Amira Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 Have you seen the new version? What did you think? Or did I miss a previous thread about this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klmama Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 I didn't see it, but my college student liked it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree Frog Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 My 2 daughters and I went to see it. We all liked it, but some of the circumstances in the movie hit home with my girls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madteaparty Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) I guess it’s a very tiny Venn diagram of movies I like to see in a generic movie theatre, that I can see with both my kids, that we all want to see. i thought it was okay. It’s kind of hard to mess Little Women up. I got a bit tired of the overwrought speeches. My little had a hard time with chronology, they look the same in the jumps back and forth (playing in the attic and having two kids, same face). Laura Dern as Marmie is all wrong, I kept thinking, give this woman a baseball bat 😂 Edited January 4, 2020 by madteaparty 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura Corin Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 6 hours ago, Danae said: I liked most of it. Wasn’t a fan of what they did with Professor Bhaer, and the Amy-Laurie, Jo-Laurie stuff was not given enough time/space. If you didn’t know the story already it didn’t come across well. My boys, who knew nothing going into it, think Laurie was a massive jerk. My MIL, who saw it with us, hated it, but she doesn’t think anything can live up to the 1949 Elizabeth Taylor version, The way they did the chronology made the saddest part of the book seem a lot more dominant than in other versions. I don't remember the book. I liked the film and also the director's description of Laurie's motivation, that he wants to be part of the girls' family, rather then necessarily passionately wanting to marry any of the sisters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teachermom2834 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 4 hours ago, madteaparty said: I guess it’s a very tiny Venn diagram of movies I like to see in a generic movie theatre, that I can see with both my kids, that we all want to see. i thought it was okay. It’s kind of hard to mess Little Women up. I got a bit tired of the overwrought speeches. My little had a hard time with chronology, they look the same in the jumps back and forth (playing in the attic and having two kids, same face). Laura Dern as Marmie is all wrong, I kept thinking, give this woman a baseball bat 😂 This is pretty much how I felt. I didn’t love it. Didn’t hate it. I told my dd that anyone not familiar with the story would struggle with the chronology. They didn’t make them look different at different ages. The overwrought speeches- I didn’t love. I always thought Little Women offered a social commentary and was a girl power book even without all the speeches. Laura Dern didn’t work as Marmie to me. And Better Call Saul as Mr. March was distracting. So it was fine. Definitely worth the $6 I paid for it and a nice afternoon with dd. It is beautifully shot and well acted. Parts just didn’t feel like the classic book to me. And Little Women is a classic. It is different than reimagining Percy Jackson for the screen. Just my opinion! It is worth seeing. The March family is pretty endearing regardless of details. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madteaparty Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 1 hour ago, teachermom2834 said: This is pretty much how I felt. I didn’t love it. Didn’t hate it. I told my dd that anyone not familiar with the story would struggle with the chronology. They didn’t make them look different at different ages. The overwrought speeches- I didn’t love. I always thought Little Women offered a social commentary and was a girl power book even without all the speeches. Laura Dern didn’t work as Marmie to me. And Better Call Saul as Mr. March was distracting. So it was fine. Definitely worth the $6 I paid for it and a nice afternoon with dd. It is beautifully shot and well acted. Parts just didn’t feel like the classic book to me. And Little Women is a classic. It is different than reimagining Percy Jackson for the screen. Just my opinion! It is worth seeing. The March family is pretty endearing regardless of details. I also agree that it was pretty. And all the New England tropes were checked off one by one, it was great 😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plansrme Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 I haven't seen the movie, but I've seen the ads, and the clothes are so lovely! They make me want to pull out my sewing machine and seriously step up my sewing game. Not that I or any girls in my family have anywhere to wear such things, but still-- 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junie Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 1 hour ago, plansrme said: I haven't seen the movie, but I've seen the ads, and the clothes are so lovely! They make me want to pull out my sewing machine and seriously step up my sewing game. Not that I or any girls in my family have anywhere to wear such things, but still-- Yes! We haven't seen the movie yet either, but dd15 sews and intends to be a costume designer. She asked for a wall calendar for Christmas and I found a Little Women wall calendar that is just lovely. