Decent adaptation, i enjoyed the new 2019 version,
but i have several problems with it.
First of all - all girls seem to be the same age. In 1994 version it was obvious who were older who were younger. Especially confusing was Amy in this new adaptation. She looks almost as one of the oldest sisters, so you find it strange why she can't go to theater with others or is treated well. When in 1994 version (12 year old) Dunst has her outbursts, it seems rather natural, she's still a child, she can't control her emotions and her selfishness, she's still learning how to do that. You can't even be really mad at her, she's kind of charming. While in new version Amy's same actions come across as truly mean! Yet in the second part of the movie she is definitely better than Samantha Mathis (in 1994). Mathis is so stiff and cold you can't understand why Laurie stays with her. So yes, this lack of age difference between girls is for me the biggest problem with this adaptation.
Second major weakness, in my opinion, is professor Bhaer. There's no kind of chemistry between him and Jo, he's cold, stiff, completely dead character. Even somewhat unpleasant, you don't feel like you want to be in the same room with him. Also.. such a bore! Gabriel Byrne (from 1994) has that something, you can see that inner spark, you can see what connects them with Jo, what is fascinating her. His brilliant mind, poetic spirit and also the warmth and kindness of his soul. Also must be said Byrne character is truer to the original book, where he is middle aged man already when they meet with Jo.
I kind of liked new Beth, her very timid nature. I liked this movie showed more of her relationship with old mr.Laurence. Yet in this adaption it seemed she was ill and dying from the day she was born, as if she had no day in her life feeling well.
Bale vs Chalamet - both are good. Bale was especially good match with Winona Rider, both being so wild, passionate and fair amount of crazy! Chalamet has more languid charm, but perhaps it's a good match with Saoirse Ronan. Bale might have just stole the show. Maybe. Chalamet seems to be a better match for Amy, and you don't feel really that sad seeing them getting married.
Winona Rider vs Saoirse Ronan - i love them both! They both are perfect in that role, both bringing something new to this character. Very strong and smart female leads, fabulous actresses! Much love to them!
What i liked in 2019 version were scenes exploring more of Megs life after wedding. You can see her daily struggles and doubt creeping in on rainy days if she really made a right decision marrying John. It's so lifelike, so real. And very thought provoking, it's not always happily-ever-after even if you marry the one your heart and soul chooses. Yet in general, Emma Watson doesn't come across as the oldest of the sisters, she doesn't have that subtle maturity what we see in 1994 Meg. To be honest her character in that film is rather forgettable.
Laura Dern vs Susan Sarandon - both great choices! As well as Meryl Streep and Mary Wicks as Aunt March.
Another general confusion with new adaptation, it's not clear at all that Marches are doing financially not so well, or that Laurences are much better off, which was so clear in the 1994 adaptation. When Marches make decision to donate their Christmas morning meal to the Hummels (2019), you think what's the big deal, why are they even thinking so long about it. It doesn't feel like sacrifice at all.
All this said, i still enjoyed this adaptation a lot! It has many new angles to the story and characters, which was a pleasure to watch. Yet i must say Gillian Armstrong's "Little Women" from 1994 stays as my favourite. It's just perfect.
First of all - all girls seem to be the same age. In 1994 version it was obvious who were older who were younger. Especially confusing was Amy in this new adaptation. She looks almost as one of the oldest sisters, so you find it strange why she can't go to theater with others or is treated well. When in 1994 version (12 year old) Dunst has her outbursts, it seems rather natural, she's still a child, she can't control her emotions and her selfishness, she's still learning how to do that. You can't even be really mad at her, she's kind of charming. While in new version Amy's same actions come across as truly mean! Yet in the second part of the movie she is definitely better than Samantha Mathis (in 1994). Mathis is so stiff and cold you can't understand why Laurie stays with her. So yes, this lack of age difference between girls is for me the biggest problem with this adaptation.
Second major weakness, in my opinion, is professor Bhaer. There's no kind of chemistry between him and Jo, he's cold, stiff, completely dead character. Even somewhat unpleasant, you don't feel like you want to be in the same room with him. Also.. such a bore! Gabriel Byrne (from 1994) has that something, you can see that inner spark, you can see what connects them with Jo, what is fascinating her. His brilliant mind, poetic spirit and also the warmth and kindness of his soul. Also must be said Byrne character is truer to the original book, where he is middle aged man already when they meet with Jo.
I kind of liked new Beth, her very timid nature. I liked this movie showed more of her relationship with old mr.Laurence. Yet in this adaption it seemed she was ill and dying from the day she was born, as if she had no day in her life feeling well.
Bale vs Chalamet - both are good. Bale was especially good match with Winona Rider, both being so wild, passionate and fair amount of crazy! Chalamet has more languid charm, but perhaps it's a good match with Saoirse Ronan. Bale might have just stole the show. Maybe. Chalamet seems to be a better match for Amy, and you don't feel really that sad seeing them getting married.
Winona Rider vs Saoirse Ronan - i love them both! They both are perfect in that role, both bringing something new to this character. Very strong and smart female leads, fabulous actresses! Much love to them!
What i liked in 2019 version were scenes exploring more of Megs life after wedding. You can see her daily struggles and doubt creeping in on rainy days if she really made a right decision marrying John. It's so lifelike, so real. And very thought provoking, it's not always happily-ever-after even if you marry the one your heart and soul chooses. Yet in general, Emma Watson doesn't come across as the oldest of the sisters, she doesn't have that subtle maturity what we see in 1994 Meg. To be honest her character in that film is rather forgettable.
Laura Dern vs Susan Sarandon - both great choices! As well as Meryl Streep and Mary Wicks as Aunt March.
Another general confusion with new adaptation, it's not clear at all that Marches are doing financially not so well, or that Laurences are much better off, which was so clear in the 1994 adaptation. When Marches make decision to donate their Christmas morning meal to the Hummels (2019), you think what's the big deal, why are they even thinking so long about it. It doesn't feel like sacrifice at all.
All this said, i still enjoyed this adaptation a lot! It has many new angles to the story and characters, which was a pleasure to watch. Yet i must say Gillian Armstrong's "Little Women" from 1994 stays as my favourite. It's just perfect.
Tell Your Friends