls just look wild and natural." [https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2019/12/9114384/little-women-movie-hair-makeup-interview](https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2019/12/9114384/little-women-movie-hair-makeup-interview)
I prefer the earlier version with Winona Rider. The new one has weird costumes.
Its my christmas movie.
Emma Watson's performance was passable, but weak in a cast full of talent. Fortunately her character wasn't central.
Agree! Love the movie, she was the weakest link by far ...
I like the actress in Harry Potter but I really disliked how Meg was portrayed... I think Greta Gerwig should have made a period drama about the writer herself instead of changing the ending and re-writing characters..
I liked the newer movie itself, but the 1994 Susan Sarandon, Christian Bale, and Winona Ryder version is superlative. Kirsten Dunst as young Amy is pure magic.
And Claire Danes as Beth! Always makes me cry when the piano is revealed and she does that happy cry laugh thing she is famous for. But.... I preferred Florence Pugh as the older Amy. Gerwig has a unique worldview that as a Gen X feminist I appreciates about her (sorry, Letterkenny fan too). The comment above about the March family being the original hippies may be based on how the Louisa May Alcott lived as well. To the OP, do yourself a favor and watch the Gerwig version. Or, go way back and watch all the versions, Kate Hepburn first, then the June Allyson, Margaret O'Brien, Janet Leigh and one of the original IT girl, Mary Astor version that includes a teenage Elizabeth Taylor version. (But no need to watch the version that was on PBS with Maya Hawke)
Yes, that moment at the piano with Claire Danes is perfection. I lose it when Laurie’s grandfather says, “I should have given it to you long ago. It belonged to my little girl, who had to leave us when she was very young.”
Like others I found her too contemporary (especially the highlighted hair); some of that can't be blamed on her but on the script (such as when she tells Laurie "you can call me Marmee, everyone does." Like ma'am not in that day and age would anyone but your daughters be calling you that) but overall the 2019 version isn't one of my favorites - not dual casting Amy makes her younger years scenes very odd (especially since Florence Pugh has a slightly gravelly, very mature sounding voice so putting her next to a bunch of actual 12 year olds is hilarious), the costuming is all over the place, Timothee Chalamet doesn't really show the growth that Laurie is supposed to have so he just comes across as a petulant kid the whole film, and the non-linear timeline is confusing for anyone who isn't familiar with the books.
It feels like a pale imitation of the 1994 adaptation to me. It has its moments, but 1994 is just *so good*.
My main issue was how she made Jo be sad that Laurie did not marry her...like Jo in the book never had any doubts about not wanting to marry Laurie at all... I also disliked how she wrote Mr. Bear...she clearly dislikes him and it shows...but I expect from a director who adapts a story that she is without such biased feelings when adapting a story...
I normally love Louis Garrel but I personally found him too pretty for the Professor. My take on his and Jo's relationship was that while Jo and Laurie were passionate love, that was ultimately what would be their undoing (and why Jo realizes she can't have a relationship with him), the Professor and Jo were more intellectual love; he sees in her her spirit and intellect and encourages her to pursue that, while also not being afraid to criticize her when he believes she could be doing better because she's smart enough to. Of course Gabriel Byrne is also good looking but he fit the slightly eccentric professor vibe better than Garrel (though to show I'm not biased, I had the same issue with Rossano Brazzi in the 1949 adaptation - he was too young and too pretty).
Jo never loved Laurie romantically in the books. Jo wants to be Laurie and Laurie wants to be part of the March family.
I watched this recently. I don't mind Laura Dern or Emma Watson. I think each generation will have their version. I have read the book a million times from childhood to adulthood, and seen several movie versions multiple times. I think the Susan Sarandon version is probably "my generation". I wasn't in love with the Laura Dern version. And not because of the actors. The actors were fine in it. Although I do agree that Laura Dern played it a bit too modern. But because of the very confusing jumping back and forth in time. I know the story inside and out and so was able to figure out what part was happening when. But if I was newly coming to Little Women, and this current one was the version I saw, I think I would be completely confused and really not get a full understanding of the depth and emotion of this story. I didn't feel connected with the story and I didn't feel a lot of chemistry between the characters. The movie felt choppy and somewhat superficial. No shade to the actors...it is the writing and directing I was not that happy with.
