|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Dec 25, 2019 18:08:10 GMT
Very conflicted about this. I'll start by saying that I went into this 1) very optimistic, 2) with a lot of love and nostalgia for the Gillian Armstrong version which I rewatched fairly recently and which I now realize completely prejudiced me and frames the bulk of my criticisms here and 3) not knowing Gerwig's take on the narrative was going to be non-linnear. If I had known the latter, I might have been more prepared for the screenplay's time-jumpy shenanigans and probably less enthusiastic. I understand Gerwig's predicament here because Little Women has been done to death and she needed to bring something new to the table. She does in more ways than one, but I don't think this story lends itself to a non-linnear structure at all. There are essentially two timelines in this film--the first existing in the present and involving the women as adults struggling to find themselves in the world, and the second played as flashbacks which trace the women's upbringing and friendship with Laurie and initially come off as an episodic highlight reel.
One of the flaws of the '94 version was that the first half and second felt disconnected from each other, embodied by the necessity to cast two different actresses to play two different Amys, but I still preferred that take's progression from A to B, and I'm convinced it would have felt less awkward with more screentime. The two timelines still feel disconnected in Gerwig's take but now we have an added weirdness in the form of Florence Pugh (a 23 year-old woman) playing Amy in both timelines. I remember people were bothered by the flashback in I, Tonya where Robbie was supposed to be a teenager, but what this movie does to Pugh is so much worse. There are subtle changes to the makeup to look Pugh look younger but she's freakishly tall and developed for the age she's supposed to be playing in those flashbacks, and there's literally a scene where she's in a school room with girls that are clearly 10 years younger than her that we're meant to understand are her classmates. There isn't a moment when it doesn't feel wrong.
An additional problem this non-linnear structure presents is that the story now feels quite diffuse. Gerwig does broaden some of the characters (old Mr. Lawrence's connection with Beth, Meg's struggles with money, Marmee's volunteer efforts) but it often feels at the expense of Jo. I think it's possible to have both, to have Jo be the emotional core of the film and still develop her sisters more as individuals but this film treats them like a collective, like extensions of each other, something that's easier to appreciate on paper than in practice when you come into the film expecting Jo to be at the forefront and instead finding her often sidelined. The rest of the characters feel stronger but she feels weaker.
More generally, the structure itself is just extremely jarring and never lets you settle in. The '94 Little Women was a movie you could cozy up with. Yes the first half is episodic but it still traces these women's arcs from A to B. You get to know these girls gradually and fall in love with their little household. In contrast, we only get to know the women in this story in glimpses and at different stages of their journeys. Even if all the pieces were here, the way Gerwig structured it severely dampens the emotional impact of individual scenes and dampens the accessibility of the characters overall. People grow and change. The little women that they were is a far cry from the women they become and you lose something in that straightforward progression by smashing both timelines together and jumping between them. Having Pugh play an early teenager is bad enough, but jumping between those scenes and scenes of her as an adult simultaneously expose and exacerbate the folly and self-congratulatory cleverness of this whole approach. It was a terrible idea.
What I Liked: The costumes and sets are jaw-droppingly gorgeous. The ensemble cast is really strong, with the MVPs being Ronan as Jo, Chalamet as Laurie, and Pugh as Amy (yes, she slays even despite having to play a teenager for half the goddamn movie). I also really liked the scene where Marmee gives her scarf to a confederate soldier, which displayed more effectively than Armstrong's version that Marmee's political activism stems from the kind of deep-rooted genuine compassion that values the cessation of suffering above anything else. I also said I liked how some of the characters were widened up a bit, but otherwise...I'm struggling to remember anything about this that I loved about from the costumes and production design. It's just fine.
