“Little Women” (2019) is absolutely beautiful! A wonderful film.

If Timmy doesn’t win I’m going to set myself on fire.

I'm tired of looking at women. None of them are fabulous these days. Give me Matt's ass any day.

He was my favorite part of the movie r1. He’s wonderful and at his most charming and charismatic in this.

the sisters aren't diverse so I absolutely will NOT SEE THIS

This turkey could soon outdo the annual revival of Gypsy for next.

It comes out next month. I went to an early screening

I can't help it; I love this book. Most of the adaptations are good because there's a lot of story, and a lot of real emotion - -

My mother taught American Literature and at almost 40, I still have not read this book. The movie looks divine, so I am trying to make-up for my misspent adolescence by reading the book. The self-proclaimed Victorianists I know are all in vapours over yet *another* adaptation that is still not good enough. I'm so glad to hear from someone who has seen it!

Which one is the trans?

I want an all star version...

Ellen de Generes as Jo

Meghan Duchess of Sussex as Meg

Lindsay Lohan as Beth

Madonna as Amy

Hillary Clinton as Marmee

and Senatrice Lindsay Graham as Aunt March

Does Timotee get hos cocklet out?

R11, yes. He’s shaved, cut, and 4 inches. Good thing he’s a bottom.

Who cares about Timmy? The lovely James Norton is in it!

[quote]R8 My mother taught American Literature and at almost 40, I still have not read this book. The movie looks divine, so I am trying to make-up for my misspent adolescence by reading the book.

You HAVE to report back! It will be interesting to hear an adult perspective - most people who have an attachment to the book made it in adolescence, when they identified with the characters.

Some of the book is a little sickly sweet - but that's what sold back then. Alcott's heart wasn't in those more moralizing moments - she was writing in a specific genre. Until then, she'd written "sensation" stories and melodrama that was published a lot, but didn't make her rich. So she rolled up her sleeves and was like, "Well, here goes..."

In all probability, Alcott was a repressed lesbian, which makes her family. [italic]("I am more than half-persuaded that I am a man's soul put by some freak of nature into a woman's body. … because I have fallen in love with so many pretty girls and never once the least bit with any man.”)

Looks like a hallmark tv movie to me.

Why do they keep remaking this movie.

[quote]r8 The movie looks divine, so I am trying to make-up for my misspent adolescence by reading the book.

You also have to make sure you're reading the complete work. I was originally published as two separate books. Now they're usually combined as one, but you should double check that the version you get has two distinct parts.

[quote]r15 Why do they keep remaking this movie?

Because it always makes money.

I was going to ask about Laura Dern-I adore her! I'm seeing her Saturday in Santa Monica at a Blue Velvet/Wild at Heart double feature where she'll be discussing the films. Why didn't you like Laura? Also, does the film feel like a Greta Gerwig (Noah Baumbach) film? I'm really excited for this one.

The music for the Winona Ryder version is so beautiful. It's going to be hard to beat that version, but I'll go to this one with an open mind.

Looks dingy. The 1994 remake was bursting with vibrant colors. This has all the warmth of a basement.

Meryl's ACTING again, as usual. Another "Great Lady of Acting" performance so she can get her requisite Oscar nomination. Why don't they just give her a permanent slot at this point?

Besides, they just remade this last year. And can anyone touch Noni Ryder's performance? I don't think so.

“Austin Wilde” is absolutely beautiful! A wonderful dildo. Buy it when you see it! It’s very good, the acting is great (although I felt Laura Dern was at her weakest here) Timmy is phenomenal in this! I can see an Oscar nod for him in this. Meryl has a small role but it stands out. I wouldn’t be shocked if she got a nom for this also. Great dildo. Very well done.

Alcott was totally a dyke vagina eater, this should have been included

And you know Meryl would munch some carpet if she knew she was getting a fourth trophy!

Shit, she'd roll naked through Jello for that!

Alcott did have "cane face" to the max, as we say.

^ Kirsten Stewart should play her, the resemblance is harrowing

I never watched the Winona Ryder movie

[quote] Timmy is phenomenal in this! I can see an Oscar nod for him in this.

[quote] Meryl has a small role but it stands out. I wouldn’t be shocked if she got a nom for this also.

Don't even [bold]try[/bold] to pretend you're not Lynn Stairmaster, OP.

We easily recognize your style.

[quote]r26 I never watched the Winona Ryder movie

[italic]SACRILEGE ! ! ! !

Ryder has such a weird way of speaking.

How many vesions of this are there?

Wasn't there two-part version on PBS less than a year ago?

Very sad that Meryl is now reduced to playing one of Mary Wickes' old roles. What's next a remake of Sister Act?

[quote]I really like the above one with Ryder.

It's such a tearjerker. The cast is excellent.

[quote]r31 Very sad that Meryl is now reduced to playing one of Mary Wickes' old roles.

Considering she was probably paid a fortune for a few days work, it's not all that tragic.

Will Saoirse Ronan FINALLY get her Oscar? She's becoming the new generation's Meryl - 3 Oscar nominations so far and no win (yet). Will this be her 4th nomination without a win?

Also, I'm curious how Ronan (of Irish heritage, family still lives in Ireland) felt about playing in Alcott's adaptation. Because Alcott [italic]despised[/italic] Irish immigrant females and basically called them a 'lower race'. She advised "fellow good American ladies" to never employ Irish immigrants.

R35 that was the majority of Americans back then. The Irish were seen as a lower race. Italians seen as even lower than them.

Alcott went FAR further than the "majority of American" women, R36. She actively and publicly advocated for this position (penning "No Irish Need Apply" columns) in newspapers - trying to convince other American women to follow her example (firing Irish workers). Alcott was speaking from personal experience (she wasn't impressed with the Irish servant-girls she hired and then fired) but she extrapolated it to a whole ethnicity. Alcott was simply dense (despite her literary reputation). She had inductive reasoning - making broad generalisations from specific, one-off observations: if one Irish servant-girl was feckless in her duties - then ALL Irish servant-females 'must' be feckless as well.

I have never seen any of the film adaptations, plays or read the book... nor have I wanted to, until I saw this trailer.

This looks absolutely wonderful, and I love this cast. I love Ronan (she should have been the winner for Brooklyn, not Brie Larson) and Chalamet (he was also who I wanted to win for CMBYN), as well as Emma Watson, Meryl and Laura Dern.

My friend saw a screening in LA a few weeks ago and said its absolutely wonderful, and he thinks Ronan is getting nominated for sure, and that Timmy should, and Meryl has a chance, despite the lack of screen time.

R38 ...Jessica Christ, your fingers are dripping vagina

^^ I'm a gay male, and I love [italic]Little Women.[/italic] I grew up loving dolls, and books for girls. I identified with those much more than toy fire trucks, little league, etc. Plus the book's about the intricate relationships between sisters, and I have a sister who's still my best friend.

So don't be mean and think someone's a "frau" just because they like the book, or the movies.

Pity that M has been reduced to small supporting roles.

To be fair, I believe G [italic]was [/italic] offered the role of Laurie's grandfather, which is a slightly larger role.

Oh, is that person still speaking about me getting Supporting roles? Sweetie, I earn millions for small roles while you aren’t offered ANY roles.

Hope you enjoy watching me at the Oscars from home, dear.

Is a PR shill pimping the big year-end movie releases on DL with absolutely wonderful reviews?

That cunt Greta Gerwig should get an original idea instead of making 14th adaptation of an ancient book.

This is the same story but it feels more modern. Gerwig made the women less just women of their time but more women of their time that realize they’re worth more despite being women.

I can't imagine it better than the Winona Ryder version, now twenty-five years old, which is superb.

I have a bit of Little Women fatigue. This is the 3rd or 4th adaptation in the last 4 years. I can understand redoing classics but holy FUCK!

They really should've lightened Emma's hair to her Hermione color because she looks like she was left on the doorstep, while the other three could conceivably be sisters.

And I'm team 1949 version.

Imagine thinking THIS was a good idea.

I see the publicists are getting an early start on this one!!!

(Especially since I don't think it's had any public/sneak screenings at all...if you saw it, you must be industry.)

R48, I thought the one with short hair was Timmy. So mannish.

Timmy is playing Christian Bale? He seems way too young for that.

The one done last year was pretty awfully miscast. I disliked it, and I loved the story. The actress who played Amy came across as wooden and heartless.

The Winona Ryder version is perfect.

There’s a family housekeeper in the book, Hannah, who’s devoted to the family and a second mother to the girls. I always thought she was Irish. She’s an older woman, possibly a widow.

