|
Post by Nora on Dec 27, 2019 2:52:27 GMT
I see everything that comes out so yes, I see all the period movies that come out. They are not my absolute favorite but I have taken a liking to quite a few. I loved the Favorite for example. There must be some humor or sexiness to it, and here I found none of that plus the girls came across as too spoilt without the script or director really admitting it.I am not so sure if Little Women has even been about sexiness, considering the context of the era the film is set and the feminist perspective of the author of the time. But yes, these girls are a tad spoiled, but get brought to life as written.
The milieu was the privilege of the author and the frivolity that gets anointed onto female behavior is just an aspect of that privilege. They were poor by their own standards and the Civil War—which wasn't very civil—affected many economically, but yes, what was important to them is really trivial stuff. For me, the joy of the story is contained within the interactions of these women, the wordplay, situational humor, the clash of differing personalities and how their lives pan out, especially plain but passionate Jo who wants more than to marry for reasons of security.
I will give the story a chance in the previous version with Bale and Ryder and see if it rubs me better.
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Dec 27, 2019 22:23:42 GMT
But it’s got Florence Pugh.
|
|
|
Post by Nicko's Nose on Dec 28, 2019 2:46:54 GMT
But it’s got Florence Pugh. Indeed.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Dec 28, 2019 4:35:40 GMT
Its the kond of movie Greta Thunberg would like and it looks terrible AF. Women with their spoon gagging 1st world problems maybe see it before you judge?.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2019 12:27:21 GMT
Its the kond of movie Greta Thunberg would like and it looks terrible AF. Women with their spoon gagging 1st world problems maybe see it before you judge?. why? because their might be some hot girls in the theatre?
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Jan 3, 2020 16:38:36 GMT
I saw it yesterday. I liked it well enough. It's a well-made period piece with great production values. I haven't seen any previous version and I haven't read the book, so I was only very vaguely familiar with the story. I have to say that for maybe the first half of the movie I was a bit bored - the movie was pretty to look at, but it didn't resonate with me at all. Later on that changed a bit and I started appreciating it a little better.
Saoirse Ronan is a Goddess!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2020 22:02:45 GMT
Its a hit. I guess thats all that matters
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jan 5, 2020 0:00:46 GMT
Funny how none of this was even hinted at in your opening post, which was just you whining about politics in complete ignorance of the source material.
And by the way, moron: it is an American novel set in America, with no British accents anywhere to be heard. You didn't even watch it, did you? Or are you just brain damaged?
No I was "whinig" (or even winning) about the glossy sappy "yay women!" feel of it and trying to stifle my laughter at how ridiculous the movie looked, and how much i DONT want to see it. The fact that you had/have no clue that the novel is a work of American literature by an American writer, translated into a film set in that selfsame America, featuring American characters (nevermind the nationalities of the actors portraying them) proclaims you as sufficiently ignorant enough to be incapable of rendering any sort of critical judgement on this production that would warrant the attention of any adult in the room.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2020 12:23:22 GMT
No I was "whinig" (or even winning) about the glossy sappy "yay women!" feel of it and trying to stifle my laughter at how ridiculous the movie looked, and how much i DONT want to see it. The fact that you had/have no clue that the novel is a work of American literature by an American writer, translated into a film set in that selfsame America, featuring American characters (nevermind the nationalities of the actors portraying them) proclaims you as sufficiently ignorant enough to be incapable of rendering any sort of critical judgement on this production that would warrant the attention of any adult in the room. The accents almost sound british and the actors are all british. they wear british looking outfits and act basically all british. it pretty much comes as close to being british without actually being british. so i've basically won on this point. next!
