Top 10 Things Little Women (2019) Did Right & Wrong

[@phoebe-watchmojo9924]

NO shade to 2019's Little Women, it was my FAVOURITE movie of the year. Truly phenomenal, a movie that had me in tears the whole time!

[@anthonylarosa1155]

please talk to whoever zoomed in so long on Florence Pughs instagram picture LOL

[@phoebe-watchmojo9924]

@@anthonylarosa1155 LOL! But she looked so excited!!!!

[@raiiin1998]

Me too. It’s my fave in 2019.

[@ajpat9620]

@The true Anne Boleyn Cats was godawful. Who thought that was a good idea to release that Cats**t (no pun intended) into the theaters during the holiday season?

[@MacNMolly]

I agree. It is also my favorite of all the Little Women movies. I have no problems with the director straying from the novel because the story is so well-told.

[@binhn.c.7003]

I love that they let Amy actually be *angry* at Laurie. Yes she loves him, but that wasn’t her whole character. I think I just love that there was overall so much anger in this movie. Jo and Laurie quarrelling when he proposes to her, Amy telling Jo she wanted to hurt her by burning her novel, Jo being angry at the professor, etc. Anger isn’t evil, it’s human!

[@jayemmemo4998]

This is the part in the books about Amy's storyline that gets omitted.

[@keisycarcamo758]

Anger isn’t evil, it’s human. That’s so right

[@caityhoffman915]

Marmee's speech about being angry everyday too!

[@zitronentee]

It's acceptable anger, the characters themselves don't have anger issues. So, it's ok. The problem is when they are angry the entire time and leads to toxic relationship.

[@seolferrosa]

B. N. It’s also a prominent part of Jo’s character, and drives many of the plot twists. One thing that Gerwig missed (and was also missing on the 1994 adaptation), was the reason Aunt March took Amy instead of Jo to Europe: Jo flashed her temper while she and Amy were visiting friends, and Aunt March found out about it.

[@josie-nv6ft]

"But you're not married Aunt Mar--" "weLL tHat'S bECauSe i'M riCh.

[@AlbertaRose94]

That's because I'm a widow and our daughter died young. But hey, why let the book distract from the movie's plotline

[@spinacetta89]

@@AlbertaRose94 But she could remarry.

[@babybookworm003]

marta r. Aunt March was well off she didn’t need to remarry.

[@dervela1237]

One of the best lines apart from -Are you hurt? -iM aMy

[@justanotherweirdo11]

@@spinacetta89 I don't think she wants to tbh.

[@tophvalerie4447]

actually Beth's death scene was heart breaking, when jo came down the stairs and the two timelines kinda merged, it was beautiful

[@justanotheridiot0]

True, it is the only death scene in which I have cried both in the book and the movies

[@sylviesalter8852]

I sobbed

[@minskyboo980]

For me it wasn’t her actual death but the reactions of the sisters.

[@iAmBeaTLes]

I loved this and it really harkened back to the 90s version, except this time she’s not there the second time.

[@Melanie-jy2nw]

This version finally gave Amy justice! And we actually got to see how she got her man... they literally always skim that part in other adaptions!

[@trinaq]

I totally concur!🙌 This version actually took the time to show Laurie and Amy together, so that it didn't come across as abrupt, or a betrayal towards Jo, and helps by making Amy more likable and sympathetic. 💗

[@TishaMae]

Because that is how it is treated in the book. There is no "I have to marry because of standing family etc etc" it's literally just "I want money" with hints she had a crush on Laurie. Laurie even went down the line of March sisters saying why he couldn't be with them before deciding he wanted Amy so this movie rang false on that and is one of the biggest problems with the adaptation. Trying to place modern sensibilities on a classic and not focusing on what it was initially about family and faith

[@dynesteefields4396]

@@TishaMae Did Laurie go down the list in the book? I've only noticed that in the 1994 version. In the book Laurie just seems to start developing feeling towards Amy. But I agree, Amy definitely has always wanted to be rich even before Aunt March started "mentoring" her. I think that it's hilarious that even movie Amy wouldn't have married Laurie had he been poor.

[@TishaMae]

@@dynesteefields4396 yeah he did in the book too.