P.S. Desplat's score was the musical embodiment of "meh". It's never more than adequate and far inferior to Newman's score. This kind of film especially lends itself to leitmotifs but there isn't a single discernible melody in Desplat's score, only a formless rambling mass of piano notes. If I was listening to the music by itself I'd be asleep in minutes. Also, there's no Friedrich in this version! Not really anyways, so I guess they cast Louis Garrell just to torture me.
|
|
wattsnew
Full Member
Posts: 712
Likes: 346
|
Post by wattsnew on Dec 26, 2019 9:35:32 GMT
Not really interested in such a YT adaption. Will wait to see what the critics who are POC have to say about this.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Dec 26, 2019 18:20:11 GMT
Not really interested in such a YT adaption. Will wait to see what the critics who are POC have to say about this. Letterboxd is crazy for it but the main thread of criticism seems to be with the nonlinear structure. If I'd known going in that this story would be more about themes and less about the characters, I might have been able to try to be more receptive to it, but I don't know... I'm not a massive Alcott stan or anything and I only read the book once years ago but I fell in love with the Armstrong version because I just love those characters. The Gerwig take is deconstructive and meta, too much so for me to really engage with the emotions it goes through the motions of conveying for fans of the story who are already familiar with all the beats. I may come around to it eventually. I think it'll age well.
|
|
|
Post by stinkybritches on Dec 26, 2019 21:12:08 GMT
Not really interested in such a YT adaption. Will wait to see what the critics who are POC have to say about this. lol, you fucking kidding me
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Dec 26, 2019 21:32:36 GMT
The cast is fantastic. If Luce had a more capable female lead, this would be that film. So great.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Dec 26, 2019 21:44:40 GMT
I was kind of meh on this from the get go and after reading this post and with the vibe I got from the trailers my expectations had sunk and I was expecting a corny YA novel girl power version. I was surprised by how much I liked this. It really is a pretty straightforward adaptation of the book and it's a good book so the quality shines through. It's been done a million times so it's nothing new but it's still a solid movie. Saoirse is great and definitely deserves a nod and the rest of the cast do their jobs. I do agree with some of your gripes. Making it non-linear is just a bad idea in general since it's fundamentally a story about adolescence so showing it out of order kind of misses the point. Also that element just isn't handled very well and I could see someone not familiar with the story to start with being confused. Also agree on Pugh. The scene of her in the classic schoolhouse sitting in one of those little desks just looks comical like she's stupid and been held back ten years or something. I still think it worked on the whole and enjoyed watching it, though. Also, there's no Friedrich in this version! Not really anyways, so I guess they cast Louis Garrell just to torture me. What do you mean? You see and he and Jo standing together in the big shot of the whole family together and that's after the scene with the publisher where he convinces her to go with the happy ending, so I don't think the intention was for the scene of her chasing Friedrich to be just the ending of her book, if that's what you thought.
Reading that comment before seeing the movie and from the general vibe I was getting I was worried they were going to go with "Jo's an independent woman who doesn't need a man" ending, which I think is a mistake. It's an important part of her arc and although she was close with them she was sort of the odd one out with her sisters, she needed someone in her life who was more introverted and serious like her. Alcott's point with having Jo turn down Laurie was not that there was anything wrong with marriage as an institution but that women should not be expected to marry the first man of means who asks them to "provide for their family" even if they don't love him
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Dec 26, 2019 22:07:40 GMT
Also, there's no Friedrich in this version! Not really anyways, so I guess they cast Louis Garrell just to torture me. What do you mean? You see and he and Jo standing together in the big shot of the whole family together and that's after the scene with the publisher where he convinces her to go with the happy ending, so I don't think the intention was for the scene of her chasing Friedrich to be just the ending of her book, if that's what you thought. wait, what? I totally missed that. If that's true, I still have gripes. HOWEVER, my initial interpretation was that Gerwig was doing something meta and included the Friedrich scene as basically an injoke about how Alcott never married and was pressured into writing Friedrich into the book by an editor (much like the scenes with Tracy Letts). Now, I didn't realize that when I watched it yesterday and I've now realized that most of my perception of this story is framed by the 1994 version (which turns out is pretty revisionist but that's what I mean when I say I'm clearly not an Alcott stan). If the scene with Friedrich is meant to be fantasy and Gerwig is making a point of it, I actually like that. I didn't yesterday, but now I get it, but I still think that would've worked better if Friedrich was excluded entirely. This is what I mean about the movie being more about themes than characters.
Now... if Jo actually is supposed to have married Friedrich in this film like you say (if it's there, I missed it--I didn't see him at all after their kiss in the rain) and that scene was meant to taken literally, well now it's doubly bad, because there's literally zero screentime in this film developing their relationship. There's absolutely no reason onscreen for them to be in love. That's why I don't think it's meant to be taken literally and that Gerwig is commenting on how Alcott was compelled to shoehorn in the Freidrich character precisely because society wasn't willing to care about female stories not framed within patriarchal context, and rather than widen and develop that narrative, Gerwig is criticizing its existence in the first place.