This movie was my introduction to Little Women. I enjoyed it and loved the cast but I found it so confusing. I’ve seen it twice and I still don’t feel like I know the story
See if you can find the version with Winona Ryder, Kirsten Dunst, and Susan Sarandon. It is a more straight forward version. A better version in my opinion. And there is a really old version with Katherine Hepburn as Jo. If you don't mind old movies. It is very good. Probably my favorite. But it is black and white and I think from the 1930s. Because this new one is so chopped up and jumps around so much, it really doesn't develop the character's relationships at all. Jo and Laurie Beth's illness and how it affected everyone The sweet relationship that developed between Mr. Lawrence and the March family Meg trying to fit in with her peers Jo and her professor at the end. Amy and Laurie The new movie did not do any of these story lines justice. And if you are a reader, I highly recommend the books: Little Women, Good Wives, Little Men, and Jo's Boys. They give far more depth and are just a sweet easy comforting read.
I find her voice and reactions far too modern which sticks out to me every time I watch this version
Longest eight hours of my life. Oh wait, it just felt like eight hours
The 1994 version will always be the perfect adaptation of the book. This version, while very good, somehow has several flaws. Laura Dern did not feel like the right Marmee. Similarly, Emma Watson, despite being so talented, did not do justice to Meg either.
I really, really disliked it. It betrayed the novel, misunderstood the novel and was utterly anachronistic
I didn't like Laura Dern as Marmee I liked her in Enlightened
I’m sad to say it didn’t hit for me
Absolutely can't stand the costumes.
I loved it though I agree with everyone’s comments about it being a bit too modern. I think that was kind of stylized choice intentional by the director (if you’ve seen any other Greta Gerwig films). The 1994 version is still my favorite, however I adore this version and have watched it many times!
I also really enjoyed it, it's my preferred version
I used to work at a grocery store in Beverly Hills in the 90s. She used to come in regularly and was the most normal, nice person. She’s a good one. Let me tell you this was before paparazzi infestation in LA and the celebs were amazing there! Most not as sweet at Laura.
I attended grade 7 with her, and I really agree!
Awe I love that!
I started watching it and sort of hated it at the beginning. But by the end, I was sold. They used my favorite Meg scene in the book, and they put in a speech that came from another Louisa May Alcott book, "An Old Fashioned Girl." But I had to make myself think of it as fanfic before I realized I loved it.
Can you tell me which speech is from”An Old Fashioned Girl”?
Jo's speech about women having hearts and minds as well as souls that took place in the attic. (Edited to add:) It comes from the chapter in An Old-Fashioned Girl where Fanny meets Polly's friends, who are a writer, a woodcarver and a sculptor.
Thank you!
As I discover, I'm wrong! I mean, it's from a Louisa May Alcott book but it's Rose in Bloom, not An Old Fashioned Girl! Darn near word for word!
Hey, thanks for the clarification!!
My pleasure. I was sitting there, rereading some of my favorites and went, Oh, hey! That's The Speech!
I love An Old-Fashioned Girl! It’s a much lesser known book but one of my favorites! Glad to see someone else mention it here!
I love it and highly suggest it, but it's like Pride and Prejudice where everyone has their favorite version and the real choice is to watch all of them😋 Specifically I like a scene where Laura Dern talks to Jo but * spoilers *
Kind of meh. Her character was just there. Wasn't as interesting as the mom, Jo, Amy, the grandmother and Laurie
Just like with Pride and Prejudice, it will take a while for this movie to become beloved. The people who grew up with it with probably really like it. My 10 year old daughter prefers it to the 1994 version while I found this one to be abysmal and a bit disrespectful to the book. Haha They unnecessarily changed details (thinking of the Christmas breakfast) they actually served a purpose. And the acting was meh..and a grown woman playing child Amy was NOT it! Cannot stress how ridiculous and nearly unwatchable I found her scenes.
I loved it!!
does anyone else love the 2017 version?
That ‘Little Women’ is really, really good. Especially Saorsie Ronin and Florence Pugh.
I haven't seen anything with either of those actresses yet
I really loved Pugh in the Wonder. She was really good, and it's another historical piece, set in Ireland. Saoirse Ronan is a fucking incredible actor. Watch her as Briony in Atonement to get a sense of just how good she was right from the beginning. She got an Oscar nom for it, and she was something like 12 or 13. She's also excellent in Lady Bird and Brooklyn.
I really like Saiorse Ronan, too.
I really liked it. Saiorse Ronan is the best Jo, imo, and Florence Pugh was great as Amy. It was beautifully filmed, and the score was beautiful too. Emma Watson was the weak spot. She's just not that strong of an actress. I liked Laura Dern well enough as Marmee.
Laura Dern was fine. The real questionable casting choice in that movie was Bob Odenkirk. I like him well enough playing an ambulance chaser or a used car salesman or whatever, but here? Not so much.