The reason people still read this story, is because it’s about something 95% of DLers have never had: a close, loving family. The girls are very close to each other and both parents. They’re described as “poor,” but that’s in comparison to their former life, before Alcott’s real life dad pissed away all the family money. He sounds like an obnoxious idiot, and Alcott worshipped him, and I have no idea why. He just made their lives harder. They were better off when he was away at the war.

I re-read it as an adult in my twenties. There’s a lot of proselytizing, not just about Christianity (at least it’s the Pete Buttigieg kind, not the Trump kind), but even more preaching about how a woman’s place is to be an uncomplaining slave to her family. One girl is praised for having burn marks and callouses from cooking and housework, the artistic one is told housework is superior to painting. Essentially she’s told her artwork is selfish and self centered, and she should devote herself to housework like the other one. All this is whitewashed out of all the movie versions, even going back to the 1940s.

The book is meant to be a companion to a popular book of the day, Pilgrim’s Progress, a Christian book for little kids. A lot of the early chapters follow conceits from Pilgrim’s Progress, the sisters are reading it together and comparing their own lives to it. All this is never discussed in the movies.

[quote]but even more preaching about how a woman’s place is to be an uncomplaining slave to her family. One girl is praised for having burn marks and callouses from cooking and housework, the artistic one is told housework is superior to painting. Essentially she’s told her artwork is selfish and self centered, and she should devote herself to housework

But this is the exact OPPOSITE of what the trailer just showed. Saoise goes into a monologue about how women are much more than that, that they have brains and ambition and worth outside of home.

R51, there have been advanced screenings. People have posted their reactions on Twitter and Letterboxd- all enthusiastic.

Florence Pugh is noted as the standout.

I liked the musical with little Dolly Parton, Kristin Chenoweth, Lady Gaga and Paul Simon.

Is it some rule in Hollywood that every decade or so we have to have another remake of this?

I loved the Winona Ryder version, but this is potentially an interesting adaptation with some interesting actresses and director. I’m not at all in the Calumet camp, and couldn’t care less about him, and am very worried he’ll ruin the experience.

So Timmy may get "an Oscar nod." And Meryl may get "a nom." No human being writes this way, OP, except a Hollywood hack.

[quote]No human being writes this way, OP, except a Hollywood hack or a DL queen who once dreamed of his name appearing before the word "starrer" in Variety and THR.

Fixed.

[quote] Give me Matt's ass any day.

Here you go...

Ronan is lovely in this.

For a second I thought this meant Ronan Farrow - -

How are they classified as poor, when they have a lovely sizable home. It may look faded from its previous glory, but it's still a very nice upscale home they have.

Where did their $$ come from, and what was it blown on?

I really enjoy the M-G play on these threads. Its funny as hell.

[quote]r65 How are they classified as poor, when they have a lovely sizable home. It may look faded from its previous glory, but it's still a very nice upscale home they have. Where did their $$ come from, and what was it blown on?

From what I recall, Jo and Meg are old enought to remember when their household had more money. They've more "fallen on hard times" than being genuinely poverty striken as we'd think of it today. Both the older girls have to work. The mother came from a wealthy family, so might have a small trust or inheritance that's eeked out. And there would be resources from that side of the family in a true emergency.

Alcott's father was an autocratic/dictatorial philosopher who tried running experimental schools, vegetarian communes, etc. so the March father probably wasted money on noble schemes like that. I think the fictional Mr. March also lent money to friends who didn't repay him (?) or bailed friends out of debt.

I've had sufficient on Little Women remakes. Same goes with any Jane Austen work.

Not sure why they felt they had to dust this one off again.

R67 Wouldn't aunt march be there to help keep the family afloat financially? She seems genuinely wealthy to me.

The rights are in the public domain and there are no special effects. So they're relatively cheap to do.

^^ for r68

Isn't there another little women from the 1930s with kathrine hepburn in it too?

[quote]r69 Wouldn't aunt march be there to help keep the family afloat financially? She seems genuinely wealthy to me.

Aunt March is a dried up, old fashioned snob that no one likes. She cut off the mom when she married beneath her, socially, and does the same to Meg. (Oh, sorry for no SPOILER ALERT re: that riveting plot twist.)

The old crab would send a doctor in an emergency, but with her there's no free lunch.

[quote]r72 Isn't there another little women from the 1930s with kathrine hepburn in it too?

Yes. Hepburn is perfectly cast, but it's so old fashioned I've never wanted to watch it. The story's sentimental enough without weighing it down further with a 1930s sensibility.

One thing that's interesting about that production, though, is they copied one of Jo's costumes from a photo of Hepburn's grandmother. I've always wondered which one it is.

R68 it hasn't even been long enough for dust to settle on the story

I never liked who was cast as older Amy in the 1994 version. She was pretty but lacked any presence. She felt very background, complete opposite of Kirsten Dunst who naturally had a large presence.

[quote] One girl is praised for having burn marks and callouses from cooking and housework, the artistic one is told housework is superior to painting. Essentially she’s told her artwork is selfish and self centered, and she should devote herself to housework like the other one.

Interesting. But it's actually logical in the context of the story. The March family has fallen on hard times - they're not quite impoverished, but slowly getting there. They're a struggling family with 4 kids (4 mouths) to feed. In that situation, any teenage kid (male or female) is expected to help out the family and do dependable "labor", instead of artsy-farsty "painting", especially in the mid-19th C. Kids back then were expected to take care of their parents. The chances of making a good, livable income doing "artwork" was astronomically low (even for males). Statistically, many "artists" lived hand-to-mouth (even great ones like Van Gogh, who lived off his brother's charity). So of course parents would rather their kid do something dependably useful and practical (like chores) instead of 'la-dee-da' arts.

[quote]R76 I never liked who was cast as older Amy in the 1994 version.

The role was probably not of interest to more substantial actresses, as it comprises of just a few scenes.

Alicia Silverstone was considered for Beth, but they felt she looked “too old” for what they envisioned.

Has anyone seen “Little Men”? I didn’t know it existed

The 1994 version was good enough. Did they really need another one?

They’ve done another or two since

I'm good, thanks.

[quote]Not sure why they felt they had to dust this one off again.

Oh, I am. If only they'd reconfigured it as "Little Laurie."

Isn’t Timothee too young to be playing this role? He looks ridiculous, like a little kid. In the past, this role was played by adults.

Trivia: the 1949 version at MGM was initially set in motion a few years earlier as a vehicle for Jennifer Jones. Her husband had produced the Hepburn version in the 30s.

She’d have made a terrible Jo. Too dewy and ladylike.

So what happened to the March sisters? Where are they today? Did they all die? Did they all meet grisly ends?

r84 Laurie was in high school when it opens. Timmy is 22 years old.

It was also to star Rhonda Flemming (Meg) Diana Lynn (Amy), and Bambi Linn (Beth).

^^ Sorry... continuation of r86

Didn’t Christian Bale play Laurie? You can’t go from him to a little kid like Timothee. That’s like casting Timothee to be the next Batman. Laughable.

The 1994 version is interesting because you have famous actresses as Marmee, Jo, Beth and Amy and then a rando as Meg. And isn't Meg supposed to be the prettiest?

[quote]R87 So what happened to the March sisters? Where are they today? Did they all die? Did they all meet grisly ends?

Late in life, I know they performed in vaudeville as a sister act. It was reportedly somewhat risqué.

Meg was rumored to be involved in back alley abortions, but it was never proven.

Laurie and Amy were notorious jet set swingers.

[quote]R92 then a rando as Meg.

Meg is a snoozefest, anyway.

But Trini Alvarado is a very experienced actress who’d been in movies since childhood. She played Bette Midler’s daughter in STELLA.

I liked who played Meg. It was adult Amy I didn’t like.

Wasn’t Trini in Power Rangers?

I think the 1994 Meg is good, too. She makes that dead boring character palatable.

R94 working and famous are two different things. She was a working actress. The others were/are famous.

She was good. Not every role needs to be a big star.

Meg’s recording career:

"Absolutely beautiful" is code for "absolutely boring."

Nope. It’s not boring r101

I think I'll give this one a miss and just wait for the inevitable new 2022 version instead.

[quote]R98 working and famous are two different things. She was a working actress. The others were/are famous.

Winona Ryder was one of the film’s producers. She might not have wanted a star of her own stature as Meg... or maybe she had a personal friendship with Alvarado (who had worked with that version’s director before, on MRS. SOFFEL).

Does Timo present hole?

NBNC -No Butthole No Care

Normally when there is a movie with many stars, they cast some of the roles with less knowns. Or unknowns all together.

Many actors had their debut role in a star filled film.

These remakes are getting on my nerves.

I know.

Which one dies?

