( +2 hidden )
June 29, 2018 at 11:57 am #1202576601
Ive never seen the Original … or any adaption
of this story … which one should i watch in preparation ?
Check out my online store 🙂June 29, 2018 at 12:03 pm #1202576606
Wait, weren’t you excited about that BBC miniseries version or was that just because you were a fan of Angela Lansbury?
I’ve watched it because of Angela. Louisa May Alcott wrote so many good books and this is the one Hollywood is adapting over and over again? Adapt something else for fuck’s sake!June 29, 2018 at 12:09 pm #1202576611
Did they just look over Lucas Hedges and go straight to give the role to Timothee?June 29, 2018 at 12:42 pm #1202576636
The cast is top notch but a remake of this AGAIN? The one with Winona Ryder wasn’t that good anyways (why the fuck was she nominated).June 29, 2018 at 1:17 pm #1202576668
This new version of the story is not a remake because it will only be based on the original novel by Louisa May Alcott, not any of the previous film adaptations. That’s always been a pet peeve of mine because basically, how do you remake a book?June 29, 2018 at 1:26 pm #1202576672
The cast is undeniable, but there’s absolutely no reason to tackle “Little Women” again. It was JUST a well-received television miniseries that aired mere months ago. “Lady Bird” was excellent, and personally, I would have wanted Greta Gerwig’s follow-up to that be original material. Anyways, highly awaiting more casting news. Streep should be playing Aunt March instead of Marmee at this point. Stone’s aged out for Jo too, but maybe that can work out okay enough.June 29, 2018 at 1:31 pm #1202576676
`1994 Best Actress was weak sauce and Ryder was one of the better nominees that year.
I seriously don’t mind Hollywood re-adapting this book every 20-30 years because honestly it’s been done so many times already that what’s the harm in one new adaptation every generation? Plus, it’s geared towards children and young adults and they won’t have the nostalgia for the older versions so it’ll be their introduction to the material.
Anyway, I love the 1994 version with Winona Ryder as I think she captures the writer Jo the best. She also has great screen presence and the music and cinematography and production is absolutely A+. Even Roger Ebert commented on Ryder’s radiance in the final scene of the film. It’s just the story itself gets boring after rewatching it as much as I did. I also think Ryder doesn’t capture Jo’s tom boyish qualities the way Katharine Hepburn did. Hepburn is probably the closest to the actual Jo in the book. You believe she’s “awkward, ugly” and that her hair is her one beauty. I remember enjoying the June Allison 1948 version but switching the birth orders between Amy and Beth was jarring, but I know they really wanted Elizabeth Taylor to be in it and she was much more the Amy type than the Beth one. I remember 1948 being a bit more melodramatic than the other ones but had the hottest actor playing the Frederick compared to the other two.
Some spoilers below (how do I do spoiler tags?)
I think the 1994 version deflates in the second half with the non-Winona Ryder scenes. The transition from Kristen Dunst to Samantha Mathis wasn’t seamless but it was a good idea. I think they could have done a lot more with adult Amy as they wrote her in a way that was stilted and totally cold. I want a version where I actually root for Laurie and Amy in the end and not just think…wow he just wanted to get in that family and chose one sister who was available and responded positively to him. I think the chemistry between Ryder and Bale was maybe too strong that it overshadowed the film’s ability to sell us on another other pair. Meg totally disappears too which I think gives people the wrong idea about Meg. Claire Danes does well with the sad scenes, but she sort of fails to capture the complete essence of Beth and the screenplay cut a lot of her story line. However, the bedroom scene with Ryder towards the end was perfect from both actresses.June 29, 2018 at 1:35 pm #1202576679
This new version of the story is not a remake because it will only be based on the original novel by Louisa May Alcott, not any of the previous film adaptations. That’s always been a pet peeve of mine because basically, how do you remake a book?June 29, 2018 at 1:58 pm #1202576705
Seeing Watson, Ronan, Chalamet and Pugh together is terrific, but we just had a miniseries, is this really necessary? Give us something new and original.June 29, 2018 at 2:01 pm #1202576709
This new version of the story is not a remake because it will only be based on the original novel by Louisa May Alcott, not any of the previous film adaptations. That’s always been a pet peeve of mine because basically, how do you remake a book?
I think what Jeffrey is saying is that they aren’t remaking the 1994 film or the 1937 film or the 1948 film or the 1970s TV miniseries, etc. They are doing their own adaptation of the book.
Seeing Watson, Ronan, Chalamet and Pugh together is terrific, but we just had a miniseries, is this really necessary? Give us something new and original.
New and original went away a long time ago with like the 50th Marvel Cinematic Universe film. Anyway, I bet more people will be exposed to this new film than the BBC adaptation where Aunt March of all characters gets the most critical acclaim and seeing a bunch of British actors trying to do American accents. Also, Watson is involved?
June 29, 2018 at 2:25 pm #1202576723
- This reply was modified 1 year ago by SHT L.
How many of these Little Women movies/TV shows do we need?June 29, 2018 at 6:40 pm #1202576813
Siskel and Ebert loved Winona Ryder in Little Women (or at least Siskel did.)
I can remember him campaigning for her heavily to get nominated. They used to do this show every year called Memo to the Academy where they would point out lower profile candidates that they thought should be nominated. The people they pointed out often got nominated. (the next year I think they single-handedly got James Cromwell a nomination for Babe.)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.