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pippen Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 I saw it with dd and another friend and we all enjoyed it. We all know the books on different levels, and it worked for all of us. I really liked what the director did with the chronology as opposed to another straight retelling of the story. I liked that I had to process a little to keep up. Meryl Streep didn't work especially well as Aunt March for me--the voice, not the attitude or appearance. Timothee Chalamet worked for me as young, wilder Laurie, but there wasn't enough contrast into mature Laurie. Even with those and a few other things, it was as close to a perfect movie adaptation for that book as it would get for me. The theater was full of girls and women of all ages, and many of them older--so much fun to share a retelling of one of my special childhood books with them all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alisoncooks Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 How does it compare to the recent Netflix miniseries? I went into that prepared to hate it (I grew up with Hepburn as Jo, and then later Winona) but I enjoyed it. I'm not sure I see Emma Watson as Meg... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amira Posted January 5, 2020 Author Share Posted January 5, 2020 13 hours ago, Pippen said: I saw it with dd and another friend and we all enjoyed it. We all know the books on different levels, and it worked for all of us. I really liked what the director did with the chronology as opposed to another straight retelling of the story. I liked that I had to process a little to keep up. Meryl Streep didn't work especially well as Aunt March for me--the voice, not the attitude or appearance. Timothee Chalamet worked for me as young, wilder Laurie, but there wasn't enough contrast into mature Laurie. Even with those and a few other things, it was as close to a perfect movie adaptation for that book as it would get for me. The theater was full of girls and women of all ages, and many of them older--so much fun to share a retelling of one of my special childhood books with them all. I have some different quibbles, but this is how I felt about it too. I very much liked it. This book and various adaptations have always been part of my life (I grew up with the 1978 TV version and I’d watch it often with my four sisters - we don’t have brothers). But I loved how this one pulled in parts of Alcott’s own life, and I loved the ambiguity at the end. The chronology thing was jarring at first, but I think it worked really well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CindyH in NC Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 On 1/3/2020 at 10:05 PM, Danae said: The way they did the chronology made the saddest part of the book seem a lot more dominant than in other versions. Saw it today with 18 yr old dd and her good friend. Both girls and I enjoyed it. It was a beautiful film. I knew I would cry - I always do-, but I definitely agree that the chronology of this film made the rejection and Beth's fate more central. I cried for a lot of the movie. 😉 I liked a lot of things about this one. I saw the Ryder version in the theatre in the 90s and enjoyed the recent BBC version. It's been many years since I saw the Elizabeth Taylor/Margaret O'Brien version. I thought the actress playing Jo did a good job - different than the exuberant version of Jo in the WR version - but believable and still accurate to the book. Amy was always my favorite and I liked the actress that played her in many ways, but still trying to decide if it would have been preferable to have a younger actress play her in a few scenes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GailV Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 Saw it this afternoon with younger DD, who thought she needed to see it before returning to college since "everyone" will have seen it. She was definitely on the young side of the audience, most of which was age 65 and up, and openly weeping during much of the movie. I loved the framing of the narrative. Great costumes. Liked the sets. Much decent acting. Dd and her friends are mostly interested due to Timothee Chalamet. Although older dd commented that he always looks like he knows what an iPhone is, and thus does NOT work out in period pieces. Also, desire to support Greta Gerwig. And Saoirse Ronan. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lulubelle Posted March 15, 2020 Share Posted March 15, 2020 I just watched it. I did not like it. I've seen the Wynona Ryder one and the latest BBC version and liked them both. This new one missed some very important things and I really did not like Amy's portrayal at all. She appears to be 20 years old through the whole movie. The new movie made it look like Beth was the youngest - feeding her doll at the table. Also, the older movie versions made it clear that Jo refuses Laurie because of Beth's declaration that she loves Laurie. Not in the new movie at all. Beth was painfully shy in the other versions and not at all in the new one. I don't understand why the movie got such stellar reviews. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Library Momma Posted March 15, 2020 Share Posted March 15, 2020 I absolutely hated it. My favorite part of the story is watching the girls "grow up," and seeing how who they are when they are young influences they women they become. The time jumps distort that entire aspect of the story for me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.