[@missdeejay]

@@TishaMae thank you! I'm really tired of all the people out there saying "they finally did justice to Amy", when Amy is actually a spoiled and selfish girl in the novel, who wants to be rich, and marry someone rich. I personally think that trying to "adapt" a novel for the sensibilities of the current world is stupid, because people have to see how the female mentality was back then, and how far we've come from there. It's the same for those U.S. states that want to ban the reading of Mark Twain's "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn", or Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird" in high school, because the N word appears to many times in both, and don't take into consideration that that's how it was back then, and forget the important issues addressed by both novels

[@hollystephens1806]

i've never related to a character more than amy. she is like the embodiment of the youngest child. she always feels like she's in people's shadows or left out. she is not taken seriously and laughed at when she just wants to be as grown up as her sisters. she is trying to become her own person

[@farjanarahman791]

She was also a brat and selfish, angry without valid reason as a child so nothing is without any reason

[@reillymckay3419]

@@farjanarahman791 she defiantly had a reason. As such a young girl she looked up to her older sisters, but they always shunned her out, basically denying her to be apart of their joining of society. she was only 12 when she burned jo's novel, she wouldn't have understood the importance and you can't say you haven't done something you regret to your siblings. While the older sisters got to marry for love and have the opportunity to continue their passions, she was extremely pressured to have to marry rich and unhappily, and give up her dreams to uphold the family. she was always in the shadows, and was known as jo's little sister to everybody, not her own character. sorry that was a rant shes my favorite lol.

[@takumisnmbr1opp]

@@reillymckay3419 it doesn't matter if she was 12 it was a messed up thing to do and in the 2019 version she had very little empathy for what she had done

[@sthepaniagarcia6617]

Totally! That´s why in the books I´ve always prefered Amy over Jo and I´m proud to say that like her I´m the youngest of four sisters!!😄😃

[@MariaLuisa-vv4ug]

I think most people think of Beth as "the one who dies" even before they get to the 1st second of any adaptation of this story, so I get why Greta didn't bother dragging it out

[@deogratias6337]

Beth is my favorite. I always think of her as the saintly, compassionate, selfless, gentle one. Consequently her death breaks my heart in any adaptation. Louisa May Alcott killed her off purposely to signify that this type of woman, romanticized in the middle ages, was dying off to make room for the go getting, obstinate Jo type that speak their minds. It's why the story is still so popular in our modern age.

[@MariaLuisa-vv4ug]

@@deogratias6337 Yes, I agree. Beth's life and death serve many porposes and in many ways, though she's not at all fiery like her sisters, she's still a central part of the plot

[@jenniferle8294]

I actually like how greta used beth's death to frame the the story and explore the family's overall story of happiness, sadness, loss, grief, and everything in between

[@minorka2]

@@deogratias6337 actually beth is based on one of the author's sisters who died young...

[@angie-kv2oj]

@@deogratias6337 i thought Luisa did that because she based some parts off her life and her own sister had died- could be wrong though

[@natassa9297]

Is no one gonna mention Emma Watson's accent and how it constantly shifted

[@dianaalvarezrocha5557]

Natassa Karamouzis I KNOW! I had a major problem with that!

[@roseydot]

We knew from the moment the trailer came out ☹️

[@trinaq]

Her American accent in "Perks of Being a Wallflower" came off as far more convincing, even though her natural accent would slip out occasionally 😊

[@dudexoxoxo6837]

Natassa Karamouzis I didn’t think it was bad but I’m not american so it sounded fine to me, weird at first though. Florence is really good at an American accent (Saoirse doesn’t count she was born there).

[@ajpat9620]

Like, her American accent isn't that bad at all. Come on, it's quite good.

[@nachardi1837]

I dont think beths arc is wrong, i think is beautifull its evolution towards acceptance of HER death

[@oxfordeducatedhighschoolhe6989]

Gay af.

[@jenniferle8294]

agreed! I thought it was an interesting take and I appreciated her doing something different.

[@zahirahza]

Gerwig missed a pivotal character development for Beth by not including the "I shall be homesick even in heaven" line which shows her strength in facing death.

[@siribaimusic]

she missed a ton of pivotal character development.

[@hnacs8117]

Beth does say that she's not afraid of dying at the beach scene

[@amandageyman8033]

I love that you showed clips from the Winona Ryder, Claire Danes, etc. version. That movie still gives me major feels.

[@stephsmith9911]

That one is still my fave-though I loved Meryl Streep as Aunt March better!

[@floralovespringandflowers6227]

For me that also shows why 1994 is better. Why do a video of 2019 and use scenes of 1994 for it? Only other explanation would be that there wasn't usable video material of 2019 for it. 😊

[@floralovespringandflowers6227]

@soul sessions tv Bdhrh Nah, I don't think so. I found 1994 very emotional too. Cried my heart out about Beth. And Winona Ryder was always a great actress, as much as Susan Sarandon. But I like Meg and Amy more in 2019 and Aunt March.

[@sheilas1283]

That’s why I don’t want to watch this new one. Winona was superb. Saoirse is a good actress but she isn’t Jo for me.