Either that or it's a terribly developed romance. And I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case because Gerwig clearly made a film that won't make a lick of sense to anyone not familiar with the story and it wouldn't be the only thing in the film not well developed within its own context.
|
|
|
Post by notacrook on Dec 26, 2019 22:32:27 GMT
Absolutely adored this. Never read the book or watched other adaptations, so I went in totally fresh, and was completely swept along by Gerwig and the wonderful cast she's assembled. I personally thought the non-linear approach was an excellent choice - it was never confusing, and kept the film lively with different scenes nicely mirroring each other in past and present (I particularly loved the devastating contrast of Jo finding out Beth was recovered and finding out she had finally died).
The film has such a warm, passionate empathy for its characters, and I walked out with a soaring feeling of inspiration, especially as an aspiring writer. Perfect boxing day film to boot! 10/10Cast ranking: 1) Saoirse Ronan 2) Florence Pugh 3) Laura Dern 4) Timothee Chalamet 5) Tracy Letts 6) Meryl Streep 7) Eliza Scanlen 8) Emma Watson (she's good and likeable, but not on the same level as the others)
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Dec 26, 2019 23:08:19 GMT
Well I just loved this to death.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Dec 27, 2019 0:08:31 GMT
Some more thoughts: Like notacrook, I went into this having not read the novel nor seen any prior adaptations, so this felt totally fresh and original to me, I had no idea what to expect and the narrative kept me on my toes, and it took practically no time for this film to just endear me to its characters and its warm, inviting world. I tend to be drawn to family-based stories, and Little Women is no exception, the characters are drawn so thoroughly without being overwritten and the dynamics between them are rich and believable. And one of the things that I loved most about is also perhaps one of its biggest flaws (I guess?), in that there's very little conflict that doesn't extend beyond just one scene (in terms of between characters, the broader social situations are obviously constant throughout) and for the most part it's a whole lot of nice people just being nice to each other, but it does so in such a touching and sweeping way that veers into cheesy territory but somehow never even feels sappy, and it's really just a loving embrace of a film. The cast sure is one of the best of the year and the chemistry between them is just perfection. Florence Pugh is the MVP for me, I said in a post a few weeks ago that she's always felt like a great actress trapped in not great films for me, and now she's finally in a *phenomenal* movie and it just showcases her natural talent beautifully. She's honestly kinda revelatory here, she gets both a lot of the film's comedic and dramatic beats and she's just wonderful, not to mention somehow manages to be believable as a 13-year-old (and just because they gave her bangs!). Ronan has been better elsewhere but she is certainly perfect for the role, there are a lot of talented actresses in her age range but I couldn't see anyone else in the role than her, she's as charismatic as ever and immensely powerful in the character's big moments which often moved me to tears. I even quite liked Chalamet and this is the most charming and natural work that I've seen from him by far. Dern is better here than in Marriage Story (for what that's worth), Streep is a hoot in her small role, Chris Cooper and Tracy Letts have some great character actor-y appearances, and Eliza Scanlen even really impressed me in the smallest of the four main roles. It's also just a beautiful movie, it has that same soft, memory-like visual quality to it that Lady Bird does, and Yorick Le Saux's cinematography is just marvelous. The costumes and production design are of course on-point and wonderful, and Desplat's score may not be any new territory for him but it worked like gangbusters for me. The entire tone of this whole thing was just so unexpected but worked so, so well for me, it's relaxed and exciting, touching and moving, oh and it's also not confusing at all and the narrative presentation was kinda brilliant to me and was so much more than just a flourish. It's a powerful piece of art that speaks to the power of art, something timeless that's exactly what I needed right now and the type of thing I'll probably need for the rest of my life. In terms of comparison to Gerwig's solo debut, this is a more accomplished film than Lady Bird, but it surely doesn't have that film's sense of rewatchability and quotability, and probably won't have quite the same enduring legacy. But whatever, doesn't matter, she's made two masterpieces already and I just want more Gerwig.