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jan 5, 2020 14:33:25 GMT
The fact that you had/have no clue that the novel is a work of American literature by an American writer, translated into a film set in that selfsame America, featuring American characters (nevermind the nationalities of the actors portraying them) proclaims you as sufficiently ignorant enough to be incapable of rendering any sort of critical judgement on this production that would warrant the attention of any adult in the room. The accents almost sound british and the actors are all british. they wear british looking outfits and act basically all british. it pretty much comes as close to being british without actually being british. so i've basically won on this point. next! Do you know anything about American history prior to the time of your childhood? Anything about the clothing of the time and how it differed from what we wear today? Anything about regional accents throughout the nation, such as New England, Boston, etc? None of that comes close to "being British without being British", it's differences of era and area in the US. (BTW, 'British' is a proper noun which gets capitalized; and what have you got against things British, anyway? Too cultured/educated/denoting intelligence for your taste?) You've said elsewhere on this site that you're an adult; but honestly, you sound like a pre-teen and not a very well-informed one at that, when you persist in comments like the ones you've been making.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jan 5, 2020 14:42:25 GMT
The fact that you had/have no clue that the novel is a work of American literature by an American writer, translated into a film set in that selfsame America, featuring American characters (nevermind the nationalities of the actors portraying them) proclaims you as sufficiently ignorant enough to be incapable of rendering any sort of critical judgement on this production that would warrant the attention of any adult in the room. The whining of this poster often comes across as childish. They are non too sharp or astute. I don’t even want to waste energy pitying them because he\she doesn’t even appear to make much effort to improve upon them self. He came off sounding about as petty and childish on a recent thread regarding, of all things, cash register receipts, to the point where he accused me of trolling because I'd noted that he wasn't correct about some of the things he was saying. I finally reported him on the basis of that, and had him on block for a time. He comes across as exceptionally immature, and I suspect he's much younger than he claims to be. (IIRC, he stated he was in his thirties on that other thread. Either he's fibbing, or millennials are even stupider than they're characterized as being. With apologies to the millennials .)
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Jan 8, 2020 0:02:47 GMT
Just got out of this film. (While the auditorium I saw it in was small, I was still surprised that it was nearly full on a Tuesday in its second week of release.) I think enjoyed it and now sort of want to go back to the 1994 version, which I have vague memories of but barely remember as I was so young when I saw it
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jan 9, 2020 7:11:21 GMT
I hope you are wrong as I also dont enjoy the heavyhanded feminist agenda of many modern movies and I hope this movie will not try to suggest that today and then women are treated in a similar way. ALTHOUGH, when i think of it, if one is an unmarried woman over 40, god forbid also childless, she is cosnidered a failed woman still, and the pressure on women to get married and have kids is real, seriously it exists. outside of family. strangers will put this pressure on you. Considering whose directing it, and the climate in which we live in, it is what I got from watching the trailer and how it is presented. We will just have to wait and see and it does look well mounted. I had the notion to watch the Winona version again before seeing this new one, but I am going to wait until after. Yes, I can get the pressure thing on older women who may still be single and childless, but this is just a societal construct and it affects males as well. It needs to be broken. It is as though women are meant to be married and have kids and that men need a woman in their lives. I still hear it occasionally from women today I have known. People can't feel whole without having someone in a close sexual relationship. That is just their insecurity.
Indeed, the most basic trope of classical Hollywood cinema—and its residue lingers today, for better or worse—was the restoration of the heterosexual couple, and that imperative proved true for male protagonists as much as female ones (unless those males died on the battlefield in a war movie, like John Wayne in Sands of Iwo Jima). In many of the most intriguing films from that era, conversely, the protagonist's heterosexual restoration does not occur: in films noir, mostly (think The Maltese Falcon and Double Indemnity ), but also in John Ford's most complex Westerns with Wayne ( The Searchers and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence ) and Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo , starring Jimmy Stewart. Making movies outside of Hollywood several years later, Italian director Sergio Leone went much further. In his famously stylized trio of Westerns starring Clint Eastwood ( A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly), shot primarily in Spain and the first two produced and originally released without a cent of Hollywood capital, the Eastwood antihero does not engage in any romantic interactions whatsoever. (Leone actually did shoot a love scene—more like a modest sex scene, probably—between Eastwood and a woman for The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in 1966, but the director notably dropped it from the final cut, even for the original Italian release, which has since been largely restored. Only a still photograph remains.) Returning to Hollywood as a star, Eastwood had to gingerly readjust to the prevailing norms of American films, where romantic interactions are something of a necessity. In Hang 'Em High (Ted Post, 1968), his wounded figure engages in a brief and modest romantic interlude with a widow played by Rachel Stevens, although by the end, he rides off alone, without her. By his second American movie as a star, Coogan's Bluff (Don Siegel, 1968), Eastwood's modern, cowboy-hatted sheriff has become fully sexual, but his romantic escapades range between whimsical and dangerously explosive. By The Beguiled (Siegel, 1971) and Play Misty for Me (Eastwood, 1971), sexual relations are largely disastrous for his characters. Then, in Dirty Harry (Siegel, 1971), Eastwood's cop does not make even innocent physical contact—and barely any eye contact—with any woman throughout the entire film. In High Plains Drifter (Eastwood, 1973), his antihero—now that much darker than in the Leone films—does engage in two sex scenes, but one of them is a rape scene (with Eastwood doing the raping ), and the other begins with a woman trying to plunge a pair of scissors into him.
