Greta Gerwig's done it again. Her adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's Little Women is damn full of HUMANITY, it makes the heart ache. There is no role so small that Gerwig does not imbue it with SOMETHING, a richness of detail and soul that makes each and every one relatable, amusing, touching, HUMAN. Now, I don't know, central as Jo is (and Saoirse Ronan is rock solid in the role), if Amy was supposed to be stand-out character, but Florence Pugh is EVERYTHING in this, doing the most growing up (from 13 to 20) and crafting an evolving character that steals every scene she's in. What a great year 2019 has been for her - an extremely versatile actress and a real star. I have to admit some of the back and forth between the Little Women and Little Wives material had me scrambling at first, as the color grading of time periods isn't always obvious, but that's a very small complaint. The main story as extended flashback allows Gerwig to draw parallels between the two halves and produces at least one gut punch from it. Not a dry eye... The other Gerwig addition is the focus on the book's innate feminism, and let's be honest, 19th-Century women's novels often featured a betrayal of their autonomous heroines by having them marry at the end. Certainly a betrayal in modern terms. Gerwig finds a way to have the book cake and eat it too, which is pretty clever. Now, would you believe I've never seen any other adaptation of Alcott's novel? I guess I'm going to have to check them out to compare...
This movie is a big waste of time, I’ll stick with the 1994 version. No character building and terrible acting. The fact that Florence Pugh even got nominated for an Oscar is crazy to me... she’s supposed to be viewed as a child in certain scenes?... what a joke. And Emma Watson couldn’t hold an American accent if her life depended on it... about as good as her singing in Beauty and the Beast.
I really wanted to like this. The acting is fantastic, but the high-paced editing and non-linear storyline rushes through almost all emotional sequences in a matter of minutes and skips onto the next sequence without any time to soak it in. They should have trashed some of the smaller storylines and stuck to the meat. Also, the ending comes together as a refreshing ark, and then cops out with a, 'Oh fine, let's make another cliche Hollywood blockbuster ending", and the self-awareness does not make it any less cheap.
I saw the 1994 version when I was a kid. I remember my mom told me I should read the book because it was one of those books that capture well girls coming-of-age. I don't think I fully grasped it then. I've seen the 1994 version again and liked it but I think I like this one better... or maybe I've just gotten older and more experienced so I enjoyed it more. The reality is that Gerta Gerwig is really good at presenting these kinds of stories and specially these kind of free spirited characters, with whom I identify so much. She really does it well and Saoirse Ronan was amazing too.
6+/10 (7.8 / 10 IMDb)
Viaplay. Not as good as I had hoped, something messy thinks both I and my gf Emma, as it is not in chronological order. Fine costumes and environments, I like the time epoque 1800s on film. Quite OK acting. Based on American classic (probably more precisely for North Americans than the world otherwise) with the same name. Worth seeing once.
Loved it.
Applause to amazing Greta Gerwig. Hope she will get Oscar or two.
I also liked acting of Saoirse Ronan and the free-spirited character she was into.
A really lovely, effortlessly charismatic film. My only real misgiving is that, while I get what Gerwig was going for, I'm not convinced the ending works.
It makes sense for the train station kiss to be a fantasy as a meta part of the in-movie book, but the subsequent scene in the manor throws me. It's filmed with the same over-saturated look which indicates fantasy, but if it is a fantasy sequence then it's entirely unnecessary and if it's not a fantasy sequence then it's just confusing and nonsensical.
It's a relatively minor complaint but it's a shame that, in my view, an otherwise nearly faultless film doesn't nail the landing.
A movie with soul in it. Perfect acting everybody, logical events and story. Very good storytelling mixing childhood events with present throughout all the movie.
You sense warm and humanity coming toward you if you choose to watch it.
I just want to say Louis Garrel, James Norton and Timothée Chalamet did a splendid job. They complement the movie perfectly.
(Thank you Louis Garrel for existing.)
I was fortunate to see a sneak peak of this film at a local movie theatre in Salt Lake City. I had no prior context - I hadn't read the book(s) or seen the prior film adaptations.
I just fully want to proclaim myself as an Amy March stan. Florence Pugh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You immaculate woman!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Too long and boring at times, star studded cast just melts inside the plot which makes them insignificant. They tried to change the depressive tone of the original, but it did not work out eventually. Worst of them all was the rich playboy who simply couldnt figure out that Joe was gay,,,she even cut her hair short you MORON!
