Little Women

This was very good. By all means a well made, well written and shot adaptation. But for me it didn't even come close to the '94 version with Winona Ryder. Each character was phenomenal in that old version, especially Claire Danes as Beth and Christian Bale as Laurie. Also the unforgettable Winona Ryder, of course, and Susan Sarandon. Kirsten Dunst as Amy...oh my goodness, absolutely exquisite. Even though I enjoyed watching the new version, my preference remains firmly with the old. Though more simply told, perhaps, without flashbacks back and forth and fancy effects, to me it was richer in emotions and with much more memorable, more 'colorful' characters. I enjoyed watching Amy in the new version, I just didn't understand why she was never little?... She was this mature woman both as a kid and an adult...very strange. Anyway, you won't regret watching this, for sure. I just doubt I'll ever see it again. Whereas the '94 version I could watch another ten times, with pleasure. I guess that says it all.

I read through many of the reviews for this 2019 version of "Little Women" and noticed that most reviewers adored the film. Because of this, I assumed I also would love the movie. Sadly, however, I was left feeling ambivalent about it...and I noticed that my wife and oldest daughter felt pretty much the same way.

I won't talk about the plot...after all, there's a summary on IMDB and lots of reviews talk about this. What I should mention is that the film is much more like the book than previous versions....a plus. But the reasons I still did not love this film are what stop me from recommending the film. First, there simply is too much story to cram into a little over two hours. If you are going to try to stick closer to the book, then perhaps consider making it a mini-series. This is because although the film is more like the book, to do this they also omit a lot of things....making the story seem a bit disjoint and confusing. Second, I really didn't think they did a good job of helping the viewers to actually care about the characters. Some of this was because the little women in the story were poorly chosen--much too old in some cases (the 12 year-old early in the story looked to be about 20). Some was because the choppiness of the story really harmed the film because the characters just seemed one-dimensional. Overall, a decent story but even with its sticking closer to the book, I much preferred the 1990s version...which was much more charming, fun and likable.

Finally saw LITTLE WOMEN 2019. Didn't expected much cause I really liked 94 version by Gillian Armstrong with Winona Ryder , Gabriel Byrne , Trini Alvarado , Christian Bale and Susan Sarandon. Well, the casting was something that I cannot judge which one is better. Both are so so great. But Christian Bale 94, I liked better than Timothée Chalamet 2019 (Although he was good but didn't overcome THE Christian).

Two things really grabbed me.

1. The camera and light. The camera is keep moving even for the steady shots. They released the tripod and moved a little to adjust each actors even a small movement they make. They also use sunlight so beautifully like Pride and Prejudice. Aldo a couple of slow motions and mintage sequences are beautiful too.

2. The music. It is not like here I am listen like Hans Zimmer or Max Richter or even Cliff Martinez who would say even if the movie suck I am still here. Think that at least you've watched a great Music Video cause of my music. In this movie the music is there clearly and when it comes to really important moments, It really boost up the heart of audience. But it's more like supporting way. I felt it from the very beginning. Ok wow this guy knows OST!! Alexandre is more of a classic composer who made OST like The Danish Girl, The Tree of life, Julie & Julia and Philomena.

I cannot say this movie will win (was nominated for 6 Academy) a lot of awards from all around the world but it has beautiful beautiful acting ensenble and light, camera and music wise. Work of art.

Also the acting sometimes made my heart beat. Even the makeup is so great. Of course the director is also an actress so she knows how to deal with these stuff, right?

Last. The time. It goes back and forth from the past to present a couple of times but it was not confusing or breaking any concentration cause it was so nicely connected by editing and bridge music. (The cast y-oung and old -was the same too which didn't matter as well.) Something that was different with the 94 version.

It is an inspiring movie after all and I won't rest tonight to finish my humble feature writing for my next project.

I admit, I wasn't too impressed by Greta Gerwig's Ladybird. I found Little Women a whole other level of a movie. It's not just that the source material provided a much more colorful story. It's not just that the March sisters seem to be richer characters than Ladybird's decidedly bland heroine. To me with this film Gerwig emerged as a master storyteller and a true auteur. I loved how instead of following chronological order, she presented the story as more of a memory stream. Even though constant time jumps were confusing at first, especially since the characters didn't change much, I thought it made the movie more engaging and somehow more relatable. It created some incredibly poignant moments, like the two times Jo (Saoirse Ronan) wakes up and doesn't find Beth (Eliza Scanlen) in her bed. And I got that strange and wonderful feeling like I was in the midst of it rather than outside looking in. Even bits like when Mr. Dashwood (Tracy Letts) tells what he wrote to Jo directly to the camera rather than as a voice over, that in a different movie would seem like a gimmick, here felt perfectly organic and gave the film a little extra kick. The entire sequence that moves between Jo negotiating her fate with him and living it is pure brilliance. The cast is great in a way that goes beyond just being able to portray complex emotions. What struck me the most was that by the end I found myself in love with every single character. Not because they are saintly, but because they are human. Alive. Warm. Even Meryl Streep's Aunt March is lovable because it's clear that behind everything she says, she cares deeply about the girls.

There was only one thing that bugged me a little - too little difference in the sisters' appearance between the two time periods. It ultimately worked anyway, except for Amy. Florence Pugh is a fantastic actress and she did a great job making Amy act like a 13 year old. But she just didn't look like a 13 year old, especially next to her older sisters. I kept wondering why she was always left behind, why she needed Jo to take her ice skating, and how it was that she couldn't understand why Jo stayed mad at her after what she'd done. It also made Laurie's (Timothee Chalamet) sudden change of heart about her hard to buy.

Such a pleasure to watch a wonderful feel good film. Granted I got confused by the end with the jumping back and forth but most the time you knew what was going on by the mood of everyone. Absolutely brilliant