All of this disinterest in normative or sentimental romantic relations seemed to dishearten and anger some of the era's leading female film critics, notably Pauline Kael, Judith Crist, and Joan Mellen. In 1974, Kael—the most influential critic in the country—referred to Eastwood as "the first truly stoned hero in the history of movies." Although her motivations in employing that phrase surely went beyond romance, his characters' lack of intimacy with women certainly seemed to bother her.
In other words, to your point, women can be bothered by a man's lack of intimacy or stable romanticism as much as vice versa. In more recent decades, male Hollywood heroes have oscillated between traditional romanticism and more modern alienation, but rarely to the daunting extremes of Eastwood's antiheroes or, say, Paul Newman in Hombre (Martin Ritt, 1966) and Lee Marvin in Point Blank (John Boorman, 1967).
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jan 9, 2020 8:34:16 GMT
sad to report the movie is not for me... I found it very boring, didnt laugh once and the girls ended up really annoying me. aad cause i really really like Emma Watson and Timtohy Chalamet as well but this was unbearable. I too deem Little Women "lousy." Choking in sentiment, thanks in part to an overly loud, too-frequently-played, Golden Globe-nominated orchestral score by Alexandre Desplat, Little Women attempts to blend drama and comedy and succeeds as neither. Based on Lady Bird (2017), the merely decent, severely overrated coming-of-age comedy, and now Little Women, writer-director Greta Gerwig possesses a tendency to "soft-peddle" matters. As I noted in this post from December 17, 2017, Lady Bird tried to be cutesy yet ironic at the same time, and the mix proved a bit clumsy. linkIn Little Women, meanwhile, Gerwig takes ostensibly dramatic material and "soft-peddles" it to the point where the movie essentially becomes a comedy. The problem is that I never once found the film funny—the jokes proved too obvious, trite, and easy to see in advance. (Granted, many audience members laughed; I just was not one of them.) So as a comedy, Little Women does not work in my opinion. What is left, then, is a breezy, fluffy film that even comes across as flippant and frivolous, despite the strength of the source material (Louisa May Alcott's famous novel). For instance, in the scene where Amy falls through the ice and needs to be rescued, I knew—from the score and the tone—that she of course would survive. As comedy, the joke is too obvious and blunt. And as drama, Gerwig saps the scene of suspense and thus any dramatic power. The viewer is hence left with something approaching flotsam and frivolity. Little Women does contain a few stronger, weightier, more seriously dramatic scenes (for instance, when Jo meets with the publisher at the beginning and again at the end, and when she questions how the young editor knows anything about writing after he admits that he does not write, and when Jo confronts Amy about what the latter has done with Jo's manuscripts). But those scenes are few and far between, the overall mood is too mushy, and the tone definitely wobbles at some critical junctures. For instance, in the scene where Jo—having previously rejected Laurie—now seeks his hand in marriage, Gerwig turns a pivotal dramatic scene into a joke about being called "my Lord." The point is not that the film descends into slapstick, but that Gerwig fails to blend drama and comedy effectively and instead undermines both possibilities. Mostly, the mix meant that I just could not care (and the same seems true for Nora). Saorise Ronan is solid as Jo, and reshaping the material to focus more on her story and less on everyone else's could have made for a sharper, fresher adaptation. And the film is nice enough visually—I have no issues with Gerwig in that regard—yet not to the point of redeeming this syrupy blandness. And she also makes the curious decision at one point to introduce a nightmarish dream sequence in the middle of the movie, as if she wanted to show some artistic acumen in the midst of this utterly banal would-be crowd pleaser. One way or the other, Little Women is truly a forgettable film.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2020 15:03:04 GMT