I just saw this with my bros. We all agree it's almost as beautiful as The English Patient and almost as touching as The Notebook! Fabulous wonderful film and we all left with raging boners!

Does Timothee show any skin?

R109 : BETH DIES!

[quote]This has all the warmth of a basement.

Like all Greta Gerwig movies.

[quote]Why do they keep remaking this movie.

Because Hollywood will never tire of odes to rich white liberal women.

Yeah, that's what Hollywood's always been - one endless ode to empowered women.

{quote]Trivia: the 1949 version at MGM was initially set in motion a few years earlier as a vehicle for Jennifer Jones. Her husband had produced the Hepburn version in the 30s.

Yes, the little known David Selnick.

In the book, Amy is described as having one small daughter, who is frail. She is described like maybe she had a serious illness, and barely survived.

The real life “Amy,” the youngest Alcott sister, died of “childbed fever” after the birth of her only daughter. Louisa raised the child, Lulu, until Louisa died of a stroke, when Lulu was only eight.

B O R I N G

Your BUTT is boring!

I rewatched the 1994 version today and I cried twice. It’s very beautifully done with amazing acting. Winona Ryder was top notch in this movie.

I loved Kirsten Dunst a lot too. She made me laugh numerous times. She shaded Jo more than once lmao. The older Amy sucked. No presence. No charisma. Just pretty.

Claire Danes broke my heart.

Susan Sarandon was fantastic. I liked her more in the role than Laura Dern.

[quote]r119 I rewatched the 1994 version today and I cried twice.

Let me guess - when Jo runs her hands across the LITTLE TRUNKS IN THE ATTIC ? ? ?

[bold]#dead

R120 actually when Beth comes downstairs after being sick and they surprise her with the piano and when she dies. Winona was wonderful in that scene!!! (As was Danes)

[quote]r103 I think I'll give this one a miss and just wait for the inevitable new 2022 version, instead.

Will the next version be women of color in the roles?

And then the version after Trans women in the roles?

[quote]r121 actually when Beth comes downstairs after being sick and they surprise her with the piano, and when she dies.

Timothee Chalamet, Emma Watson and Saoirse Ronan in one film? The universe has been far too kind to us with this brilliant, talented cast. Chalamet is the best of his generation.

[quote] Chalamet is the best of his generation.

Damning with faint praise. Though Saoirse Ronan is one to watch.

Ronan is lovely. I loved her in Brooklyn, even if the movie was meh. She was fantastic.

I loved her chemistry with Laurie Metcalfe in that shit Gerwig movie.

I don't think i've seen her in anything other than Atonement, from which I have no memory of her performance whatsoever. i know she's been around forever.

Why do I think of her as doing some vaguely mermaidish movie (in Wales?) when she was a kid? It's something about a father and daughter, and there's a boat and maybe an island. It got good reviews. This was the late 90s, maybe. What movie is that? I think it's about local legend from over there. Independent/low-ish budget.

My first encounter with her was “The Lovely Bones”.

R128 Are you thinking of The Secret of Roan Inish? She was too young to be in that one, but it's a nice movie.

^^ Yes! I know my mind works in odd ways, but somehow it associated "Roan Inish" with "Saoirse Ronan"

It's almost an anagram.

Ronan is still young at 25, but I want to start seeing her play against type. She usually plays these aloof, somewhat icy, independent-minded, strong-willed, composed, brave / intrepid, slightly self-centred characters who find themselves out-of-place and limited by their restrictive surroundings (Brooklyn, Manchester-by-the-Sea, Ladybird, Mary Queen of Scots, The Host, Byzantium). She's perfect in her type, but it's becoming samey.

She'll probably have a long career (3 Oscar nominations already, the new Meryl), so it would be interesting to see if she'll approach roles completely different from her usual type - someone not strong-headed and self-contained, but someone vivacious, bubbly, disarmingly smiley and somewhat goofy / empty-headed (like Anne Hathaway's character in "Devil Wears Prada"). Or someone sultry, coy, twisted and femme fatale (like Eva Green's role in the "Dreamers"). Or someone mannish and trampy (like Margot Robbie's character in "I, Tonya").

I think they'll only give her an Oscar when she finally goes against her usual type (even though she plays that type very well).

How is she the new Meryl? I thought I was the new Meryl!

I'm waiting for the version starring the horse-hung etalons of Blackedraw.

Haven't you seen The Hustlers?? I'M the new Meryl.

A clip. I love Timmy!

She's the new M because M has 21 academy nominations (18 of which were losses).

Ronan is only 25 but has been nominated 3 times already (no wins so far, but it's almost certain she'll get an Oscar in the future at this rate). She might get nominated next year too - and will probably lose to Zellweger. So she's well on track to getting double-digit nominations (losses), punctuated by a few wins eventually.

With Lawrence - she has an Oscar already and 3 noms (losses) but I doubt she'll keep getting nominated throughout her life. She's more of a candle that burns at both ends. Ronan is more of a steady working actress like M.

[quote]R137 With Lawrence - she has an Oscar already and 3 noms (losses) but I doubt she'll keep getting nominated

Not without her fuck buddy Harvey Weinstein, she won’t.

[quote]R136 A clip. I love Timmy!

Seated, he looks about 12.

He looks young. But he is 22. And Laurie is a teenager when we first meet him.

Will there be a sequel called “Little Men“ about pocket gays?

There was a “Little Men” in 1998

I am dying to see this now

Funnily enough, i’m not. The visuals don’t look careful enough for a “valentine” of this nature.

I’ll probably watch it when it’s on one of my subscriptions at 2:00 a.m. some day next year

I think Timothee is so good in every movie. Such a natural talent.

[quote]Didn’t Christian Bale play Laurie? You can’t go from him to a little kid like Timothee.

It's not a series, nimrod.

[quote]chalamet is the best of his generation.

BWAH HAHAHA

HAHAHAHA!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHA!!!!!!

[quote]chalamet is the best of his generation.

BWAH HAHAHA

HAHAHAHA!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHA!!!!!!

I’ll give Chalamet the benefit of the doubt, but he pales in comparison to Bale. He’s like a younger, more immature-looking version.

Also, Laurie was a bit older than Jo - and that was reflected in their dynamic. But in the Chalamet-Ronan pairing - Ronan looks older and bigger than Chalamet :).

Not for a single second of one moment on any day in my life did I think of Christian Bale being as hot as I now find Timmy. Not for a nanosecond. Timothée Chalamet *IS* Theodore "Laurie" Lawrence.

How *is* he “Laurie”? In Little Women, Jo thought that Laurie was older than her (because he was described as “broad-shouldered”, vivacious and quite big for his age). Chalamet is the opposite of broad-shouldered - he has the appearance of a demure waif :).

Chalamet could (with a stretch) work as Laurie - but then you need an even younger-looking, more petite Jo to star opposite him. Otherwise, in the Ronan-Chalamet pairing - Chalamet looks like Ronan’s younger brother.

The Bale-Rider pairing was very effective - because he looked exactly older and more grown/masculine/imposing than Rider’s Jo. Which played well with her fear of being trapped in a conventional marriage to a more traditional, possessive partner. But in the Ronan-Chalamet pairing - I don’t even know which one is more masculine, lol. I actually think Ronan looks older and more imposing - and Chalamet should be the one fearful of being trapped and controlled :)

Fine, r152. You watch Bale when Timmy's version comes out. I'll watch Timmy's.

Compared to this:

Roman is the one who looks more possessive & controlling.

Chalamet is still a MALE. Ronan a FEMALE. And they are age appropriate.

Bale stopped existing for me when he started losing his shit with camera crew and other production people back in the early '00s. He's nothing to me now, less than a worthless sack of shit.

Bale seems to have calmed down in recent years, but he supposedly became a monster at one point, even with his mother in law and wife I believe.

I don’t see the issue with Emma keeping her hair dark to play Meg and the other 3 sisters having light hair.

In the 1994 version it was the opposite, the 3 older sisters had dark hair and the youngest was blonde. Now the oldest is brunette and the 3 younger are blonde.

R155, no one said Chalamet isn’t "male” - I said he doesn’t look IMPOSING enough in that specific pairing with Ronan. The intrigue (red-herring romantic hook) in Little Women was that Laruie and Jo are supposed to be a very organic couple, to the point that readers / audiences were even misled to root for them. But Laurie was supposed to be a bit overly explosive (similar to Jo) and pose the risk of a somewhat “traditionalist” domineering partnership option, which Jo didn’t want.

