|
Post by cheesecake on Dec 30, 2019 3:41:27 GMT
From the get I knew I needed to put my inherent bias in check. The book meant so much to me growing up and I’ve enjoyed the film and television adaptations along the way, with the 1994 version being my favorite. The character of Jo March was everything to me as a child and I have such a connection and affection to her and her sisters.
So with that all said, I do appreciate that Gerwig brought some flair to the material but as a whole it didn’t work for me. On paper I like the meta ending but the after dinner/carriage stuff was cheesy AF and was leaving me cringing. While it must have been the intention, Bhaer was barely a character. Odenkirk has to be the biggest head-scratching miscasting of the year and I’m not quite sure all the other parts fit like a glove, either. Chalamet really surprised me and was a great deal of fun. I also liked that Amy’s character was expanded more but Pugh was mostly pouts and grunts in the flashback scenes (though I did like the attention to the romance with Laurie which was able to evolve). Speaking of evolving, I think it’s my biggest gripe. I’ve always loved growing along with Little Women and experiencing the seasons and changes with them, and with this timeline everything was all over the place and felt like it couldn’t breathe.
For the good — the costumes and production design are lovely. I did love the publisher scenes and especially at the end watching Jo’s book being made. Most of the scenes in the house were wonderful with all the girls putting on plays and spending time together. Over all it was solid but rather forgettable, unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by cheesecake on Dec 30, 2019 19:32:56 GMT
I came home really pressed from seeing this last night and after sleeping on it, I like it even less today. UGH.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Jan 3, 2020 20:13:59 GMT
Just saw this last night without having read the book or seen any of the other adaptations. I came out liking it, but sort of removed from it, and I think it's mostly due to the non-linear structure not completely working for me. I was able to follow it so I didn't find it confusing, but I did feel like Gerwig's approach sort of undercut the impact of the story to an extent. There are moments where the juxtaposition of similar events at different point in time works really well (mostly stuff involving Beth's character), but some scenes early on didn't feel properly contextualized to truly resonate with me because the story hasn't built to that point yet or sufficiently exposed us to the characters to make me care as much as I should.
I get Gerwig's intention in trying to reconstruct this as a story of self-reflection, but I didn't think the film was entirely successful in framing this story specifically from the standpoint of memory. For the most part it just felt like I was watching a story with scenes presented out of order, so the approach in a way felt too self-conscious to me... like I knew I was watching something that was originally intended as a linear story and the seams were visible.
|
|
erickeitel
Junior Member
The beauty of life is in small details, not in big events.
Posts: 464
Likes: 383
|
Post by erickeitel on Jan 4, 2020 3:02:08 GMT
^More or less agree with all of the above.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Jan 6, 2020 17:19:37 GMT
I saw it last night, and I'm still trying to process it, since in part I was struggling to stay awake, not so much because of the movie, but more because I saw it really late, and I was kinda tired at that point.
I thought it was really beautiful, and wonderful in a lot of ways. I think it works because Little Women is one of those stories that can you adapt to any particular period, and update to fit the sensibility of the era its made in (see the previous three major film versions). This was no exception. Great costumes, and there were even moments where I shed a tear. Great work from the cast in general, too.
|
|
|
Post by cinemagirl16 on Jan 7, 2020 1:10:02 GMT
I definitely enjoyed this, but the 1994 version will always be #1 for me, most notably because of Thomas Newman’s impeccable score. I did love the fleshed out moments Gerwig’s adaptation has, specifically regarding Amy. However, I think if you are relatively unfamiliar with the story, characters, etc. the nonlinear structure may be a bit hard to follow or really sink your teeth into. It almost seemed an adaption that is intended for those who already know and love Little Women. The cinematography, costuming, etc. were all fantastic.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Jan 7, 2020 23:37:32 GMT
I thought I was already obsessed with Saoirse Ronan... but then she came out with that Molly Ringwald cut. ❤️!
|
|
chris3
Badass
I just ordered a slice of pumpkin pie...
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 1,045
|
Post by chris3 on Jan 7, 2020 23:49:43 GMT
I saw this movie once and thought it was really good. I saw it again and thought it was incredible. Then last night I was bored and decided to drive over to the theater and go see it again. For the record I have not seen any prior adaptations nor read the novel, so I was completely fresh to the story, and yet what most drew me in from the initial viewing was Gerwig's BRILLIANT nonlinear screenplay, which is for me the most impressively structured script in terms of chronology since The Prestige. Every single cast member was just stellar (besides the bizarre inclusion of Bob Odenkirk, which just, no) with Pugh delivering an absolute stunner of a performance that I will love forever. Chalamet is also really charming, and their scenes together are my favorite of the movie. Every single one of the four sisters' storylines had a moment of tremendous emotional impact for me, and with every viewing I still tear up in a couple of scenes. I was also utterly blown away by Gerwig's direction, which has the technical precision and energy of a young master eager to prove themselves in their craft. WAY more impressive than Lady Bird. Multiple sequences throughout this splendid film (particularly montages that weave in and out of years of story, all superbly edited by Nick Houy and given perfect form by Desplat's beautiful score) felt to me like pure cinema. The type of filmmaking I usually only get in more arthouse American fare like Phantom Thread or Call Me by Your Name, but here it's coupled with an incredibly accessible, compelling drama that was completely new to me. An instant classic for me, and in my top three of a terrific year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2020 5:52:55 GMT
It's alright, don't love the way it's structured and the writing is kinda...on the nose...but there are some really sweet moments and Chalamet in Player Mode was genuinely entertaining.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Jan 11, 2020 4:35:22 GMT
I love it.
