Home Forums Movies Little Women (1994)

Little Women (1994)

CREATE A NEW TOPIC
CREATE A NEW POLL
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
Created
4 weeks ago
Last Reply
3 weeks ago
5
replies
736
views
5
users
Human Bartender
1
rayan008
1
Lieutenant
1
  • Profile picture
    Lieutenant
    Joined:
    Dec 3rd, 2016
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203684426

    I just rewatched Gillian Anderson’s Little Women on Amazon Prime for the first time in years and what a delightfully perfect film.

    As much as I love Gerwigs adaption I really think this is spectacular. Winona Ryder is probably at her best here, she truly carries the film and embodies the character of Jo perfectly, well deserving of her 1994 Best Actress nom.

    Kirsten Dunst steals the show here as Amy, possibly robbed of a Supporting Actress nom? Hey if Florence Pugh can?

    and what an equally brilliant supporting cast, Claire Danes, Christian Bale, Susan Sarandon, Mary Wickes is brilliant as Aunt March, and that SCORE, one of my favourite Thomas Newman scores.

    this adaption was ahead of its time with a female led cast and a female director, deserved more nominations in my opinion, thoughts ?

    Reply
    Profile picture
    Human Bartender
    Joined:
    Apr 24th, 2016
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203684474

    It probably would’ve done better awards wise if 1994 wasn’t such a big year for films.

    Let’s Go Bucks

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    rayan008
    Joined:
    Sep 7th, 2020
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203690144

    Judging from the preview, the new version will not have the same warmth as this one. These actors act and speak in a manner that is far more true to the time. I don’t know how to describe it, but older period dramas has this dreamy, innocent air that modern ones completely lack

    Speed Test

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Lieutenant
    Joined:
    Dec 3rd, 2016
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203691071

    I completely agree. The 1994 adaption benefits from the linear storyline also, I admire Gerwig for tackling it in her version with it going back and forward in time, but it flows much nicer in the 1994 version (and beths death in particular hits harder in the 94 version IMO)

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Marco11
    Joined:
    Nov 29th, 2014
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203691255

    Saw the 1994 version a few days ago, for the first time – I prefer Gerwig’s move, which is quickly becoming a general favourite of mine, but Anderson’s adaptation was good too. One moment which particularly stuck with me was the conversation (well, almost a monologue) between Jo and Beth at her deathbed. I thought Beth’s words described very well her character and its function in the story – she “needs” to die because she isn’t like her sisters, she doesn’t have an equally big passion or aspiration; she’s too pure for this world and this place holds no place for her. A good film indeed.

    EDIT: didn’t notice, and completely agree, with Lieutenant’s specific comment about Beth.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    FairWeatherAffair
    Joined:
    May 11th, 2018
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203692430

    While I agree that this is still a good production, I have to disagree with most: I prefer Gerwig’s adaptation.

    I find the screenplay daring in part because a narrative which relies so heavily on time could easily fall apart into nonsense—yet Gerwig avoids this with her stable direction (even if I still believe her writing skills are stronger, with her acting skills being strongest 😅). There are quite beautiful markers between the two time periods presented, and it allows, in whole, to transform a story of growth into a story of reflection. Which, if you ask me, is gorgeous in its own way (and gorgeously metatextual!).

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Similar Topics
Stank83 - Sep 29, 2020
Movies
Chris B... - Sep 29, 2020
Movies
ENGLAND - Sep 28, 2020
Movies