skybridge

wumpasr.bsky.social · @wumpasr.bsky.social@bridge.neodb.net

Rated Little Women 6/10

The very first movie adaption of "Little Women" (with sound) was definitely rather interesting. It had a lot more personality than the '94 or 2019 versions. Jo March (portrayed by Katherine Hepburn) is a true tom-boy and really knows how to run her mouth. Aunt March has a lot of spunk and therefore is a hoot. This movie also messed around with the story to a surprising amount. It focused on Jo at the expense of the other sisters, for instance. So, because of that we never see the ball Meg goes to or Amy falling through the ice as these events were important to their arcs, but not Jo's. This movie is about Jo. It also changed the timeline of a lot of events. For instance, in this movie, Jo meets Laurie before the ball, she finds out that Amy is going to Europe with Aunt March instead of her while in New York, and dad makes his visit when Beth is sick, not at the second Christmas. So, it definitely changed things around. Honestly, I didn't really mind. Now, something I really did like was their portrayal of Professor Bhaer. Honestly much preferred him over the '94 and 2019 versions easily. At the end of the day, this is a good movie. That said, I can only recommend it to those who have experience watching older films, because in some ways it's age shows. Older films, especially films this old were acted differently, that is, as if the actors are on stage. You will notice edits. These films are not as polished as modern day films. Thankfully, this movie doesn't fall into the trap of being slow or artificially adding runtime like so many old movies. But, yes, it's age does show in different ways, so if you haven't watched many old movies, especially really early movies, don't watch this. That said, if you have spent time watching the films from early movie history, you will definitely get a lot of enjoyment out of this like I did. 3/5 = Decent

#movie

Published 2021-04-23 00:00 UTC · bridged from Atmosphere