[@floralovespringandflowers6227]

@@sheilas1283 Same. 😊

[@katiekinsi]

The true wrong of this movie was having Jo and her editor LOOK DIRECTLY INTO OUR SOULS while writing letters to each other. What an awkward choice.

[@jacqchic86]

Omg I said that too!! And when the professor left her that note with the books as well

[@liv97497]

Oh yes to be honest that's pretty much my only criticism. It's mostly weird because it's only two letters, each one gets one scene like that. I think I've seen something like this done in a series, where there were multiple letters, so these types of scenes are a welcome change from the usual narration of the letters (and it provides the audience with an insight into an interpretation of what the character might have felt while writing them). However, when each character only gets one scene like that, and it's not a staple for a recurrent thing that happens, it just feels a little off.

[@kimberlym.2547]

Thank you.

[@swanlake8827]

katiekinsi ohhh yes! Absolutely the worst and so out of line with the entire movie!

[@kicklayoutfosse7009]

And casting

[@djcheer2469]

My favorite quote from the movie was...“Women, they have minds, and they have souls, as well as just hearts. And they’ve got ambition, and they’ve got talent, as well as just beauty. I’m so sick of people saying that love is all a woman is fit for.”
-Jo March

[@LauraLovesNY]

I love this adaptation and have to disagree about Beth's arc in this film being "wrong." Knowing how ill she is at the beginning of the film made the flashbacks even more heart-wrenching, especially the scene where she gets the courage to go over to Mr. Laurence's huge house and plays his grand piano. That scene just tore at me, because it was Beth's "voice" or spirit wafting through the house, and the way Chris Cooper reacted to that moment was heart-breaking. And the scene at the seashore! Yes, the audience knows it's not going to work, and it made me hear Beth even more because she tells Jo, "It's like the tide going out. it can't be stopped."

[@angelenapulis9083]

Laura Daniel Exactly. Honestly, I thought it helped to capture what it feels like in real life to have a family member with a serious illness, like Beth’s heart condition, or MS or cancer. You know you’ll run out of time. Every moment together is precious (but also it’s just reality, so we don’t always appreciate it til it’s gone). You don’t want it to happen. Sometimes you feel like you’ve (almost) accepted it. And other times you can’t help but fall apart because you don’t want to lose them. And then they’re gone. And life goes on for you. And it’s not fair.

[@LauraLovesNY]

@@angelenapulis9083 exactly! Jo’s fight to keep Beth alive while remembering the first time it happened made it even more painful and so much more relatable.

[@psycho_logical8652]

Agreed!

[@belladonna411]

Beth’s death scene in the Winona Ryder adaptation breaks my heart. The newer version of Beth was probably the only letdown of the movie. I loved the movie though.

[@judigemini178]

I liked Beth a lot in this, guess I’m in the minority. Maybe (probably) she doesn’t stand out because she’s not burning books & obsessing over boys but she was intriguing in an introspective way & with an eery-like preternatural sensibility to her, of course her presence is just meant to be ephemeral, foreboding & predetermined...still her scenes with jo were poignant for me

[@denapattison6363]

I adored this Beth. I am dying (no pun intended) to find out how they did her incredible scarlet fever make-up. Bright red and sweating and almost glowing as the end becomes nigh. I never liked Clare Danes with her phlegm-my speech and paled-down face.

[@floralovespringandflowers6227]

I cry every fucking time when Beth dies in 1994. Every time. Although I saw that version so many times. It is heartbreaking. You feel like a piece from your and all the March girls heart is ripped out in the moment she dies. 😭

[@angelenapulis9083]

Lola Heatherton I adore Beth in the 1994 version and cry my eyes out every time I watch her death scene. But I still sobbed in the theatre watching Beth die in the 2019 version because of how they had the storylines align. It just felt so... final. And we all knew it was coming, but it still hurt like hell when Jo went downstairs and she wasn’t in the chair like last time, and Marmee breaks down. I felt that to my core.

[@harrietty281]

i thought both versions were very good but i realised that the only reason greta's version didn't make me feel half as emotional as the 1994 one was because it didn't have the same music to accompany the scene - the score from the 1994 film is so heartbreakingly beautiful that my eyes will well up as soon as it kicks in during the film's opening credits.

[@ValeriaSalinas-pp7xf]

I loved the movie but something that kinda bothered me was how Florence was supposed to be a child on the childhood part. It was just so weird tbh

[@mariannebar2910]

True, she played it really good, but her looks gave away she is not a child any more, but I still love her brillant Performance

[@Oratual_]

well they kinda make a change there isnt it? making Beth the youngest

[@isabeller6506]

Florence's voice is quite deep so it was just kind of weird when she was meant to be playing a child, it didn't work at all for me

[@shinoharagarcia4769]

Yes! Watching an adult do childish stuff it's kinda weird😬

[@melissacorrigan4058]

This I agree with. There are so many fantastic teen actresses who could have played younger versions of the March sisters. I would have loved to have seen Elsie Fisher as teen Amy and Sophia Lillis as teen Jo. Maybe Gerwig thought that would be too confusing?