And I’m kinda glad Emma Stone dropped out. I can’t really picture her here, and Watson fills the void beautifully.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jan 11, 2020 6:14:09 GMT
I thought I was already obsessed with Saoirse Ronan... but then she came out with that Molly Ringwald cut. ❤️! I don't think that needs a spoiler tag. That's the one thing everyone knows about the book. I thought her long hair was beautiful here but she is always beautiful in general regardless of anything else because of her perfect face
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Jan 13, 2020 4:16:50 GMT
This is a HUGE 10/10 review. I'm sorry for anyone who reads it.
|
|
|
Post by stinkybritches on Jan 13, 2020 16:41:39 GMT
this was surprisingly solid stuff, I liked this adaptation. re-watched the 1994 version after seeing this, and gerwig's film is worlds better.
|
|
The-Havok
Badass
Doing pretty good so far
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 552
|
Post by The-Havok on Jan 13, 2020 17:54:46 GMT
One star rating from Cahiers. Damn, Gerwig really did a bad movie did she
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Jan 15, 2020 0:21:39 GMT
Trailer looked like a snoozefest for the ages, but this won me over pretty quickly. I think it took me around 15-20 minutes to really get invested, but after that it was pretty great.
The cast is excellent... Ronan easily the MVP (maybe her second best performance after Brooklyn), Pugh great, Chalamet redeemed himself after the dreadful 1-2 punch of Beautiful Boy/A Rainy Day in New York, the real Laura Dern that I know and love, Streep hilarious, and the under-the-radar MVP -- Chris Cooper... some quietly terrific moments from him.
Score and cinematography great too... and the non-linear structure definitely worked for me. Greta obviously should have been nominated over Hack Phillips.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Jan 15, 2020 3:36:28 GMT
Viced, are you agreeing more with the films I like recently? Has the world gone mad?
|
|
Drish
Badass
Posts: 2,012
Likes: 1,749
|
Post by Drish on Jan 15, 2020 8:13:27 GMT
While Emma Watson didn't have as much to do as the other three, the girl has such a charming screen presence that I just couldn't take my eyes off her. She's just so pleasant to look at and gives a very endearing performance as Meg. Eliza Scalen continues to put up fantastic work (once again, she was soo underrated in Sharp Objects where she was an easy MVP but no, they had to give it to the showier one, why are most of supporting actress winners these days always so meh?!, ok enough about that :/), Florence Pugh (she always looks like she's about to snap out and slap someone really hard) was fantastic and I can now say that I totally get the hype. SAOIRSE RONAN is everything! Such a sensitive and super charming portrayal of Jo, I think I might prefer her to Winona which is already a huge accomplishment. Easily the best of the nominees by a long margin. Laura Dern is a sweetheart whereas Meryl steals every scene she's in but this role was tailor made for Maggie Smith. I think all the five supporting actresses would have been a better nominee than ScarJo, Robbie and Dern herself. I'm a big fan of Chalamet and he continues to melt my heart with another lovely performance. Chris Cooper is also amazing. The french guy and James Norton 😍😍 I absolutely loved this film. A wholesome entertainment which will make you laugh and cry and lift up your mood. Kudos to Greta, such a brilliant talent both as an actress and director. A step up from Lady Bird imo. ❤️
|
|
|
Post by Allenism on Jan 15, 2020 14:06:38 GMT
Gillian Armstrong's adaption is the still the definitive one for me, but this is a lovely, ambitiously structured take on the novel. That being said, it did little in the way of boosting my opinion of Ronan as a leading lady (she services the role and that's pretty much it--I wouldn't say Pugh and Chalamet were "better" per se but they certainly brought more verve to their respective characters), and as much I appreciate how Gerwig's script merry-go-rounds through each sister, the cost of this is that key parts of Jo's story feel rather malnourished. More specifically, the climactic scene between her and Laurie doesn't land nearly as heavily as it should since the stakes of their relationship are never really brought home for the viewer.
All this probably makes it sound like I took to the film less than I did, it really is an accomplished piece on the whole (especially the last 15 minutes where the story’s meta aspect unfolds exquisitely) and affirms Gerwig as a director to reckon with regardless of gender.