sad to report the movie is not for me... I found it very boring, didnt laugh once and the girls ended up really annoying me. aad cause i really really like Emma Watson and Timtohy Chalamet as well but this was unbearable. I too deem Little Women "lousy." Choking in sentiment, thanks in part to an overly loud, too-frequently-played, Golden Globe-nominated orchestral score by Alexandre Desplat, Little Women attempts to blend drama and comedy and succeeds as neither. Based on Lady Bird (2017), the merely decent, severely overrated coming-of-age comedy, and now Little Women, writer-director Greta Gerwig possesses a tendency to "soft-peddle" matters. As I noted in this post from December 17, 2017, Lady Bird tried to be cutesy yet ironic at the same time, and the mix proved a bit clumsy. linkIn Little Women, meanwhile, Gerwig takes ostensibly dramatic material and "soft-peddles" it to the point where the movie essentially becomes a comedy. The problem is that I never once found the film funny—the jokes proved too obvious, trite, and easy to see in advance. (Granted, many audience members laughed; I just was not one of them.) So as a comedy, Little Women does not work in my opinion. What is left, then, is a breezy, fluffy film that even comes across as flippant and frivolous, despite the strength of the source material (Louisa May Alcott's famous novel). For instance, in the scene where Amy falls through the ice and needs to be rescued, I knew—from the score and the tone—that she of course would survive. As comedy, the joke is too obvious and blunt. And as drama, Gerwig saps the scene of suspense and thus any dramatic power. The viewer is hence left with something approaching flotsam and frivolity. Little Women does contain a few stronger, weightier, more seriously dramatic scenes (for instance, when Jo meets with the publisher at the beginning and again at the end, and when she questions how the young editor knows anything about writing after he admits that he does not write, and when Jo confronts Amy about what the latter has done with Jo's manuscripts). But those scenes are few and far between, the overall mood is too mushy, and the tone definitely wobbles at some critical junctures. For instance, in the scene where Jo—having previously rejected Laurie—now seeks his hand in marriage, Gerwig turns a pivotal dramatic scene into a joke about being called "my Lord." The point is not that the film descends into slapstick, but that Gerwig fails to blend drama and comedy effectively and instead undermines both possibilities. Mostly, the mix meant that I just could not care (and the same seems true for Nora). Saorise Ronan is solid as Jo, and reshaping the material to focus more on her story and less on everyone else's could have made for a sharper, fresher adaptation. And the film is nice enough visually—I have no issues with Gerwig in that regard—yet not to the point of redeeming this syrupy blandness. And she also makes the curious decision at one point to introduce a nightmarish dream sequence in the middle of the movie, as if she wanted to show some artistic acumen in the midst of this utterly banal would-be crowd pleaser. One way or the other, Little Women is truly a forgettable film. actually your review piques my interest in maybe seeing the film now.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jan 9, 2020 17:57:53 GMT
sad to report the movie is not for me... I found it very boring, didnt laugh once and the girls ended up really annoying me. aad cause i really really like Emma Watson and Timtohy Chalamet as well but this was unbearable. I too deem Little Women "lousy." Choking in sentiment, thanks in part to an overly loud, too-frequently-played, Golden Globe-nominated orchestral score by Alexandre Desplat, Little Women attempts to blend drama and comedy and succeeds as neither. Based on Lady Bird (2017), the merely decent, severely overrated coming-of-age comedy, and now Little Women, writer-director Greta Gerwig possesses a tendency to "soft-peddle" matters. As I noted in this post from December 17, 2017, Lady Bird tried to be cutesy yet ironic at the same time, and the mix proved a bit clumsy. linkIn Little Women, meanwhile, Gerwig takes ostensibly dramatic material and "soft-peddles" it to the point where the movie essentially becomes a comedy. The problem is that I never once found the film funny—the jokes proved too obvious, trite, and easy to see in advance. (Granted, many audience members laughed; I just was not one of them.) So as a comedy, Little Women does not work in my opinion. What is left, then, is a breezy, fluffy film that even comes across as flippant and frivolous, despite the strength of the source material (Louisa May Alcott's famous novel). For instance, in the scene where Amy falls through the ice and needs to be rescued, I knew—from the score and the tone—that she of course would survive. As comedy, the joke is too obvious and blunt. And as drama, Gerwig saps the scene of suspense and thus any dramatic power. The viewer is hence left with something approaching flotsam and frivolity. Little Women does contain a few stronger, weightier, more seriously dramatic scenes (for instance, when Jo meets with the publisher at the beginning and again at the end, and when she questions how the young editor knows anything about writing after he admits that he does not write, and when Jo confronts Amy about what the latter has done with Jo's manuscripts). But those scenes are few and far between, the overall mood is too mushy, and the tone definitely wobbles at some critical junctures. For instance, in the scene where Jo—having previously rejected Laurie—now seeks his hand in marriage, Gerwig turns a pivotal dramatic scene into a joke about being called "my Lord." The point is not that the film descends into slapstick, but that Gerwig fails to blend drama and comedy effectively and instead undermines both possibilities. Mostly, the mix meant that I just could not care (and the same seems true for Nora). Saorise Ronan is solid as Jo, and reshaping the material to focus more on her story and less on everyone else's could have made for a sharper, fresher adaptation. And the film is nice enough visually—I have no issues with Gerwig in that regard—yet not to the point of redeeming this syrupy blandness. And she also makes the curious decision at one point to introduce a nightmarish dream sequence in the middle of the movie, as if she wanted to show some artistic acumen in the midst of this utterly banal would-be crowd pleaser. One way or the other, Little Women is truly a forgettable film. I have to say you have some of the most detailed and interesting observations made about movies in your reviews I really enjoy it. Are you a filmmaker or a professor or “just” a very detail oriented fan with a great ability to precisely articulate their thoughts and reasons for them? Would be interested in knowing what you do for a living if you don’t mind.
|
|
RobotTheLiving
Sophomore
"You can't be suicidal if you're singing showtunes!"
@roboftheliving
Posts: 174
Likes: 112
|
Post by RobotTheLiving on Jan 9, 2020 22:41:17 GMT
yeah I saw that one scene where emo boy was whimpering and shaking his head, "you dont knowntyat you dont know that", to some girl who was probably whining about whether to be a doctor or not, and I'm just like wow, these are problems I DONT have. I walked out after about 90 minutes it was unbearable for me. thats my second or third walk out this year but this one suprrise e because i like most of the people that were in the movie bit all the girls seemd incredibly annyoing and spoilt and self centered and watching them was similarly disgusting to me as watching the gilrs in Hustlers even though these girls were much better of course on all levels, they irritated me just as much for some reason. and both of these movies are up for some awards.... well cant please everyone wth everything. Uncut Gems forever. I actually own the PBS miniseries of Little Women which I'm hoping is better than how this sounds. I also need to go back and watch some of the old versions. Nora What did you think of Greta Gerwig's Lady Bird?