[@allisoncovert]

not shade or anything, but in my opinion i feel that they should have had 2 actors for amy or made her younger version seem younger. it appeared that she was older than beth in some scenes and i feel her character is more of a younger character.

[@nouragh337]

Yes!! I had never read the book or seen the other adaptaions before this one and when I watched it I thought Beth was the youngest

[@jillianmauk3806]

i think the problem with this though is that a 7-year gap isn't long enough to justify casting an entirely different human being. especially in combination with the achronological order, to have an entirely different human playing the same character every 15 minutes when the scene changes would be so jarring and make it ridiculous.

[@chiara3536]

yeah even if i read the books at 9 years old,watching the movie i thought i read it wrong cause she didn't look 12 lol

[@allisoncovert]

chiara BAHAHAHAHA she literally looked 19

[@Marjanne0031]

I actually learn now that Any was the youngest 😂 I really though Beth was

[@happycommuter3523]

No mention of Chris Cooper's marvelous turn as old Mr. Lawrence? He was sublime!

[@ajpat9620]

He's perfect casting.

[@larissaharper8807]

Agreed!! He was amazing, his performance was sweet and heartfelt, especially his scenes with Beth... the piano scene made me ugly cry

[@amyclarke4698]

Love mr Lawrence especially in this 🥰

[@LauraLovesNY]

He was SO GOOD!

[@siribaimusic]

No shade to Cooper, but under this screenplay and Gerwig's direction, he had no opportunity for a character arc. We're supposed to see him in the beginning as someone completely closed off from love until Beth melts his heart, and yet he was bright and warm and open right off the bat in this version. Which doesn't set up Laurie correctly either.

[@asmrlistening5945]

Wow, you totally missed the point... they got Professor Bhaer RIGHT. The whole point of this version of Professor Bhaer is that she DOESN"T fall in love with him, it's a fantasy Jo concocts to add to the book, so it's more marketable, just like Louisa May Alcott added him to the story of her own life. For that to make sense to a modern audience, he needs to be more appealing as a love interest, to the modern eye.

[@mooalijasmine]

asmrlistening I agree that the point was he was used as fantasy. To me, that explains why there was no true connection nor particular friendship in the boarding house. He noticed her, but a true spark was never started. Certainly not in the way as shown in previous films. It didn’t make sense to me while I was watching it, that all of a sudden he’s charming when he visits her family. Then I realised as the movie continued to its conclusion, oh, that part is the start of him as fictional. In the other films, because of the portrayal of the two from the boarding house, it didn’t seem to completely come out of left field that he dropped by to see her, especially as he was included in Jo’s ongoing writing efforts. It still was a romantic gesture, but an earned one. In this movie, I couldn’t see any justification for his appearance to her home. In fact, it seemed incongruent with their relationship or rather lack of a relationship, so struck me as slightly creepy, despite every family member being wholly charmed by him, which seemed also rather instantly convenient. To me he came across thirsty. Apart from many other viewers, I suppose, I actually didn’t find him that attractive. I wouldn’t describe him as hideous (that’s for all those who interpret what someone writes as automatically then meaning the opposite). But I did think he was actually someone who would be considered a little less attractive for that time. I felt like I was being told that he was attractive when he wasn’t, rather the way Jo was being told that she was attracted to him, when she wasn’t as it turns out.

[@judigemini178]

That would be great if it was the case, but according to Greta’s comment the reason she gave is basically “I can do whatever I want”... I like your idea on it though

[@stephaniebrown3404]

@@mooalijasmine yes! I agree with all of this. I didn't find him particularly attractive either but he was younger and more attractive than described in the book which seems was intentional to fit in with the whole "fantasy" element. This was the first adaptation where it actually felt like Jo didn't want marriage. Her refusal of Laurie made so much more sense in this movie. And because Greta never had the intention to marry her off she used that time to establish the theme of "owning your story" which is such a beautiful way to honor Louisa May Alcott. And a genius way to modernize is for today's audience.

[@josetarre9953]

@@judigemini178 Did you read what it said though? Because in the video they only mention this, but in the comment she clarifies it and it´s an interesting point of view.