Whereas Chalamet’s twinky, soft, mousey form (especially when juxtaposed to Ronan's strong presence) doesn’t convey any risk of a possible claustrophobic, restrictive marriage. He looks like a dweeb, more waif-ish than Ronan. In a marriage with him, Ronan’s Jo would be wearing the pants and running the show :). The rebellious female vs more traditionalist, domineering male tension just isn’t felt in this pairing.

Ironically, Bale’s under-the-surface explosiveness and pushiness actually works for this character - Laurie as a character seems very nice, but also has a darker controlling side. But with Chalamet + Ronan - she looks like she could bend twinky Chalamet to her will, not the other way around :).

But you are comparing their real life personas to the source. They are actors. He can ACT domineering while she can ACT otherwise. She is not playing a modern woman. And he is playing a man of his times.

And stop speaking about Bale as Laurie as some imposing figure. He wasn’t. Rewatch it.

This story and movie has been done to death- sorry- like Star is Born- too much. Only perhaps if you have never seen all previous versions and know the stories inside out. Hollywood does not have much imagination it seems.

Chalamet looks like the kind of fey schoolyard gay girls might befriend because he’s non-threatening, and play Barbies with.

In this version we apparently have a fag hag Jo.

[quote] He can ACT domineering while she can ACT otherwise.

Everyone can act, R160 - but not everyone can act [italic]believably / convincingly[/italic] - sometimes some things are outside an actor's skillset. Where in the film did Chalamet act "domineering"? In the clips, he acted exactly as he is - a nice, youngER twink who was bossed around (and even physically slapped around :) by an older, ultra-confident, icy Ronan :). He didn't seem domineering or possessive, he just seemed desperately petulant and in love. Marrying this puppy-ish twink doesn't look like a threat / trap to Jo's artistic writing freedom - because Chalamet doesn't look like he could stop a fly.

[quote] And stop speaking about Bale as Laurie as some imposing figure. He wasn’t. Rewatch it.

Bale was imposing enough and much more so than Chalamet looks - Bale's Laurie was taller and bigger than Ryder, forced a smooch on her, and the way he speaks to her during the proposal is actually hinting at possessiveness. It helps explain why Jo rejected the proposal. Not only did she not love him (other than as a friend) - she also didn't want to be potentially trapped forever in an argumentative partnership with a "hot-tempered", "broad-shouldered" super-rich guy who "stubbornly" wants to have his (own) dominant way just as much as she does. This astute (and believable) anxiety was well-conveyed in the Bale/Ryder couple. But I don't see how Chalamet's twinky Laurie can make anyone anxious - even in his proposal scene, Ronan's Jo just shouts back at him and he's already close to tears half-way through his speech :). Chalamet's twinky Laurie seems more of a sad nuisance than an anxiety-inducing marriage-entrapment dilemma.

[quote] She is not playing a modern woman. And he is playing a man of his times.

Greta Gerwig's adaptation actually changed some of the book text to give Jo more "empowering" speeches and included a "drastic change to the ending" - so she IS playing a more modern version of the character. Director Greta told Entertainment Weekly: "Even though it does take place in the 19th century, we IN NO WAY wanted it to feel like it was something that was PAST. We wanted it to feel like it was PRESENT RIGHT NOW" ... “They were just people. They were not in a period piece, they were just living,” Gerwig says. “They were THE MOST modern people who had EVER existed, up till that point.”

Bale did not play the part imposing. He was soft spoken throughout the entire film. Soft spoken and mousy.

Is it true that Amy is the most divisive character from The film? Apparently a lot of people hate her character. I wonder why.

Supposedly Greta Gerwig promises to change everyone’s minds about Amy in her adaptation forever.

R163 Wow. You have really thought about this. I'm impressed. Bale did play his part (as a somewhat dominant male) well so maybe what is required in this version is a totally new take instead of trying to imitate what's been done already. I think that's what Gerwig is going for. I also think Chalamet's fanbase will eat up his sensitive, weepy reaction with a spoon instead of finding him to be a sad nuisance. Not everyone likes a tough guy. That said, I hope there aren't too many "empowering speeches." Those moments usually feel false and forced to me, like, "Let me step out of the 1860s to give a 2019 speech to my 2019 audience." Ugh.

Gerwig has updated the story a bit. Supposedly she is fixing everything that is “wrong” with the Amy character

I will tell you this... Gerwig does a good job of staying true to the source material while still making her version feel more modern, young and contemporary.

It will get a Best Picture nod.

I liked Bale in the 1994 movie, but this idea he was this masculine tough guy is a lie. He was soft spoken and sweet

R164, the film covers a wide span of time (a decade) following Jo and her family from the time she's 15 to the time she's 25. At the time of the proposal - the director, Gillian Armstrong, staged the action to make Bale’s Laurie physically imposing (to help contextualise Jo’s rejection of him). I'm not sure why you're even questioning this - it's obvious & in plain sight, by design. Ryder's Jo was alone in the woodland grove with her best male pal, Bale’s Laurie, who is TWICE Ryder’s size (he can't be "mousy" in comparison to Ryder when he's literally towering over her - Laurie was bigger than Jo in the book too). Suddenly he takes her hand in his (despite Ryder’s Jo looking uncomfortable) and leads up to a proposal. Jo says "no, don't" - he ignores her answer and physically motions to silence her. Without warning and despite a negative answer, he gives her a full-on kiss on the mouth. She stops him. He still continues leading up to the proposal - not “soft-spoken” but in a passionate, sexually excited whisper. He tells Jo that if she marries him he’ll provide for the March family financially and she won’t have to write - leading to surprised shock and dismay for Jo. Because she realises that, despite his financial kindness / cajoling, he doesn’t understand her life goals.

They obviously staged it to present him as imposing himself on her in that situation (physically and a bit sexually, though in the book he was doing it more through ominous, indirect physical gestures, indirect threats and psychological pressure by reminding Jo that “everyone” expects their marriage and that she shouldn’t “disappoint” everyone). Again, it contextualised Jo’s rejection of him more, as she didn’t love him, but also was very independent-minded and didn't want a life partner who had bouts of temperamental, possessive dominance like this. (The 1994 film cut out some of his speech because otherwise he could have been too unlikeable for modern audiences.)

[quote] From the book: “… still further fortified her for the tête-à-tête', but when she saw a STALWART figure [Laurie] LOOMING in the distance, she had a strong desire to turn about and RUN AWAY […] Something in his resolute tone made Jo look up quickly to find him LOOKING DOWN at her with an expression that assured her the dreaded moment had come, and made her put out her hand with an imploring, "No, Teddy. Please don’t”. ”I WILL, and you must hear me. It's no use, Jo, we've got to have it out, and the sooner the better for both of us," he answered, getting flushed and excited all at once. "Say what you like then. I'll listen," said Jo, with a desperate sort of patience […] he decapitated buttercups while he cleared his 'confounded throat' […] Laurie turned round, bringing all his persuasive powers to bear as he said, in the wheedlesome tone that had never been so DANGEROULSY wheedlesome before, "Don't disappoint us, dear! Everyone expects it. Grandpa has set his heart upon it, your people like it, and I can't get on without you. Say you will, and let's be happy. Do, do!" […] "That devilish Professor you were always writing about. If you say you love him, I know I shall do something desperate;" and he looked as if he would keep his word, as he CLENCHED his hands with a wrathful spark in his eyes.”

Gerwig has made the film more modern, while staying true to the source.

She supposedly makes Amy more "likable" also, and makes Laurie more vulnerable.

I didn't say Bale's Laurie was a "tough guy", R169. He was from a rich, upper-class family - of course he was "genteel" and generally behaved in a respectable, polite way, as expected. He was also generally a good friend to Jo, her best friend in fact. But he also had an "edge", a somewhat controlling, imposing, temperamental side under the genteel surface, reflected both in the book and in the proposal scene in the 1994 adaptation (which is why even Margaret March advised Jo that they were ill-suited for each other at that time)

[quote]R163 Chalamet's twinky Laurie seems more of a sad nuisance than an anxiety-inducing marriage-entrapment dilemma.

Temperamentally, he’s more of a Beth.

WHEN you guys see it you will see how perfect his casting was for this.

[quote]R165 Is it true that Amy is the most divisive character from The film? Apparently a lot of people hate her character. I wonder why.

[quote]R167 supposedly she is fixing everything that is “wrong” with the Amy character

Amy doesn’t need anyone’s makeover!

I read a thesis once that pointed out that Amy is actually the free-est of the sisters. She dedicates herself to her art and even if she’s bratty, she’s assured and doesn’t suffer from self-doubt.

She also goes through the biggest change in maturation, which makes her interesting.

So they are updating it with modern sensibilities? Is one of the “sisters” going to be MtF trans? Most likely the one that dies I guess? Is it to late to have Jazzy play her?