|
|
|
Post by truecristian on Jan 13, 2020 19:54:40 GMT
This is one of the greatest movies ever made. To think that this movie did not win Best Picture is a crime. Though it's true that this is not the type of movie you want to sit down with the family and eat popcorn, the emotional drive of the picture, the story's poignant messages, and the fantastic acting of the cast draws you into a world that is both dangerous and unpredictable. effectively held up a mirror to civilization for events to which we should all be ashamed of, rather than appalled at the movie for its real life depictions. I suggest that this movie be made standard view for congress as well as the President each and every time the questions social comes up
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jan 14, 2020 2:53:25 GMT
I walked out after about 90 minutes it was unbearable for me. thats my second or third walk out this year but this one suprrise e because i like most of the people that were in the movie bit all the girls seemd incredibly annyoing and spoilt and self centered and watching them was similarly disgusting to me as watching the gilrs in Hustlers even though these girls were much better of course on all levels, they irritated me just as much for some reason. and both of these movies are up for some awards.... well cant please everyone wth everything. Uncut Gems forever. I actually own the PBS miniseries of Little Women which I'm hoping is better than how this sounds. I also need to go back and watch some of the old versions. Nora What did you think of Greta Gerwig's Lady Bird? I enjoyed it but didn’t love it as much as the academy and people around me did. I thought it was better than Little Women though or somewhat more relatable for me at least. Little women just felt too spoilt and self indulgent. Albeit with amazing acting yes.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jan 24, 2020 5:15:52 GMT
I too deem Little Women "lousy." Choking in sentiment, thanks in part to an overly loud, too-frequently-played, Golden Globe-nominated orchestral score by Alexandre Desplat, Little Women attempts to blend drama and comedy and succeeds as neither. Based on Lady Bird (2017), the merely decent, severely overrated coming-of-age comedy, and now Little Women, writer-director Greta Gerwig possesses a tendency to "soft-peddle" matters. As I noted in this post from December 17, 2017, Lady Bird tried to be cutesy yet ironic at the same time, and the mix proved a bit clumsy. linkIn Little Women, meanwhile, Gerwig takes ostensibly dramatic material and "soft-peddles" it to the point where the movie essentially becomes a comedy. The problem is that I never once found the film funny—the jokes proved too obvious, trite, and easy to see in advance. (Granted, many audience members laughed; I just was not one of them.) So as a comedy, Little Women does not work in my opinion. What is left, then, is a breezy, fluffy film that even comes across as flippant and frivolous, despite the strength of the source material (Louisa May Alcott's famous novel). For instance, in the scene where Amy falls through the ice and needs to be rescued, I knew—from the score and the tone—that she of course would survive. As comedy, the joke is too obvious and blunt. And as drama, Gerwig saps the scene of suspense and thus any dramatic power. The viewer is hence left with something approaching flotsam and frivolity. Little Women does contain a few stronger, weightier, more seriously dramatic scenes (for instance, when Jo meets with the publisher at the beginning and again at the end, and when she questions how the young editor knows anything about writing after he admits that he does not write, and when Jo confronts Amy about what the latter has done with Jo's manuscripts). But those scenes are few and far between, the overall mood is too mushy, and the tone definitely wobbles at some critical junctures. For instance, in the scene where Jo—having previously rejected Laurie—now seeks his hand in marriage, Gerwig turns a pivotal dramatic scene into a joke about being called "my Lord." The point is not that the film descends into slapstick, but that Gerwig fails to blend drama and comedy effectively and instead undermines both possibilities. Mostly, the mix meant that I just could not care (and the same seems true for Nora). Saorise Ronan is solid as Jo, and reshaping the material to focus more on her story and less on everyone else's could have made for a sharper, fresher adaptation. And the film is nice enough visually—I have no issues with Gerwig in that regard—yet not to the point of redeeming this syrupy blandness. And she also makes the curious decision at one point to introduce a nightmarish dream sequence in the middle of the movie, as if she wanted to show some artistic acumen in the midst of this utterly banal would-be crowd pleaser. One way or the other, Little Women is truly a forgettable film. I have to say you have some of the most detailed and interesting observations made about movies in your reviews I really enjoy it. Are you a filmmaker or a professor or “just” a very detail oriented fan with a great ability to precisely articulate their thoughts and reasons for them? Would be interested in knowing what you do for a living if you don’t mind. Nora, I am glad that you enjoy my comments, and it is ironic (or intelligent on your part) that you ask that, because I have been a professor, but I am planning on making a transition into filmmaking this year. So ... I will see how that goes.
|
|