[@denapattison6363]

@@mooalijasmine I loved reading your post. I just want to ad my tuppence-worth. I like to believe that Bhaer had been kicking himself for a long time and had fallen instantly in love when Jo arrived at the doorstep in New York. I think this is a romantic view that I have. And one scene that I have yet to read anything at all about on these posts is when the camera goes over to old Mr Lawrence as Mr Bhaer plays a piano piece that Beth had. I ugly-cried at how subtle and superb Chris Cooper was in that brief moment. I had sobbed earlie when he sat himself down on the staircase to listen to Beths playing.

[@holyrat1269]

Is anyone going to talk about how the outfits are definitely not historically accurate?

[@YTistooannoying]

See the rant by Micarah Twerse for a good rant about that

[@ellehansen7507]

@@YTistooannoying Yes!! When I saw the thumbnail, I was ready to fight, but I found myself agreeing lol

[@inkkvibe]

Uggs, they wear uggs, and costumes - Jo's outfits were very late 19th century but Gerwig intended it this way, Meg's dress at the party, awful, was only accurate in 94 version.

[@tacosmexicanstyle7846]

Eliza_is _da_best I had never seen the other Little Women films or read the book so I was really really confused about when the flashbacks were taking place. I struggled to put the story together in chronological order because the costumes completely disoriented me. I didn’t even know the family was meant to be poor until after I left the theatre and read a Wikipedia summary... those girls had a new dress for every scene!

[@inkkvibe]

@@tacosmexicanstyle7846 I suggest you watch the 94 version, it's perfect and everything is in chronological order. I was dissapointed with the 2019 one.

[@isaacrichter3269]

Not casting a child actress to play the younger Amy: WRONG As great as Florence Pugh is when Amy is an adult, there's only so much a woman in her mid-20's with a deep voice can do to convince she's 12 years old, and bless Florence for giving it her best shot, but it comes off silly in a film that doesn't support that tone. This was Greta Gerwig's mistake, she needed a child version of Amy for the scenes in the past (which would have also helped with viewers who had trouble keeping track of the timelines, having a child Amy would have helped ground them)...

[@lauracontreras4788]

Isaac Richter agree with this

[@livhodgson3020]

I personally thought Florence Pugh did a phenomenal job as young Amy. She was the only one who really stood out as depicting the characters clearly at different ages, but also with consistency.

[@AlejandraMorales003]

She looked completely ridiculous throwing tantrums. She is 24 and looks her age, a grown up woman acting like a child with a deep voice was hilarious to me in scenes that were supposed to be dramatic.

[@lehorch]

Agree 100%

[@junkerinhistrunker]

I can't say how much I disagree with this, if only because the 1994 version failed so so hard at this. The young Amy and adult Amy were. different. people. It was so far fetched and unbelievable that I'm more than happy to take Florence playing both ages.

[@dynesteefields4396]

What! No mention of Jo changing her mind about Laurie and writing the letter? That's definitely new.

[@louisepedersen227]

Dynestee Fields yeah! I didn’t like that! Jo always knew she and Laurie werent meant to be :(

[@dynesteefields4396]

@@louisepedersen227 I actually did like that subplot. But yeah, this video should have definitely mentioned it.

[@zoharsarig9474]

I hated that sooooo much

[@OurBrokenDreams]

@@louisepedersen227 in the 94 version she is also moved by Beth's death and you have the feeling she thinks she made a mistake but you have the sense that it's the grief speaking

[@lunarpowered1196]

I think that scene happened was to show how lonely Jo was. It wasn’t that she changed her mind and loved Laurie, it was that she missed everyone, especially since Beth died.

[@lou-xr5rz]

*spoilers* /// i have to agree. beth was always my favourite character and i wish… just once… she was valued equally. everyone cares about jo, and i'm glad gerwig allowed us to know amy (meg too)… but beth? i wish she got more love. idk. at the end of the first book, a part of me always thought she would get better. there was always that hope, that 'maybe…' that made her ending all the more sadder. it hurt so bad because when i was 13 reading it for the first time, i really thought she'd pull through. i don't like thinking of her as 'the one who dies'. that's _not who beth is._ she wasn't always destined to die. she got the scarlet fever by helping that family - and she actually got better first, before it came back later. she helped them when no one else would. she deserves more attention and more love. yeah the movie 'got amy right', i've heard it a lot, cool, good for her. but what about beth? the quiet one, the gentle one, the kind one? her story is always skimmed over like it doesn't matter as much because she didn't make as many mistakes. but beth was human too. /// just my opinion.

[@marcelapcolova1532]

My words exactly!

