skybridge

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

Rated Little Women 8/10

The fourth (of four, currently) of the Little Women movie adaptions (that isn't a silent movie). So, is it worth watching? Absolutely. This is not a case of "seen one, seen them all," in fact, you can't say that about any of the Little Women movies as they all are quite different (though I would recommend skipping the '49 version). This one does something unique, and definitely threw me off for awhile. It's structured like a Chris Nolan movie. It's constantly switching between the past and the future. Every event runs parallel to each other. That is, you get to see the future, and then see how the past led up to that. It's quite an interesting way to tell the story and provides the movie it's own unique identity. Personally, I'm not the biggest fan of this, but it definitely doesn't detract from the movie that much. What about the characters? Well, they're done quite well. Saoirse Ronan is quite good as Jo. She feels like a mixture of Hepburn and Ryder in her portrayal. She has quite a bit of emotional depth like Ryder, but feels like a true tom-boy like Hepburn. Not going to lie, I don't like this Amy. She feels needlessly mean. She's supposed to be a brat, yes, but, her burning Jo's book in this movie didn't feel justified one bit in this version ('94 did a much better job at this) and just felt needlessly cruel. That, and Florence Pugh seemed way too old for the character. I'm glad in this version Meg is actually the prettiest of the girls like she's supposed to be. In '49 and '94 I felt that she wasn't. So, that was nice to see here. Other than that, no real comments. Emma Watson did a good job at the character. Moving over to Beth, I really like this portrayal of Beth. Very angelic, like she's supposed to be. Still like the '94 portrayal a bit better, but this is a close second. That said, one thing I really do like about this version of Beth is how they really do show her musical side and her getting that piano in this movie actually felt earned, unlike in previous adaptions. For the rest of the cast: Marmee was good, felt like she genuinely cared for her daughters and was active in their lives, but I still like '94's Marmee better. Chris Cooper doesn't make for a convincing Grandpa Laurence and is easily the worst portrayal of the character. Laurie is spot on in this version and may be the best portrayal yet (that said, Christian Bale was amazing in '94, so we'll call it a tie). Aunt March definitely has quite the personality and is far superior to the '94 version, though I will always prefer the '33 and '49 portrayals more due to their sharp-wit. As for John Brooke he isn't exactly the best-looking, and whoever plays Professor Bhaer gets the job done. He's good but not great. Anyway, time for some other notes: near the end, when Jo sends a letter to the publisher, and the publisher responds, when they stare at the camera reading the letters, that was weird and felt out of place. Shouldn't have been put into the movie like that. The scene were all the family stood around and told Jo how much she loved Bhear was the definition of "cringe" and so was the whole meeting him at the train station thing. That was downright bad. I appreciate how Laurie actually felt a part of the March family this time. You see him spending time with all the girls and it feels meaningful, as opposed to previous versions where he was basically just Jo's friend who somehow ended up marrying Amy. Also, I am glad for the first time ever they actually fleshed out Amy and Laurie's relationship. It always felt quite out of the blue in previous adaptions. Here it didn't. Anyway, so, I definitely recommend this version. I would say this is neck-to-neck with '94 for the title of "best adaption" of Little Women. It just depends on which strengths of the two versions you prefer more and which weaknesses you can't get over more. Anyway, this was a fantastic watch that I can easily recommend.

#movie

Published 2021-04-28 00:00 UTC · bridged from Atmosphere