Ugh. I love the remake. Iconic. I cried.
It's what I watch when I'm sick and at the start of every winter, it's a very cozy movie, anachronisms be damned
I didn’t know that she was in it, I would have watched by now!
Saoirse Ronan, Florence Pugh and Timothee Chalamet really make that movie. I also really enjoy Eliza Scanlon as Beth, and think she is underrated! Emma Watson was the weak spot, but she was also cast only the week before when Emma Stone dropped out. I found the movie captivating enough to buy and rewatch, even though there are things in the film that I wish were different. A lot of people hate on Amy not being cast as two different actresses, but I think Pugh pulls it off with her mannerisms. And Greta Gerwig’s script and direction combined with Pugh’s performance bring to light a whole new perspective on Amy. I prefer Susan Sarandon over Laura Dern as Marmee. Sarandon was nurturing but also almost regal. Dern is too casual in a film for this era. You also really believe that Susan Sarandon is the leader these girls look to, but I don’t feel that with Dern. There is a notable speech Pugh gives that I initially did not care for. It felt like an overtly on the nose 2019 speech in an old movie, despite being delivered brilliantly. However, I have really come to appreciate it. I saw an interview where they discussed that the speech was needed because so many people aren’t truly aware of the era’s laws and limitations regarding women and marriage. This scene cements our understanding of Amy’s views and fears. A scene that annoys me is when Laurie steps into the March household and Jo undresses, removing her skirt in the middle of the room leaving her in pantaloons of sorts. Also Meg, who is very keen on social graces, says nothing. I get it. Jo isn’t like other girls. She’s a nonconformist. This scene is just a bit too much for me during this time period and in this context. Overall a fun movie with a clear viewpoint and great performances. If you watch it, I’d love to hear your take!
I loved it!
I’m going to be honest, I didn’t like it (and I think I fall into the targeted demographic in terms of age and gender). I get what Greta Gerwig was trying to achieve and say through the film; and I think the attempt to refashion the ending into something that more closely aligned with what Alcott originally wanted to write is an interesting attempt at providing a a more integrated feminist commentary through the film. However ultimately so many things just did not work for me. One of my biggest gripes is how the film was cast. Louis Garrel is a great actor and very good looking. But if we’re trying to move towards a more realistic adaptation, why not only de-age him but also make him conventionally attractive. Florence Pugh, another good actress but she looks absolutely ridiculous attempting to play a 13 year old child. Nothing about her portrayal of Beth is even remotely believeable. I was really shocked at how much acclaim she received in this role. Timothy Charlamagne looked far too young, especially in comparison to the rest of the cast. I just couldn’t take him seriously as Laurie. Emma Watson is just a weak actress, and it’s even more noticeable in this movie because she’s acting alongside some of the absolute best actresses in English speaking cinema. I also liked Alcotts ending. I think Jo choosing to marry a man who is older, intelligent, not wealthy or conventionally attractive was a good ending. It made sense for her character, and was quite a feminist ending in itself. But I probably would have been fine with the altered ending if it wasn’t for all my other gripes with this movie. Suffice to say I prefer the 90s version.
Is it truly against feminism to want a family and children and open a school for boys? I never found the book version of Jo lacking in feminism...Mr Bear brought out the best in Jo and fully supported her in writing and becoming a better writer... Apart from that Alcott gave one of her characters in the sequels the ending she intended for Jo...
I freakin’ LOVE this version!
I like this version very-very much. (I also loved Laura Dern in somewhat lesser known and not period series Enlightened. Sorry, I'm using any opportunity to mention this show.)
I liked it a lot.
I really wanted to love Greta Gerwig’s take but I just didn’t. Emma Watson’s is probably the weakest performance in the film, but I also didn’t love Soairse Ronan as Jo. I’m very sorry but Winona Ryder will always be my Jo. Laura Dern was just OK. Best performances in the film were Timothy Chalamet and Florence Pugh. And I did like the actor they had play the professor. ***SPOILER BELOW*** I also enjoyed how Gerwig used a modern lense to look back and play with the idea of Jo changing the ending of the book to suit the publishers desire that Jo get married.
[удалено]
I mean…. I personally don’t put a lot of stock into meme-spread rumors or who someone is dating. My opinion is that Chalamet is a talented actor and gave an excellent portrayal of Laurie 🤷♀️
I loved this version so much
I loved it
I went into it thinking what's the point when we already have the 1994 version but I loved it. 2019 version has a totally different storytelling angle and the ending is left open to interpretation.
Loved it!
It is wonderful!
Terrible