[@liv97497]

I think it's mostly because by now, everyone pretty much knows what happens. I mean, I've only ever seen this movie (haven't read the book or seen the others) and even I knew Beth dies. But, if it counts for anything, I didn't leave the theater thinking of Beth as the one who dies - I liked her portrayal in the movie, to me she was established as the kindest and most caring of all the girls. I bawled like a baby through pretty much half the movie, and I felt the movie did a good job, at least for a first time viewer, of conveying just how truly unfair and how horrid her fate was.

[@lou-xr5rz]

@@liv97497 hmm, well i'm glad gerwig portrayed her correctly, but i know the books so much better… beth always stood out to me in alcott's writing, but in the movie adaptations the focus is on jo first, always, and amy second. you feel me? i dunno. i guess i'm just being petty at this point but i thought the way the books structured beth's arc made it far more powerful. by the ending of the first part, beth has sort-of recovered and i really thought she was going to make it - even though i'd heard that she was going to die, i still thought, well, maybe? you know? and beth isn't completely perfect, yeah she's angelic and kind and selfless but we never get to see _all_ of her in movie adaptations. i'm biased because she's my favourite but the vast majority of people love jo and amy, (i'm not sure how ppl feel about meg?) but i know beth deserves more appreciation. oops sorry for the long reply, and i totally get where you're coming from, by the way, it's interesting to see it from a different view point, anyway :-) x

[@josefins8215]

I completely agree! It’s like Beth’s character is always simplified, kind of? Just because she is quiet, it’s like that’s all she is. Like she can’t have a personality. The book so beautifully described her kind soul and how all she wanted was to be with her family and for everyone to be happy. And the last scene with Jo where she finally appreciates herself and acknowledges her talents. Her journey was important too, you know? It was beautiful and also heartbreaking. I’m sick of her whole meaning being to die. She deserves more!

[@derryg903]

I was 10 years old the first time I read Little Women. Beth's illness and death was the first time I ever cried over a book.

[@QOP13]

Well Jane Austen never married so when I study Louisa life I was not surprised it was not weird many female novelist never married

[@magnisky]

QOP13 yep, they didn't want to compromise settling on any average man...also they were mostly financially successful to not need the necessity of marriage. 😼

[@maxinezook3835]

Also Beatrix Potter didn't marry until she was well into her 40s, not bowing to parental & societal pressure at the time that she must marry at a much younger age to a man her parents chose, whether or not she actually liked him, instead marrying a man she fell in love with when she was ready for it 😉

[@redned1799]

Magnisky B Jane Austin was not financially successful, and lived with her family’s support until she died.

[@magnisky]

Wendy George I think you are correct! Like I said authors like her weren't going to compromise and settle down with someone who isn't mr. Darcy ; )

[@mimesthaisilva8321]

I can only imagine how many aspiring writers got married and then were so overwhelmed by housework that they couldn’t find time to write. I remember very well how my grandmother and my mother were too busy to do anything other than housework, because those were times before we had a washing machine and all the things that allow us to have time for ourselves.

[@katmahbub]

I thought the energy of the characters was too manic, the girls' interactions almost hyperactive at times. And Jo's manner of speech and movement way too 2020 (not the words, they were great, but the presentation)... I thought it was a mistake that her personality was so intensely modern, not even trying to match her slightly to how women would have spoken and acted in the 1800s. I loved the version with Winona Ryder.

[@khaingeieiko8230]

1949 was a good one too.

[@crossjay]

I agree. Saoirse Ronan, good as she was, might as well have had a 'Girl Power!" T Shirt on under her costume. There were several moments when the actors dropped their modern performances and made attempts to act and sound like people of the original time period, and that made it all the more jarring.

[@mira18ish]

Totally agree!

[@annas.5894]

Yes.

[@josefins8215]

I think that their ”hyperactive interactions” is a way to make it all more realistic. They are sisters, and even though it takes place in the 1800s they surely don’t talk slow and politely to each other all the time. I feel like it really shows their bond and how comfortable they are around each other way more than in the other movies.

[@BALTHAZAAR58]

Yeah, if you're going to cast the beautiful Saoirse Ronan as the canonically not-pretty Jo, why not cast someone young and hot as Friedrich. This happens with female characters all the time.

[@liv97497]

To be fair, though, all the Jo's have been pretty... I mean, Katherine Hepburn?

[@silvertulip7532]

@@liv97497 And Winona Ryder

[@charlenerafferty3534]

Jo was average looking in the book not beautiful r ugly

[@AmaraEmme]

To be fair, I think the 2019 Little Women meant to lampoon the character of Friedrich. Not taking the character seriously (book inaccurate casting, minimal screen time, hokey ending) implied that the love interest was unnecessary for Jo’s happiness and hinted at the real life fact that Alcott made the character of Friedrich to troll readers who were desperate to see Jo marry, even when Alcott didn’t want Jo, who was based on herself, to be married.