|
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2,954
|
Post by morton on Dec 27, 2019 2:58:54 GMT
Some more thoughts: Like notacrook , I went into this having not read the novel nor seen any prior adaptations, so this felt totally fresh and original to me, I had no idea what to expect and the narrative kept me on my toes, and it took practically no time for this film to just endear me to its characters and its warm, inviting world. I tend to be drawn to family-based stories, and Little Women is no exception, the characters are drawn so thoroughly without being overwritten and the dynamics between them are rich and believable. And one of the things that I loved most about is also perhaps one of its biggest flaws (I guess?), in that there's very little conflict that doesn't extend beyond just one scene (in terms of between characters, the broader social situations are obviously constant throughout) and for the most part it's a whole lot of nice people just being nice to each other, but it does so in such a touching and sweeping way that veers into cheesy territory but somehow never even feels sappy, and it's really just a loving embrace of a film. The cast sure is one of the best of the year and the chemistry between them is just perfection. Florence Pugh is the MVP for me, I said in a post a few weeks ago that she's always felt like a great actress trapped in not great films for me, and now she's finally in a *phenomenal* movie and it just showcases her natural talent beautifully. She's honestly kinda revelatory here, she gets both a lot of the film's comedic and dramatic beats and she's just wonderful, not to mention somehow manages to be believable as a 13-year-old (and just because they gave her bangs!). Ronan has been better elsewhere but she is certainly perfect for the role, there are a lot of talented actresses in her age range but I couldn't see anyone else in the role than her, she's as charismatic as ever and immensely powerful in the character's big moments which often moved me to tears. I even quite liked Chalamet and this is the most charming and natural work that I've seen from him by far. Dern is better here than in Marriage Story (for what that's worth), Streep is a hoot in her small role, Chris Cooper and Tracy Letts have some great character actor-y appearances, and Eliza Scanlen even really impressed me in the smallest of the four main roles. It's also just a beautiful movie, it has that same soft, memory-like visual quality to it that Lady Bird does, and Yorick Le Saux's cinematography is just marvelous. The costumes and production design are of course on-point and wonderful, and Desplat's score may not be any new territory for him but it worked like gangbusters for me. The entire tone of this whole thing was just so unexpected but worked so, so well for me, it's relaxed and exciting, touching and moving, oh and it's also not confusing at all and the narrative presentation was kinda brilliant to me and was so much more than just a flourish. It's a powerful piece of art that speaks to the power of art, something timeless that's exactly what I needed right now and the type of thing I'll probably need for the rest of my life. In terms of comparison to Gerwig's solo debut, this is a more accomplished film than Lady Bird, but it surely doesn't have that film's sense of rewatchability and quotability, and probably won't have quite the same enduring legacy. But whatever, doesn't matter, she's made two masterpieces already and I just want more Gerwig. I have read the book many times and seen the other versions and was afraid that would hurt my enjoyment of this since I thought the 1994 was pretty great, but darn if this didn't delightfully surprise me. It's just so wonderful. Maybe there's a few little things that could have been improved, but I thought it was just perfect the way it was. The non-linear structure didn't bother me at all. I so agree with you about Florence Pugh. Sorry Zhao Shuzhen, I have a new favorite Supporting Actress of the year now. If she or Zhao don't win NSFC, I'm going to be so mad; although if Dern wins for both this and Marriage Story, I'll be a little less mad, because she was just so great in this. I wanted more of her, but that's my only complaint. While I have liked Ronan and Chalamet before, I would say that my like pales in comparison to how much I've seen others love them, but here I wanted to get on their bandwagons because they were so charming and natural. It's a shame that Ronan could be snubbed because she'd be in my top 4 right now, and that Chalamet never really got any traction for this while for Beautiful Boy where I thought he was fine but not particularly nom worthy, he was nominated all over the place. I know different years and all. Also I haven't seen Bombshell yet, but I'm guessing that after seeing this that I'm going to be mad that both it and Jojo Rabbit made it into Ensemble while this was snubbed. At least they nominated Parasite thank goodness.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,553
Likes: 1,386
|
Post by Film Socialism on Dec 27, 2019 3:02:01 GMT
is this anything like Love & Friendship
|
|
The-Havok
Badass
Doing pretty good so far
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 552
|
Post by The-Havok on Dec 27, 2019 3:27:12 GMT
Looks like a snorefest
|
|
Savager
Junior Member
Posts: 430
Likes: 508
|
Post by Savager on Dec 27, 2019 22:38:48 GMT
Had zero expectations for this, but I ended up really enjoying it. Far superior to the 1994 bore, Gerwig did a great job with the adaptation and direction. Cast was superb as well. I really hope Pugh gets the Oscar nom when all is said and done.
