MovieChat Forums > Little Women (2019) Discussion > Little Women 2019 review

Little Women 2019 review


It’s not a bad film, but the 1994 version with Wynona Ryder and Christian Bale etc was a much much better film. Most of the characters are well cast, but the director/writer Greta Gerwig has turned it into a feminist polemic. A little less emphasis on the feminism would have made it more true to its era. I didn’t like how the story isn’t told in a linear fashion. She jumps all around back and forth in time for no discernible reason. It does NOT enhance the plot. The scene where Amy tells the Laurie character off(at a formal party no less) about what a disappointment he has become with his dissolution & pining for Jo, seems staged and overdone in this version. It doesn’t feel authentic.

In terms of plot I liked much better the way the romance between Jo and Professor Baer was treated in the 1994 film. In this one their interaction is given short shrift and it’s almost not convincing that they even like each other all that much and would end up together. The scene of Winona Ryder & Gabriel Byrne under an umbrella hands clasped in the 1994 film was the perfect ending.

Whoever did the music for it, well most of the music is pretty forgettable unlike the 1994 film which I felt was very much enhanced by the musical soundtrack. All the critics are raving about it but I stick by my assessment that Gillian Armstrong’s direction of the 1994 film was better. She captured the adventurous spirit of the Jo character, and her longing for a life of adventure that isn’t in the traditional woman’s role without a confusing shuffling of the order of the plot. No doubt it will be nominated for gobs of awards. I won’t be rooting for it. I liked Gerwig’s Lady Bird film last year but it was over rated too. I think because she is the darling of the indie movies, critics over praise her work.

I encourage all to see the 1994 version and see if you don’t agree with me.

reply

Seems more like Little Woke Women.

reply

Yes that pretty much encapsulates it.

reply

Watching clips are enough to make me not want to watch it. That might explain why they got the most effeminate guy they could get to play Laurie. Especially after you had Christian "Im Batman" Bale in the 1994 version.

reply

Yea, he looked like a little boy, even after 7 years. Not going to lie though, I enjoyed his acting, and despite his appearance, I felt he evoked a mature performance.

reply

I love this book and see all versions of it but this is my least favorite version. I hated the jumping around of the timeline and the person I was with was very confused as they weren't familiar with the story.

I felt the actress playing Amy looked and sounded older than the character is and they needed someone older playing Laurie, he looked 12 the whole way thru the movie. They didn't really build the characters or their relationships with each other.

reply

I agree with your take on this movie. Yes Timothee C. was too young & not someone I would have cast as the Laurie character. I agree that Frances Pugh came across as older & more sophisticated than the Amy character would have been. The scene where she goes off on Laurie at the party was totally unbelievable. A young lady of that era would never have behaved that way in that era. The scene was totally overdone. The movie tried too hard to be hip and with sensibilities of the 21st century. Louisa M. Alcott was a writer & very independent is is true. The book was an idealized version of her life which was in actuality kind of grim and a burden on her. Her writing did a lot to support the family because her father was an intellectual with very little ability to support his family. For me the best LW film will always be the 1994 film.

reply