[quote]AMY MARCH: - Petty Princess - thinks revenge is a dish best served in your fucking fireplace,[italic] Jo[/italic]- surprisingly sensible - knows what she wants - actually quite tender underneath it all - went to France once & brings it up CONSTANTLY - old people love her - turned on by etiquette

Oh, OP! I think you'e absolutely beautiful too!!! AND wonderful!!!!! You may get a nod AND a nom!!!!!!

they're all white??????? REPRESENTATION MATTERS. I'm so tired of white actors being in movies.

I would love to see the meltdowns people would have if they made a black cast version.

if they had an all Black cast people would fall all over themselves declaring the genius of the film, quality notwithstanding.

R181 some would. But many would have mental breakdowns all over social media. You see the uproar people had about them making Arielle black in The Little Mermaid, imagine them doing it to a beloved novel like Little Women???

Why are they using the Deadly Women font?

Amy has been hated by many for decades. She is seen as petty, selfish, narcissistic and stuck up. Also, materialistic, classist and judgmental.

That is a LIBELOUS statement!

Amy also ends up the richest, so unless you want Grandfather Lawrence to SUE your ass, I would RECANT!

R168 and 171 SCREAM PR shill.

All Black “Steel Magnolias “ sucked.

R187 Wait, was that with a black cast or white people in black face? Who played the Julia Robert’s character, I hope they made her heavyset so the diabetes would make sense, and piss Julia off?

Queen Latifah played the Sally Field role, I don’t remember who played the daughter.

Why do they always seem like contemporary high school or college kids acting in the school play. That clip is really miserable.

Here is something someone wrote about Amy....

"Amy was vain as a child, burned Jo’s book (see below), complained about being sent away to be kept safe from scarlet fever, wanted to scrimp on her mother’s Christmas gift so she could get something for herself (and only changed her mind after comparing her gift to her sisters’), wanted to earn the favour of wealthy friends with a party she couldn’t afford, thought it was acceptable to treat people kindly or coldly based on their wealth or status, thought it was reasonable and respectable to marry for money (for a time), and tried to arouse jealousy and affection in Laurie in Europe even though, as she later lets on, she suspected that Jo loved him, “Why, I was sure she loved you!” (Then why play the coquette to gain his attention and bask in the fact that he filled your dance card with his name?!)."

They then go on a rant about how most fans despise her mainly for burning her sisters book....

"She burned Jo’s book

This warrants a section of its own because out of all the things readers are annoyed about, this is the one that burns in the heart and mind (pun intended). To think of someone destroying one’s precious life work due to circumstances that were not in their control (Laurie was the one who didn’t invite Amy to the theatre, not Jo), a sister’s life work no less, over not being able to go to the theatre… If Amy had been a model character the rest of the book I suspect there would still be virulent dislike based on this one incident, particularly from book lovers and aspiring authors."

Amy is also why Laurie decides to end his pursuit of music

Christ, Mrs. Wiggs of the Cabbage Patch should get as many remakes.

I am not gonna lie, I just laughed while reading this blog, "Amy March Was a Total Bitch!" lmao

Everyone can just shut the fuck up about the book burning!

[quote] most people will cite the Amy-destroying-Jo’s-manuscript episode as the root of their Amy rage. I get it.... but have you ever had a friend who was working on something, be it a novel or a line of hand-knit characters from classic literature, and it was the only thing they talked about for months on end, and you were proud of them for pursuing their dream but also maybe a little tired of hearing about it all the time? I’m just saying that a very small part of me understands why Amy threw that thing in the fire.)

r195 but that is not why Amy destroyed Jo's book. She did it to hurt her because LAURIE did not get her a ticket to the theater.

She is a cunt, and as her sister Beth is dying all she was worried about is being kissed by a boy. She could care less that Beth was dying, and she didn't care when Beth DID die. She just cared about having Laurie's wealth.

I found Amy to be a bitch, too, but did like Dunst as young Amy in the 1994 movie. She added a charm and humor the role needed.

I love when Jo cuts her hair off and Amy shades her. “Jo, how could you?! Your one beauty!”

EXCITED

I’m the only Amy March DL needs!!

always nice to see Liz before she turned into a whale

Liz was in Little Women?

R201 Please hand over your gay card, luckily I have my pinking shears handy to cut it in half!

Liz was such a bad actress

Agreed. Tits Taylor was relatively talent free.

Greta Gerwig missed such an opportunity. Marmee should have been played by Viola Davis; Mr. March should have been David Harbour. All the girls would be mixed-race. THEN we'd have something.

R205, I'd watch it if it were a Native American or Asian version. But in the Viola Davis scenario - I'm tired of 'diversity' meaning ONLY black. It's becoming ridiculously one-sided. I can't even think of an Asian or Native American winning a lead acting Oscar ever. I think there was maybe one Asian lady many decades ago - and that's it.

Trailer 2

Who be that boy?

Timmy?

[quote] The 1994 version is interesting because you have famous actresses as Marmee, Jo, Beth and Amy and then a rando as Meg.

At the time, Trini Alvarado was well known. She had starred in "The Frighteners" and "Rich Kids" and "Tiomes Square."

It was Kirsten Dunst who was not well known at the time.

I love Timmy. He is one of a kind. He is what Lucas Hedges wants to be

The only interesting part of reading "Find Me" is picturing Timmy as Elio. As I did when I read CMBYN, I pictured Aaron Tveit as Oliver.

Such a disappointment, "Find Me." It lost me.

Is “Find Me” even out?

The book is, r213. I hated it so much, I'm not providing a link.

[quote]But in the Viola Davis scenario....

But in the Viola Davis scenario everyone would give "Big Important THEATAH Acting" performances like the hammy Viola Davis. She's overrated.

What about Emma Watson? Didn't she ruined all her scenes with her lack of talent this time?

Ronan discussing working with Greta Gerwig and Timmy

Ronan doesn't look like a natural fit for the Jo of the book. She's supposed to be blunt and graceless. And frankly, plain. Winona Ryder wasn't plain, but she was enough of a spark plug to at least seem forcefully ... alienated.

I'm a little afraid.

Mama June should have been cast as Marmee and Honey Boo Boo as Beth. Pumpkin would have made on hell of an Amy. Sugar Bear as Reverend March.

I can’t wait to watch this for Timmy <3

I hope Tim gets an Oscar nod for this.

Meryl is doing a TON of p.r. for this after the `st of the year, more than any other cast member. Ellen, The View, The Talk, The Real and ET

R222 she doesn’t have anything else coming

Nice try, r222. M on “The Real” lol

Jayzus, now all we need is another adaptation of the musical Annie.

Not one of the adaptations has ever been good. Just tell the damn story without all the female empowerment shit.

Should have been made into porn with midgets. This is such a pointless adaptation.

The 1994 version is amazing.

They are showing the 1949 version right now on TCM and I can’t stand this version.

Liz Taylor is so miscast in the 1949 version. Omg. So bad.

Jeez, I blocked one poster and half the thread disappeared. It’s either a PR hack or an insane Timméeeee stan.

Went to a private preview and Meryl got a standing o when she came on the screen and many laughs.. I heard comments like "She deserves an Oscar' and 'She stole the movie from those poor girls!'

Who keeps giving Emma Watson roles? The girl seems nice but she absolutely cannot act

Timmy and Laura Dern were hanging out

It comes out next week, no?

Who is watching it?

The ONLY Amy March DL will ever need.

Liz was miscast. Badly miscast.

Liz was hilarious as Amy. Perfect casting. The only one to come close is Ann Dusenberry.

She can not act

This comes out this week, girls

There were lobby cards advocating for Best Supporting Actress for Ms. Streep at the showing I went to in Amherst.

As much as I enjoyed Florence Pugh the flashbacks to when she was younger was disconcerting because she plays Amy like a little kid when you're looking at a grown woman. Then there's a scene where she's with her classmates and these kids were obviously 10 or 11 then you have 20-something Florence Pugh smack dab in the middle.

I don’t know why they had Florence play Amy as a kid instead of getting a child actress.

My agent never heard back from Greta!

This comes out tomorrow. Go see it!

[quote]Ronan doesn't look like a natural fit for the Jo of the book. She's supposed to be blunt and graceless. And frankly, plain. Winona Ryder wasn't plain, but she was enough of a spark plug to at least seem forcefully ... alienated.

She’s much better than Winona.

[quote] Didn’t Christian Bale play Laurie? You can’t go from him to a little kid like Timothee.

Timothée is three years older than Christian was when he played this part. Go back and look at the 1994 movie again and you’ll realize how young Bale is — he barely has facial hair.