[@Elsam4ri]

I luv Florence but i think there was something off about having her play both young and older Amy. Imo, 1 of the main reasons why Laurie falls for Amy in the end is because he finally sees her as a grown woman, as opposed to a child, which is what he saw her as before. I feel like the distinction between her childishness in the beginning and her womanliness in the end wasn't clear enough. And the classroom scene was just awkward loll. I also think Beth's character was extremely underused in this version :( Beth is supposed to be GOOD, not just shy and sad and dying, and to me, at least, she's supposed to be the linchpin of the whole March family! Her presence wasn't felt enough throughout the film for her absence to be so poignant and upsetting at the end, idk. I luv u though Greta can't wait for the Barbie movieee

[@chiara3536]

i think the exact same as you!!

[@heathermerizan3890]

My favorite Little Women is the 1994 version, I felt like it fully fleshed out the characters. In the 2019 version there were things I liked, most of the Amy changes I liked as her character is seen as being bad or spoiled in other versions. I liked the idea that Jo is so head strong, but it seems that she goes through her life with no compromises. I loved the theme that the book Little Women had that as we grow older (male or female) we learn that we change and our ideas shift. This shows with Amy coming to understand the strictures if society of her time and she still chose love. It shows Jo having been a wild tomboy who holds to never conforming to finding peace and love that didn’t bind her. In this 2019 movie I feel short changed as Jo never seems like she’d be happy as a married wealthy woman. I’m left feeling no connection to Meg’s character development, nor Beth who seems to mean little to the entire movie. Marmie doesn’t seem to do anything with control or dealing with her girls’ lives. She doesn’t seem concerned over their futures. Just that they be whatever. It left me feeling as she seemed flighty. Not showing the historical backdrop eliminates much of the story’s depth. And Jo...she seems sad, I just thought she was a sad person by the end. Not feeling sure about her fate, was it real or a fairytale, made her feel less complete. There were squeals to Little Women Books about Jo’s sons. Obviously there was more to Jo’s character than her stubbornness and unwillingness to marry. Plus the hurried pace felt as if the sister relationship was lacking, it never really shines. Overall, I felt like it was missing heart.

[@judigemini178]

The reason I loved Jo so much in this is because they did highlight the loneliness that also comes with wanting to live as a free independent woman & not showing it as a bad thing, but more as a reality. And the willingness not to compromise the way you want to live because of it. To me Jo was not unhappy at all, she got her school(aunt march’s approval???), her book with the copyright, yet she was sober about the reality of her life. I honestly don’t know what else would’ve been a better ending for her.

[@FatimaLopez-jr1th]

All of this.

[@memorysdancer]

Absolutely agree!

[@supernerd1643]

You literally said everything that I was thinking, the 1994 version is the best. There were highlights of the 2019 version I liked, but as a whole couldn’t connect with

[@joquinn4635]

++++++++

[@thetramp123]

The wrongs in this are themselves. Wrong. Maybe the worst is about talking about the Marches' wealth. The book, as Gerwig has stated in interviews, even opens with a line not being able to afford things for Christmas. And money is a central element to the story and theme to this adaptation, to the sister's chances for independence and living lives their own way. The film *does* mention that the family lost their wealth, did you not watch the scenes with Streep? The movie tells us so much about their economic situation and how that weighs on them I don't know how you can have such a bad take on this. And Gerwig addresses the Civil War and period in multiple scenes, like Amy at school, Marmie contributing to the war effort, about anything that has to do with their father. The film doesn't need a monologue about the subject to tell us these things like we're having a history lesson because it does it organically. And Bhaer might be one the best aspects of the adaptation. Gerwig takes an element of the book that wasn't desired in the first place (Alcott was pressured into Jo being with him by her publisher), and greatly improves it. To say that the book meant to say that he was what Jo wanted all along completely misses the point considering Alcott didn't want that to happen at all. Just because it's different than the novel, doesn't mean it's "wrong." Gerwig's version of Bhaer isn't a creepy mentor to Jo, isn't the instrument for her inspiration, and is at most an equal to her who readily acknowledges her talent she already has, and the metacontextual affirmation that she (Gerwig) uses to justify the two getting together by intercutting it with Jo's book negotiation (which is basically Alcott's book deal negotiation) is brilliant and not only one of the elements this version has over other film adaptations, it takes even a weakness of the novel itself and makes it a little bit better.

[@LauraLovesNY]

I also felt it was very clear that the Civil War was going on, because the girls talk about it at Christmas, it's the reason their father is away, Amy and her friends talk it at school, and there's the scene where Marmee gives her scarf to the man who's lost his sons in the war. I don't think we needed an obvious bunch of troops marching through town like the 1932 version.