You want my advice, just watch the original and skip this boring altered story
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 15 of 18
few visible scars
Under what definition of 'living in poverty' is this made? Not rich, sure, needing to be careful with money, absolutely.. but poverty?Siskoid
Greta Gerwig's done it again. Her adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's Little Women is damn full of HUMANITY, it makes the heart ache. There is no role so small that Gerwig does not imbue it with SOMETHING, a richness of detail and soul that makes each and every one relatable, amusing, touching, HUMAN. Now, I don't know, central as Jo is (and Saoirse Ronan is rock solid in the role), if Amy was supposed to be stand-out character, but Florence Pugh is EVERYTHING in this, doing the most growing up (from 13 to 20) and crafting an evolving character that steals every scene she's in. What a great year 2019 has been for her - an extremely versatile actress and a real star. I have to admit some of the back and forth between the Little Women and Little Wives material had me scrambling at first, as the color grading of time periods isn't always obvious, but that's a very small complaint. The main story as extended flashback allows Gerwig to draw parallels between the two halves and produces at least one gut punch from it. Not a dry eye... The other Gerwig addition is the focus on the book's innate feminism, and let's be honest, 19th-Century women's novels often featured a betrayal of their autonomous heroines by having them marry at the end. Certainly a betrayal in modern terms. Gerwig finds a way to have the book cake and eat it too, which is pretty clever. Now, would you believe I've never seen any other adaptation of Alcott's novel? I guess I'm going to have to check them out to compare...beckaaay
This movie is a big waste of time, I’ll stick with the 1994 version. No character building and terrible acting. The fact that Florence Pugh even got nominated for an Oscar is crazy to me... she’s supposed to be viewed as a child in certain scenes?... what a joke. And Emma Watson couldn’t hold an American accent if her life depended on it... about as good as her singing in Beauty and the Beast.HerminHop
I really wanted to like this. The acting is fantastic, but the high-paced editing and non-linear storyline rushes through almost all emotional sequences in a matter of minutes and skips onto the next sequence without any time to soak it in. They should have trashed some of the smaller storylines and stuck to the meat. Also, the ending comes together as a refreshing ark, and then cops out with a, 'Oh fine, let's make another cliche Hollywood blockbuster ending", and the self-awareness does not make it any less cheap.C-3PO
I saw the 1994 version when I was a kid. I remember my mom told me I should read the book because it was one of those books that capture well girls coming-of-age. I don't think I fully grasped it then. I've seen the 1994 version again and liked it but I think I like this one better... or maybe I've just gotten older and more experienced so I enjoyed it more. The reality is that Gerta Gerwig is really good at presenting these kinds of stories and specially these kind of free spirited characters, with whom I identify so much. She really does it well and Saoirse Ronan was amazing too.Emiam
6+/10 (7.8 / 10 IMDb)Viaplay. Not as good as I had hoped, something messy thinks both I and my gf Emma, as it is not in chronological order. Fine costumes and environments, I like the time epoque 1800s on film. Quite OK acting. Based on American classic (probably more precisely for North Americans than the world otherwise) with the same name. Worth seeing once.
boulderman
Yes critical acclaim and excellent production however I was left wanting for most of this, like Emma.6/10 it's good but it doesn't have that oomph I get from a fun I rate higher
airi86ja
Loved it.Applause to amazing Greta Gerwig. Hope she will get Oscar or two.
I also liked acting of Saoirse Ronan and the free-spirited character she was into.
lachyas
A really lovely, effortlessly charismatic film. My only real misgiving is that, while I get what Gerwig was going for, I'm not convinced the ending works.CodeV
A movie with soul in it. Perfect acting everybody, logical events and story. Very good storytelling mixing childhood events with present throughout all the movie.You sense warm and humanity coming toward you if you choose to watch it.
Camille Deadpan
I just want to say Louis Garrel, James Norton and Timothée Chalamet did a splendid job. They complement the movie perfectly.(Thank you Louis Garrel for existing.)
satisfythecrave
I was fortunate to see a sneak peak of this film at a local movie theatre in Salt Lake City. I had no prior context - I hadn't read the book(s) or seen the prior film adaptations.I just fully want to proclaim myself as an Amy March stan. Florence Pugh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You immaculate woman!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Marcus Fenix
Too long and boring at times, star studded cast just melts inside the plot which makes them insignificant. They tried to change the depressive tone of the original, but it did not work out eventually. Worst of them all was the rich playboy who simply couldnt figure out that Joe was gay,,,she even cut her hair short you MORON!You want my advice, just watch the original and skip this boring altered story
Joao_Carlos
Its not so good !A movie about women, for women..Its a fairytale to long...(look like an eternity)
Although was well made
devilsadvocado
"Girls don't fart, they fluff." - Louisa May Alcott/Greta GerwigShowing items 1 – 15 of 18