|
|
|
Post by thomasjerome on Dec 27, 2019 22:53:27 GMT
I mean I was expecting this to be good but it even suprassed my expectations. Such a warm, lovely, sweet, and all around incredible adaptation. As someone who likes 1994 version and already familiar with the story, it's amazing how it kept on impress me. Ronan and Pugh are so freakin' amazing that I'd love both of them to win an Oscar. Easily makes my Top 10 of the year.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Dec 27, 2019 22:55:53 GMT
is this anything like Love & FriendshipHaven't seen Love and Friendship but Little Women isn't particularly Austenesque
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Dec 28, 2019 1:23:45 GMT
Why not a bio pic about Alcott who actually seemed interesting? She hated the book and hooked up Jo with old man to piss of her readers.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Dec 28, 2019 4:05:03 GMT
also worth noting: the March's black little house looked like something out of an A24 horror film and it was lowkey terrifying. apparently Alcott's real house does look like it sits over a gate to hell so that story checks out
|
|
lilibet
New Member
Posts: 175
Likes: 109
|
Post by lilibet on Dec 28, 2019 5:35:39 GMT
This was so wonderful. Everything I hoped for and then some.
|
|
The-Havok
Badass
Doing pretty good so far
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 552
|
Post by The-Havok on Dec 28, 2019 19:27:04 GMT
A reader asked, “When are you going to write about ‘Little White Women’?” At first I thought the question was cynical, but the more I thought about it, I became amused by its prescience. The crazy, boring, laughable thing about Greta Gerwig’s version of Little Women is that casual racism is merely the start of its problems. Of all the unwoke standard American literature, Louisa May Alcott’s sentimental story of the females in New England’s March family bravely preserving the domestic institution and its customs, despite the Civil War raging outside their hearth, seems to have sneaked past progressive gatekeepers. The 1868 Little Women didn’t make it to D. H. Lawrence’s survey Studies in Classic American Literature, yet it may be the ultimate story of blood sisterhood (rivaled only by Alice Walker’s novel The Color Purple). And this social-group concept exempts it from being politically corrected. Alcott’s Little Women remains “feminist” in exactly the sense that Camille Paglia has condemned for indulging upper-middle-class white female privilege. That Greta Gerwig, It Girl of the Mumblecore movement, chose Little Women as a follow-up to her celebrated Lady Bird reveals the political naivete and arrogance of indie filmmaking. It seems Triple G, as a reader mocked Great Greta Gerwig, longed to graduate to the Hollywood big time of prestigious, Merchant-Ivory swank. She identifies with Alcott’s protagonist Jo (Saoirse Ronan repeating her Vanessa Redgrave debutante act), who aspires to literary creativity and artist status, a heroine who tramples down the obstacles set by men who dominate the culture. (“What women are allowed into the club of genius?” asks authoress Jo.)
But California-born Gerwig, unlike her angry, pussyhat-wearing East Coast peers, openly appreciates her ethnic, gender, and class privilege. Like the Whit Stillman character Gerwig played in Damsels in Distress, she embraces the secret that other select Millennials hide: They are not above reaping their elitist benefits. (The best part of Lady Bird exposed how Millennials betrayed their parochial roots.)
Gerwig’s Little Women is, indeed, rooted in the advantages of bourgeois white womanhood. It romanticizes female issues (marriage, dependency) with nary a thought about how the social order they take for granted is protected by men. The March sisters are cocooned from the Civil War; radical Jo never writes about it, only about her personal interests.