... and the age difference between Ryder (born Oct. 71) and Bale (b. Jan. 74) was greater than between Ronan (b. April 74) and Chalamet (b. Dec. 95).

Sigh... Ronan born in April *94* obviously....

Ronan is wonderful. So is Timmy.

Ronan is quite plain, why would anyone think she can’t play plain?

It’s out. Now.

Was Dern any good in this?

R253 no. Sarandon was much better in the part.

This movie was DUNG. PURE DUNG. Derivative of all the versions before it. The 1994 version is far superior and modern enough.

Laura Dern was so subpar (and I fucking love her- she is my can-do-no-wrong actress) that I could see this costing her the Oscar for Marriage Story...

Florence was fine. Nothing special, but the best thing about it.

The photography was blah. Meryl was blah. Timothee or however you spell his name, was BLAH.

Serviceable film- not bad- just completely blah.. I cannot get over the raves. Wow.

I just saw it (Christmas day) and I really enjoyed it but some of the timing/flashbacks were confusing. I thought Meryl was hysterical and she gave some good eye rolls. Timothee does nothing for me - the guy Frederick was hot though

This movie will be so huge. Middle America will remember the good old days before the mexican invasion, when the United States was the greatest country on earth.

Meryl was a treat

I was up for Amy R258

Ok boomer.

Just saw it and I recommend it. The last movie version of it that had a high profile was back in 1994, which was my generation’s version. (I am unaware of the in-between versions people are referring to.) Another generation with people who love the story can put their stamp on it. Ronan came through to me as a young woman working several sources of income as best she could, with a real goofy friend in Laurie, whereas I remember Winona being more of a romantic figure, more removed. Older Amy in this version is much more interesting and believable to me than the 1994 version, without a doubt. Sarandon made for a tougher Marmee, IMO, but Dern did a good job. I came away thinking that Beth's demise and death was less 'shown' compared to the 1994 version, though, and I wonder why Gerwig made that choice. Maybe the back and forth timeframes diluted that impact somewhat. I still liked the movie overall.

As for the low economic status of a family living in a nice big house, I believe the term is “cash poor” and isn’t hard to imagine.

4th Oscar for Streep. No one even close.

lol R262, right. J-Lo or Dern have a better shot than that old crone. Hell, even the lady from The Farewell, has better odds (she was lovely)

I was feeling something close to romantic love for Timothee watching this movie. Not since Leo DiCaprio in Romeo + Juliet have I felt that. He's really something.

Random thoughts:

A rare misfire for Dern. Not sure if miscast or the script.

The score was excellent, as was Meryl.

The romantic endgames were anything but subtle, but Fredrich was HAWT.

The time skipping device was interesting, but too overused. Someone mentions Laurie...here's a Laurie flashback!

Pugh was really good, but putting her in that school scene with actual children...WTF was GG thinking?

Some scenes were really effecting, some felt like Gerwig was checking them off a to do list.

So was Dern’s problem that she didn’t transcend the historical period and came off as too contemporary?

R266 I'm honestly not sure. She was just...off. And I loved her in Marriage Story.

Streep isn’t on the top five BSA lists of any Oscar prediction sites I have seen so far. Does she stand a chance?

No, R262 is taking the piss. She's excellent in her scenes but has a limited screen time. They aren't even campaigning her.

I adore James Norton he makes me all tingly down there

The story that just won't die.

"Some adaptations are lost forever, like a 1917 British silent film, three TV movies in the '40s, and a six-part BBC mini-series made in 1950 (the ones made in 1958, 1970, and 2017 remain). According to The New Yorker, between 1935 and 1950, there were 48 radio dramatizations of Little Women. Many musical adaptations remain legendary, but impossible to watch, like the 1955 London musical A Girl Call Jo, the 1964 off-Broadway musical Jo, or CBS's 1958 TV musical starring The Brady Brunch's Florence Henderson as Meg March."

Tim O’Tay < James Norton < Louis Garrel

I just finished watching this and it truly was wonderful. It has so many beautiful performances, even Emma was good and I usually don’t like her.

The segment of them showing us Beth sick the first time vs the second time was beautifully done. I cried.

I recommend it. Go see it.

I had high expectations based on the reviews, but the abrupt scenes and back and forth chronology made it hard to emotionally connect with the characters and their struggles. Despite the many good performances and beautiful settings, this version of Little Women felt anticlimactic and detached. I'll think twice before relying upon the critics' recommendations in the future.

See, I loved the back and forth. It worked at many moments, like Beth getting sick/Beth getting sick again and dying.

See, I loved the back and forth. It worked at many moments, like Beth getting sick/Beth getting sick again and dying.

R266, that’s my impression of Dern in that very small clip where she talks about in all her 40 years. It didn’t seem to fit the times. I do love her, though.

I seem to recall that Aunt March was someone whose ass they kissed because she had money.

Dern just wasn’t that good. She was the weak link in this movie. Sarandon did more with less.

Florence was brilliant in this. She was the best part b

I loved the introduction scene to Amy, with Miss March and Amy sees Laurie walking by and stops the carriage to run over to him. Was wonderful and Timmy was so handsome in it.

Watched the cam version yesterday and only lasted about thirty minutes or so. I usually love women stories, but this one wasn't for me. It doesn't really build towards anything - it immediately starts at 10 and keeps jumping all over the place. And the editing is so bizarre - Chalamet flirts with Whatsherface in one scene, dances with another girl (her sister?) in the next, and is having a public spat with the first one again in his third scene? I got so confused. I'll watch one of the older movies first, I think.

It came out Wed. I doubt the cam version is good. Who does that?

Laura Dern seems to modern for the story. S. Ronan is phenomenal.

Meryl of good but does all the mannerisms she’s known for

Meryl was fun. I loved her.

[quote]Tim O’Tay < James Norton < Louis Garrel

I will forever love Garrel for not being precious about showing cock and ass.

R286 many foreign actors are more open to nudity

Christian Bale gives his take on Timmy playing the role he played years prior

Florence stole the whole damn thing, which was expected. I actually loved Laura Dern as Marmee, but Emma Watson (and to a lesser degree Saoirse) was surprisingly dull.

I found Emma very cute in this.

Also, Emma was acting alongside several foreign actors and was the only one who couldn't hide her accent. I do feel for her though; nobody cares about Meg and she did the best she could to give her a little depth.

I loved the actress who played Beth. She truly brought that character to life. She was superior to Clare Danes.

Timothée Chalamet Makes Laurie In 'Little Women' The Ultimate F*ckboy

Such an amazing film. An instant classic.

Comparing every version

I didn't like this 'modernized' version with its emasculation of Laurie and redeeming of Amy because God forbid a female character is unlikable or hated.

Also, what's up with all March sisters being played by foreigners? SAG-AFTRA sucks at protecting American actors!

Of course, I meant 'redemption.'

Is there any girl on girl action?

Otherwise, I'm not interested.

Is this a different "Little Women" or the same one that's remade every 5 years? How many times can they remake this shit?

If this does well enough, will Gerwig speed to make Little Men while Timotay is still young enough to play one of them? Or maybe Lady Boy with Timmy?

Very so so review on the main newspaper in Spain. It basically said that it has its good moments but it's nothing special (the critic liked Lady bird way more), for her the best of the film is Ronan and the worst Chalamet

R301 link?

How was Laurie emasculated? He was a douche bro in this, and more of a “dude” than any other version I have seen. He made this his own, and I appreciate that.

Loved it, great ensemble work! Very moving without ever becoming overly melodramatic or sappy.

It was actually very sweet. And fun.

I enjoyed it. The lady who played Aunt March was very underrated.

R302 This is the link:

Why here NO Florence Pugh thread to discuss on this site yet? Can smbd create it, pls?

You can discuss it here r308

R301 Spanish press hates Timothee since Woody Allen situation and that premier of Beautiful Boy in 2018

There are a lot of very influential critics Who are big WA fans and they Hate Timothee for what he did Like it is a Real thing. And there also was and episode in 2018 when Timothee visited their Film festival and came 2 days earlier than all the press junkets and premier to shag Lily OR smth and they took it as a personal insult as if he was playing a star and ignore them for two days (when he Just came earlier for personal reasons) but they saw it this way. It made quite a fuss among Spanish jurnosvand they destroid TC in articles before the oficial big premier. Funnny enough aftervthe premier and junkets when TC charmed most of them the review were much better. But i think they still hold a grudge and cant forgive him WA. Like i yet to see a jurno from spain Who Will say one Good Word about Timothee's performance in anything. I think hisvreputation there isvforever fucked

Sorry for all the misspeling

I feel like Florence have even a bigger moment than Timothee had in 2017/18. The movie is more appealing to a wider audience and she is a standout for the majority of critics and viewers. So i feel next year she ll be the biggest star out of all the sisters

[quote] feel like Florence have even a bigger moment than Timothee had in 2017/18. The movie is more appealing to a wider audience and she is a standout for the majority of critics and viewers. So i feel next year she ll be the biggest star out of all the sisters

Not quite. She hasn't racked up the critics awards like Chalamet did in 2017/2018, nor has she got the amount of press he has but that's because the press was/is largely focused on his style or persona versus acting. Pugh is sublime and if people think she's great in Little Women they should see her other work, especially Lady MacBeth, Midsommar and Little Drummer Girl.