8-8.5/10
|
|
|
Post by alexanderblanchett on Jan 15, 2020 20:09:15 GMT
One of the most beautiful movies of the year. I haven't seen any of the other versions nor did I read the source novel but what I loved most about the film is the beautiful harmony that director Greta Gerwig brings on screen from the very first minute of the movie unit it lasts. The acting is superb. You have Saoirse Ronan who commands every scene she is in and gives her Jo so much life and makes her also very unpredictable in emotions and reactions. Its really nice to see Ronan on the edge to become truly her generations Meryl Streep. Oh Streep herself was fine in this, giving us quirky Aunt March in a very enjoyable, almost self ironic performance. Loved her characters unintentional sarcasm. Emma Watson is the weakest link, but her character is also the most uninteresting one. However its still sad she didn't do anything to uplift that fact. Florence Pugh is wonderful and totally deserving of her Oscar nomination for her loud, wild and then very calm and sensitive performance. So many emotions in one performance. Just great. Laura Dern is fine, lovely and giving a very warm performance. Chris Cooper is somehow wasted however it is always a good addition in any movie he is. Eliza Scanlan was great, already loved heir in "Sharp Objects" but she did something that Watson wasnt able. Bringing a rather blunt character truly to live. Last but certainly not least there was Timothée Chalamet who gives one of the most underrated performances of the year. How does he not get more mentions for this truly fantastic and fresh performance? And no I am not only talking about *his* scene I am talking about his entire appearance . So natural, so witty, so funny, so charming so tragic so wonderful. Did not expect him to live up to those little women but he did and deserves much more applause for it. The screenplay was great. I sometimes got a bit confused with the time twists though. Great score by Alexandre Desplat and in the end one of the best films we got to see 2019.
Nominations for:
Best Director: Greta Gerwig Best Actress in a Leading Role: Saoirse Ronan Best Actor in a Supporting Role: Timothée Chalamet Best Actress in a Supporting Role: Florence Pugh Best Adapted Screenplay Best Score Best Costume Design Best Ensemble
Rating: 9/10
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Jan 17, 2020 16:41:10 GMT
What did you think of Chalamet 's performance?
I think he was miscast. He seemed bored and detached the whole time and had no chemistry with anyone whatsoever. And he always looks like a teenager so I never buy him when he's trying to act more mature. Such a bland performance.
|
|
|
Post by notacrook on Jan 17, 2020 17:36:14 GMT
What did you think of Chalamet 's performance? I think he was miscast. He seemed bored and detached the whole time and had no chemistry with anyone whatsoever. And he always looks like a teenager so I never buy him when he's trying to act more mature. Such a bland performance. Thought he was really good, his best work since his CMBYN breakout. Chalamet has a lively, very physical energy that works wonders when directed well, and both Guadagnino and Gerwig seem to bring out the best in him.
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Jan 17, 2020 18:47:54 GMT
What did you think of Chalamet 's performance? I think he was miscast. He seemed bored and detached the whole time and had no chemistry with anyone whatsoever. And he always looks like a teenager so I never buy him when he's trying to act more mature. Such a bland performance. Thought he was really good, his best work since his CMBYN breakout. Chalamet has a lively, very physical energy that works wonders when directed well, and both Guadagnino and Gerwig seem to bring out the best in him. His best since CMBYN ???? BEAUTIFUL BOY says hi. 🙄
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2020 18:56:56 GMT
Gillian Armstrong's adaption is the still the definitive one for me, but this is a lovely, ambitiously structured take on the novel. That being said, it did little in the way of boosting my opinion of Ronan as a leading lady ( she services the role and that's pretty much it--I wouldn't say Pugh and Chalamet were "better" per se but they certainly brought more verve to their respective characters), and as much I appreciate how Gerwig's script merry-go-rounds through each sister, the cost of this is that key parts of Jo's story feel rather malnourished. More specifically, the climactic scene between her and Laurie doesn't land nearly as heavily as it should since the stakes of their relationship are never really brought home for the viewer. All this probably makes it sound like I took to the film less than I did, it really is an accomplished piece on the whole (especially the last 15 minutes where the story’s meta aspect unfolds exquisitely) and affirms Gerwig as a director to reckon with regardless of gender. 8-8.5/10 Agreed - of her four nominated performances, I'd rank this one dead-last.
|
|
|
Post by notacrook on Jan 17, 2020 19:51:57 GMT
Thought he was really good, his best work since his CMBYN breakout. Chalamet has a lively, very physical energy that works wonders when directed well, and both Guadagnino and Gerwig seem to bring out the best in him. His best since CMBYN ???? BEAUTIFUL BOY says hi. 🙄 Hmm, he was definitely quite powerful in that movie, but he suffered under bad direction and writing. He's probably the best thing about the movie, but it's not a great performance.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Jan 17, 2020 20:05:21 GMT
What did you think of Chalamet 's performance? I think he was miscast. He seemed bored and detached the whole time and had no chemistry with anyone whatsoever. And he always looks like a teenager so I never buy him when he's trying to act more mature. Such a bland performance. I've never been big on Chalamet, but I really liked him here. Very natural, likable, charismatic -- he had a great screen presence here, and I really enjoyed him whenever he showed up, and I'd never felt that about Chalamet in anything previously. (Also, he's godawful in Beautiful Boy.)
|
|