There is candor in such feminist solipsism, yet Gerwig avoids critical thinking. She’s a self-romantic — to judge by repetitive scenes of the March girls’ infatuation with the family’s suitor Laurie (flirtatious pet Timothée Chalamet) and curtsying to their rich aunt (Meryl Streep overacting spinsterhood). Gerwig’s indifference to political fashion is what distinguishes her from Hollywood’s other feminist go-getters. Yet, her version of Little Women is empathetic toward the conventional siblings — doomed Beth (Eliza Scanlen), maternal Meg (Emma Watson), amorous Amy (Florence Pugh).
In this way, Gerwig bests Sofia Coppola. Coppola’s Civil War remake The Beguiled was half-heartedly misandrist, so Gerwig promotes the idea that women can have it all — including a sexy, exotic husband (played by Louis Garrel, hipster cinema’s default dreamboat). While Gerwig features the flummery of period picture luxe, she misses the bold Caucasian eroticism that made Coppola’s The Virgin Suicides peculiarly compelling.
Instead, Gerwig goes for arty effects. Just as Noah Baumbach imitated Bergman and Truffaut in Marriage Story, Gerwig imitates Alain Resnais through time-shift edits connecting the publication of Jo’s first book to memories of her family’s history. She gets away with this odd sophisticated device by maintaining emphasis on feminist resentment.
March family matriarch Marmee (Laura Dern) gets the film’s thesis statement: “I’m angry really every day of my life, but for 40 years I try not to let it get the best of me.” It sounds suspiciously defensive, like Dern’s blasphemous speech in Baumbach’s Marriage Story, and syncs with both Jo and Amy asserting, “Don’t tell me marriage isn’t an economic proposition!”
If these pussyhat speeches weren’t bad enough, Gerwig momentarily looks beyond herself to have Marmee lecture a black hospital worker: “I spent my whole life ashamed of my country.” It’s a Michelle Obama speech to which the token black character responds: “No offense; you should still be ashamed!” Never mind those who died in the Civil War defending Emancipation, the audacity of Gerwig’s literary update is to blend cultural illiteracy with feminist blandishment. Gerwig, Baumbach, Ronan, Chalamet and Dern represent a vanguard of genuine cynicism.
Reviewers who still disregard the great cross-cultural compassion of Spielberg’s film The Color Purple unaccountably praise Gerwig’s Little Women. Maybe it’s because Michelle Obama’s petulance is used as a source of inspiration to little white Millennial women.
The best American critic spoketh. I am not seeing this. Especially when people like deeparcher who encourage bullying mentally ill people like it
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Dec 28, 2019 19:39:14 GMT
(flirtatious pet Timothée Chalamet) sounds like a dream I've had
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2019 21:03:39 GMT
This was such a beautiful balm for the soul. I loved it. Tommen_Saperstein - I got to visit the Alcott House and yes, it looks exactly like the one in the film. So much so (inside and out) that I thought they may have filmed it there.
|
|
urbanpatrician
Based
"I just wanna go back, back to 1999. back to hit me baby one more time" - Charli XCX
Posts: 4,713
Likes: 2,293
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Dec 29, 2019 0:55:00 GMT
Looks like Armond points out again how narrow Gerwig's perspective is sitting in her nice California home.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Dec 29, 2019 0:56:17 GMT
The best American critic spoketh. I am not seeing this. Especially when people like deeparcher who encourage bullying mentally ill people like it
Read your line at the bottom, started reading at the top and thought "who wrote this?". After I couple lines I thought "ohhhhhh". I enjoy reading White but he's completely misreading the book here and viewing it through a contemporary lens because Gerwig is directing. The movie he's describing is what I was afraid it would be but it did not turn out like that at all.
|
|
|
Post by mrimpossible on Dec 30, 2019 0:04:40 GMT
This was such a lovely movie. I felt all kinds of emotions. Might be my favorite adaptation yet, will let it marinate more to make it definitive. The cast is wonderful, even Emma Watson which was kind of a surprise. I mean her accent was still all over the place but she never felt fake or forced. Ronan of course was great. But my favorite were Pugh and Chalamet. They both stole the movie imo. Oh and I actually preferred Laura Dern in this than Marraige Story. She's so naturally warm in motherly roles.
I also really think the nonlinear structure worked in this. It made certain moments even more powerful. And it's nice to see a different take on the adaptation. All the technical aspects were wonderful. The cinematography, production design, costumes were all aces. Everything came together so well, it's probably in my top 10 for the year.
|
|