Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 2, 2020 10:24:10 GMT
Feb 1, 2020 11:34:10 GMT Vits said:
LITTLE WOMEN 1949 is about 4 sisters (whose last name is March) living in Massachusetts during the 19th century. While Jo (the 2nd-oldest) has been the protagonist in every incarnation of this story (beginning as a novel written by Louisa May Alcott). This adaptation gives the 4 sisters equal protagonism during the 1st half and then focuses mainly on Jo during the 2nd half, which makes things feel too uneven. Despite technically getting extra screentime, her romance with Professor Friedrich Bhaer feels rushed! How is that possible?! Also, this version of Jo is a lot less interesting than these versions of Amy and Beth. That being said, the pacing is good enough that the plot never drags, and June Allyson's performance is good.6/10
The only thing that LITTLE WOMEN 1994 does better than its predecessor is that the romance between Jo and Bhaer feels believable. Unfortunately, the pacing is bad and there isn't enough focus on Beth's love for music. Therefore, when she's given a piano as a gift, it's not as touching as it should've been. Susan Sarandon feels wasted, but the other performances are good, and so is Geoffrey Simpson's cinematography.
5/10
LITTLE WOMEN 2019 moves the story events around and cleverly uses 2 timelines to contrast events and show the charaters' evolution over the years. It makes everything feel more compelling, to the point where the movie felt short. Not because I felt there was something missing in the plot, but because I would've been glad to keep following these versions of the characters around. Amy feels more developed than ever and there's less focus on tomboy stereotypes when it comes to Jo. She feels like she's not interested in marriage because she wants to be independent; not because she feels aversion towards lady-like behavior. The performances are great and every aspect of the production is on point. Just like she did in LADY BIRD, Greta Gerwig shows her ability to coordinate chaos, with people always moving around and interrupting each other in a way that feels authentic and never annoying. Whether they realize or not, the way they constantly express whatever it is they're feeling (no matter how trivial) makes them look like people who are happy to be alive. Naturally, that gave me a smile that stayed on my face throughout most of the running time.
10/10
-------------------------------------
You can read comments of other movies in my blog.
There is also a 1933 version of Little Women with Katherine Hepburn. I have only seen the 94' and 19' versions.
I have seen the Armstrong version with Ryder a few times and watched it recently, so as a compare to Gerwig's version. I was knocked for a six by Gerwig's take and as much as I enjoy Armstrong's, Gerwig gave us a knockout presentation all round. Despite a few minor flaws, I could sense and feel the intelligence oozing from the screen. I did find the non-linear narrative a bit jarring at first, but then got used to it. This was a smart devise and it also makes one pay attention. It is fleshed out, it is exquisite and it is nuanced. It proves that Ronan is no flash in the pan as an actress and that Gerwig is a directorial talent to watch out for. Miles ahead of Lady Bird, that I felt underwhelmed by.
I will be looking forward to seeing Little Women again in few days time before it disappears completely from the big screen. At this stage an 8\10. See how I feel on my next viewing and I may up it one notch.