I hate movies where you have to watch the length of the heroine's hair to tell if you are current, in a flash back or in the future.

This is one jumpy assed movie.

Greta Gerwig's films are ludicrously overrated. I'll just hate-watch for Timmy's packing crotch.

R310: The fact that some critics weren't amused by Timmy's hypocrisy doesn't mean the reviews of his acting are influenced. He received good reviews for Beautiful boy and he was mentioned continuously when they talk about the most interesting young actors.

That review is just the opinion of one critic

I personally loved Timmy

I am going to see it again this Thursday

When Streep shows up there is an automatic cascade of applause.

I love this photo

It made $30 million already. It’s doing surprisingly well!

I liked this version but the 1994 version is still superior.

I'm of two minds about Pugh. She's clearly too old for the younger Amy (she looks older than the other 3 sisters), but I enjoyed much of her performance anyway, though Gerwig's version of Amy departs a lot from Alcott. Kirsten Dunst captured Amy best. Samantha Mathis, who played the older Amy was rather wan, but she's not in the film much

No way is Eliza Scanlen better than Danes. Danes is the only Beth whose death really moved me.

Trini Alvarado was much more genuine and human than the limited Emma Watson.

I liked Ronan but I didn't think she was any better than Winona Ryder (and I thought she would be better).

Sarandon was better than Dern. Bale and Chalamet are on fairly equal footing, though I think Bale matured more convincingly as Laurie grew up.

The relationship between Jo and Friedrich is so underdeveloped in this new version that you really don't care about whether they wind up together or not.

I guess the jumping back and forth in time mode of storytelling gives Gerwig a rationale for her remake, but Gillian Armstrong's version is still the benchmark.

R322, why no mention of moi?

[quote] Not for a single second of one moment on any day in my life did I think of Christian Bale being as hot as I now find Timmy. Not for a nanosecond. Timothée Chalamet *IS* Theodore "Laurie" Lawrence.

Mary, calm down!

If you figure there's a major remake of "Little Women" every twenty years, this means I have only between one or two left before I die.(I'm 51.)

I hope the next one stars Kylie Jenner's daughter Stormi.

Fuck this adaptation.

I really enjoyed this and really liked bratty Florence Pugh. She was hilarious, stole the show really. I thought Dern was fine, it was nice to see her more quiet and refined and I imagine a lot of what Marmee usually says came out of the mouths of the girls in this version.

I saw it this evening with 2 sixty year old women & a 20 year old who has never read the book. The twenty year old hated it because the feminist tone was seemingly pulled back at the end. She was also lost with the way flashbacks were done because she hadnt read the book.

I am 49 and while i enjoyed the 90s rendition this version moved me far more. Clare Daines ugly cry acting as Beth in the 90s was way ham handed. I liked how they portrayed laurie as much more of a cad than in the 90s version. Timothy was great and had good chemistry with saorsie (sp). Pugh stole the movie and was absolutely superb. The seaside scenes were glorious. Laura Dern made no discernable mark on the movie, neither did emma watson.

The sixty year olds liked it but had not seen the 90s version. My advice at least read a summary of the book ahead of time since the movie made some tweaks/additions that may be real or could fantasy. All in all very enjoyable.

I thought the photo in r320 was of Justin Trudeau.

Timmy looks beautiful. He looked amazing in this.

Everyone played their roles wonderfully, with Dern being the weakest link IMHO.

Liked the PBS version better - any of them.

The PBS versions are always slow.

Im not a Timmay booster, but hot damn, I thought he was sexy af in this movie .. I was very attracted to him ... had zero interest in CMBYN, but he sold me during this role ...

[quote] although I felt Laura Dern was at her weakest here

Have been hearing same from a number of reviewers and my friends (who have for the most part read the book & seen earlier movies)

The consensus is that it's not like she's horrible/wrecks the movie but she's not quite Marmee.

[quote]Liked the PBS version better - any of them.

Julian Morris, who played Laurie's tutor John Brooke in the 2017 PBS version, is someone I would not have minded as Oliver.

So, a question - if the Spanish journalists ever write about Timothee again, will it be more legible than whatever word salad is posted at R310?

I love this movie

I watched it the other day with my mother and we had a wonderful morning at the theater! I'm a big fan of Gerwig's Lady Bird and thought she followed it up with a deeply mature and relevant approach to an age-old narrative. I'd heard about the tricky crosscutting device she deploys here, so I was prepared for it going in. It was somewhat distracting at first, and occasionally unnecessary, but ultimately I got used to it, and actually thought it was quite effective during both of Beth's spells.

So... the cast is great across the board. Saorise's reliably excellent, but I thought her delivery of, "...but I'm so lonely," was beyond powerful, and really harmonized something about the character for me. It's an ensemble piece in my head, but Florence Pugh damn near stole the film from everyone else. She has an untouchable energy, and an effortless ability to act against anyone in any situation at any age. Loved her in Midsommar. Love her in this.

I thought this was probably as great a use of Emma Watson as we've gotten since The Bling Ring. I don't think she's a natural actress, but she has this studious energy and these striking features that made Meg an understandable character. I got her desire to be where the people are, to experience life the way classier women do... to be married and unashamed of tradition the way Jo is. Also, the scene of her doing an English accent was hilarious because she wasn't just using her British accent, she was acting as an American putting on the accent, and that's probably the most impressive feat of acting she's ever done.

Eliza Scanlen is PERFECT. A doll. An angel, even. Whatever. Like, I can harp on and on about all the other actresses in the film and their craft and whatever, but none of them have whatever truly ethereal, unaffected energy Eliza Scanlen's projecting all up and down this film. That scene where she's gifted the piano... it's so wonderfully played because all her sisters fuss over it, and she herself is stunned... she's having this out of body experience, and for a second she's not appreciative of the material object, but the generosity, and she has to leave and she has to hug Chris Cooper who's ALSO PERFECT in this movie. Whatever, Scanlen 2020.

Timothee Chalamet should probably only work with Greta Gerwig. He actually shouldn't do serious roles at all. Like... he needs to only do roles that harness his innate goofiness, because that's who he is. He's a gangly, awkward, brilliant little goofball who's saddled with statuesque bone structure and flawless hair, but that's a distraction. An illusion. He's actually hilarious and strange, and if he keeps doing shit like The King and fucking Beautiful Boy I'll be sorely disappointed.

Boy oh boy that James Norton is handsome. Meryl's legitimately good in this film I was surprised. Remember when Bob Odenkirk showed up as the father? Remember when Laura Dern said, "Bitch, how 'bout you stay yo ass at home," when he joked about the notion of moving to California?

Alexandre Desplat scored the fuck out of the movie. Yorick Le Saux shot the fuck out of the movie. Jacqueline Durran costumed the fuck out of the movie.

I liked this movie!

Anyone else find the screenplay's structure reminiscent of Pinter's adaptation of THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMEN with its fractured timeline and opposing endings (and also suggested by Ms. Alcott's real-life publishing experiences)? Watson's scene with Ronan, where she justifies her domestic choices vs. the latter's independence is, IMO, the key to the whole movie. You could also say the movie has its cake and eats it, too (or hedges its bets) by dramatizing both options. Is Friedrich part of Jo's real-life story or only a fictional episode of her novel LITTLE WOMEN? I suppose such heady considerations provide topics for cocktail conversation, but give me Wynona's film for the more satisfying and memorable emotional experience. As for Chalamet...he was ok. Norton IS handsome. Dern, alright. Florence Pugh is the REAL star and discovery of the film. The score isn't anything we haven't heard before.

I was a little surprised to see Timmy’s pubes, but I didn’t mind.

This movie is aesthetically breathtaking. Nearly every frame is picturesque and exquisite. The cinematographer, costume designers, the hair and make-up team, and set decorators all need to be bestowed with every award they're eligible for this year. The word "sumptuous" can feel sort of hyperbolic and overused at times, but this film is definitely deserving of that adjective. It makes me think of Jane Campion's 'The Piano' and Sofia Coppola's 'Marie Antoinette' in terms of sheer cinematic eye candy.

Nearly everyone in it gave a knockout performance in big and small ways regardless if they had a big or small role. r338 gave an excellent review.

I definitely think this film lives up to the stellar reviews and it feels like it's going to be a classic. I'm thrilled this came out when it did because this year's awards bait options otherwise feel very masculine and kind of cold, so it's nice to see this cleverly written, feminine film with heart and wit get some much deserved acclaim. Brava to Greta Gerwig, she's no flash in the pan.

Greta Gerwig should be shot for having so little creativity that she shot a 20th remake of"Little Women".

R338 liked the fuck out of that movie!

R342 should be shot for having so little creativity that she made the 20th remake of that spicy take.

Gerwigs version feels unique and different. I liked it.

Good movie my only complaint was some of the flashback and fantasy sequences were a little confusing. I thought James Norton looked bad and was underused, all the men in the movie was accessories and one dimensional since it was about the women. It was the first time I liked Timothée Chalamet in a movie cast in his role as the wealthy son with no direction.

Interesting that this is the first LITTLE WOMEN theatrical film version where all four sisters are played by non-Americans.

Some here have complained about Pugh being too old for Amy, but she's actually 2 years younger than Ronan. However, she does look older. I think the 1994 film had the right idea by casting two actresses as Amy, who is supposed to be @ 12 in the first part of the book.

Someone here was rhapsodizing about Desplat's score, but I thought it was only serviceable. Thomas Newman's score to the 1994 film is far better.

I loved Kirsten Dunst in the 1994 movie. Her older version was dull.

I took my sister to see it last night and she loved it. She hated Amy, and left speaking about how much she loved Laurie and she hates he ends up with Amy.

She never saw Timmy in anything before this and he was her favorite. She loved him in this, kept saying he is the cutest thing and the best.

Timmy was very sexy in this. I dont know what happened, but I was very attracted to him in this movie.

"Gerwigs version feels unique and different. I liked it."

The only "unique" thing about it really is the scrambling of the timeline of the story, which is distracting at first, but you eventually get used to it.

The 1994 film had a feminist edge to it (primarily from Susan Sarandon's Marmee), though this version has more of one, which is fine.

r351, you have to keep watching the length of Ronan's hair.

It is distracting.

I didn’t find the timeline shifting distracting or confusing at all.

I read that the girls act like modern 'mean girls'. When I watch a period film I want to know what it was like back then- not a revisionist theory.

R354 huh? You think women weren’t bitches to each other back in the 1800s? Oh boy.

Women have always been mean to each other. That is not something in just modern day. And the Little Women were not even mean to each other for the most part. Amy and Jo had an odd relationship but otherwise they all were close.

One of my favorite scenes was when Amy sees Laurie for the first time in Europe. So wonderful. I smiled the whole time. Florence and Timmy were wonderful in this.

I love that scene too

R357 Was that actually filmed in Europe? I recall chatter about about McDonald’s French fires with images from them in the carriage.

My issue with Laura Den is that she feels very contemporary and kept pulling me out of the 1860’s. I can’t criticize her acting but her presence didn’t fit with the rest of the movie and cast.

It's so insane that OP is raving about this all-white film when on another thread he's complaining about Whitey.

Laura Dern was miscast. She did not look or feel right.

Everyone else was fantastic, especially Florence Pugh, who stole every scene she was in. Timothee was phenomenal. He played Laurie as this womanizer, drunk playboy, and it worked. I never found him hot until i saw this, and I was so attracted to him!!!!

The scene at r357 is wonderful. I love Timmy in this so much <3

Meryl was genuinely great in this. She was hysterical in every scene.

Chalamet is winning hearts all over the world with this one

I just watched it today and I can confidently state that it’s my favorite 2019 film. Absolutely wonderful. Greta Gerwig is the real deal, making this classic come alive. The whole cast was fantastic, and they each had their moment to shine. This should give a big career boost to Florence Pugh, who was perfect. I loved Ronan and Chalamet, and I found Dern really moving. I much prefer her performance in this to Marriage Story.

It’s such a wonderful film

Watched this today, I loved it! I was more drawn to Florence Pugh's Amy than Saoirse Ronan's Jo - Florence is a star. Also Timmy and French Daddy Louis Garrel had very little screen time together but I would like to see them star as quasi-incestuous lovers in a French romantic drama.

Timmy is such a STAR

I was very impressed with Eliza Scanlen. Her Beth seems an old soul. I appreciated her thoughtful and nuanced acting.

My sister found Beth weird. But I loved her. She hated Amy. I loved her lol.

I think Claire Danes captured a similar fragility as Beth in the '94 adaptation as well and she had a bit more to do than Eliza did, but Eliza definitely has that ethereal quality that was just captivating in this role and managed to convey a lot without being given a lot of space to do it. Having just re-watched the 1994 version today after not seeing it for 25 years, it was really impressive in its own right, but Greta took this all too familiar story and genuinely created some new magic with it. I agree with r365, this is probably my favorite film of 2019.

I have to agree with the above poster who said that the Ronan-Garrell relationship was barely developed. The 1994 film did a much better job with that.

Frederick was better in this one

Actually Gabriel Byrne (the '94 Fredrich) is the correct age for the character. I love Garrell, but Gerwig departs from Alcott on that point.

God I loved this movie! More than I ever thought I would.

I saw it 3x already. Once alone, once with my sister and once with my friend. I loved it.

My favorite scene

Did anyone else cry when Beth died?

I also got teary eyed when Mr. Laurence was listening to Beth play and he is sitting on the stairs crying because it reminds him of his daughter.

6 nominations:

Best Picture Best Actress (S. Ronan) Best Supporting Actress (F. Pugh) Best Adapted Screenplay (G. Gerwig) Best Original Score Best Costume Design

Greta was glaringly snubbed in the Best Director category, but despite that, I think is a respectable list of noms for this deserving film. I assume it's only really a contender in the Best Adapted Screenplay category and the Costume Design categories (both deserved). I'd love a surprise win by Pugh, but it seems like it's already Dern's to lose. Even though the score is by Alexandre Desplat and quite pleasant, I didn't find it particularly memorable and it seems doubtful that it will win in that category.

As honored as this film is, it still feels like sort of an afterthought in terms of recognition this year, which is peculiar and unfortunate. It's gotten overall better reviews than many of the "frontrunners" and is a hit, but it's still not been a part of the conversation in a way that other films have been. There's an article on Vox about this that sums it up pretty well:

TERRIBLE movie, boring as shit, ridiculously updated in every respect, from the themes to the costumes. TERRIBLE! Timmy is the only thing worth watching in this "piece de merde." Guaranteed to become a completely dated laughable version of the story in about 15 years. You wait and see.

It’s amazing. R379 is upset about nothing.

"Amazing". Wow. The little things that blow your mind, R380

It wasn’t small. It was fantastic. Way better than most of the Movies you liked I bet

I don't get the appeal of this book of the many shows films about it. Who cares about what a bunch of repressed fraus had to say 100 years ago?

I guess this is DL after all so many fems here identify with the girls?

R1

Don't do it.

Stay alive.

"Who cares about what a bunch of repressed fraus had to say 100 years ago?"

That's why Ms. Gergwig updated the story to make the girls into 19th Century feminists who wear pants. The absurdity of it all is just hilarious.

I love this movie!!!!

Florence was amazing, but I do wish Timmy got nominated

Thank you, r385. It can't hold a candle to the Gillian Armstrong production. The feminist rhetoric is heavy-handed and passe, pandering to contemporary sensibilities, as if these issues haven't been front and center for the last fifty years. Absurd, indeed.

Oh. Fucking. Please. S

The feminist pandering in this movie is pathetic.

There was feminism in the 1994 movie too.

I’ve seen a ton of cheap feminist pandering over the past few years (and it’s the pandering I dislike, not the feminism), but this version of Little Women isn’t anything like that, unless you think anything that deals with situations particular to women is feminist pandering.

R387

One day, Timmy'll have one.

I was 27.

I much preferred the Norma Shearer-Joan Crawford version where none of the sisters died.

Florence wowwed me

R357, holy shit that was millennial chatter obscene- tell me the whole movie isn’t made in a loud, obnoxious modern cadence like that?

^^^ Yes, yes, yes.

It was great. Some of you are so annoying.

People here Just like hate on things that other love cos it make them special in I am not Like OTerS Girls kind of way. Lets Just pity them for how pathetic they are

God I loved this movie. I may rewatch it tomorrow. It popped in my head.

"There was feminism in the 1994 movie too."

No, it was humanistic, not narcissistic like the latest retread.

I loved it, thoughtful, inventive and beautiful.