[@thetramp123]

@@LauraLovesNY Yeah, definitely. The film doesn't need a scene where a group of soldiers or officers sit around and debate the war efforts to tell us that it takes place during the Civil War and the significance of that. It's all organically woven into the film.

[@DittoAPokemon]

I think they really expect exposition to be spoon fed to them and not have to use their brains while watching a movie. The movie tells you these things but they just do it in an organic way, no one is busting in "so as you all know father is fighting in the civil war", but at one point they do mention him fighting for the Union. You're watching the girls' lives, they're likely not going to see a platoon marching through town, but they will casually speak about what's happening in their world.

[@maxalberts85]

The pretentiousness of Gerwig's slaughterhouse of a film is surpassed only by your ridiculous postmodern response to it. Why even bother calling this mess "Little Women"? Why not just call it "Four Overpaid Actresses and an Anorexic Twink Play Dress Up"? By the way, how old was Marmee when she got married? From the looks of things she must have been about twelve.

[@DittoAPokemon]

@@maxalberts85 You are one angry fellow...watch your blood pressure.

[@trinaq]

The casting was sublime, Saoirse and Timothee REALLY embody what I felt that Jo and Laurie would be like from when I read the book. This version even made me feel sorry for, and like Amy!💖😅📕

[@wolftownesque]

laurie is dark eyed, tanned, and oviously italian. are all book characters in your head by default, pale skinned, blue eyed white boys?

[@AbcDef-ww2gy]

@@wolftownesque Wrong! Look closer. Chalamet has green eyes, not blue, and has dark hair. He is half-French in real life (French and Italian are both Mediterranean ethnicities), and actually played a half-Italian and spoke Italian in his most famous role, in Call Me By Your Name.

[@elizabethduplat5835]

Chalamet was horribly miscast, IMO. He looks like a frail little boy throughout, and in the book, he is tall (towers over most people), atheletic.

[@wolftownesque]

@@AbcDef-ww2gy still pale skinned.

[@AbcDef-ww2gy]

@@wolftownesque Racist.

[@jessicam279]

As far as casting goes,,as much as I like Laura Dern, I don't personally think she embodied Marmee very well. She seemed more frail, modern, and city-like?(for lack of a better word). I loved Susan Sarandon as her in the other version. Absolutely loved casting of Jo and Amy! Wonderful!

[@ajpat9620]

That's bulls**t. Laura Dern was fine as Marmee March.

[@denapattison6363]

Initially I absolutely agreed. But after my second time of seeing it and gobbling up all I can on KZbin, I liked Ms Dern as Marmee. Especially in the scene where she confides to Jo.

[@ajpat9620]

@@denapattison6363 Laura Dern was just splendidly casted as Marmee March. Her touching, emotional and heartfelt conversation with her onscreen daughter, Jo (played brilliantly by Saoirse Ronan), was the best part of the movie and that's what made the movie so great and special.

[@floralovespringandflowers6227]

I think you are right. Laura Dern is a good actress but Susan Sarandon will always be my number one for Mrs. March. But that also is because she had more screen time. I think that is what I find is the problem for me with Laura Dern. But I love the casting of Meg, Mr. Brooke, Aunt March and Amy. I was hating the thought that Emma Watson was cast as Meg but I really found her great in the role. One of the best scenes being when she told John about the cloth she bought and how she hates to be poor. I felt miserable for them both in that scene. I loved that they did cast a young Friedrich but I am German and my first thought about the actor was: "I am sure that that is no German. This guy looks totally Italian or French to me." Then I googled him and found out that he is French. I am sorry but that bothered me a lot. My country has many talented actors. Why do people cast a Frenchmen for doing a German? I don't get it. I get it when German actors are not getting casted for English speaking roles to play English/ American/ Canadian/ Australian/... guys or any other non-German speaking person. But that they are not even cast for playing a native German speaker is pissing me of a lot. And it is absolutely not about the fact that the Friedrich actor is dark haired. There are a lot of dark haired Germans especially in Bavaria (and I am not talking of modern Germans with a migrant background from more Southern countries. There are a lot of dark haired Germans and have always been there). And I also know that there are a hell lot of blonde French and Italian people. It was just the whole package. He just looked too Mediterranean for me. Like from Southern France, Southern Italy or Spain. And it angers me a bit cause Friedrich is a positive German figure. One of the few which are there in international media. Why not taking a German or Austrian actor for him? Yes, the actor did a fine job but I feel that a lot of very talented German actors just got totally not seen by the producers and that is not fair. And it is sad.

[@ajpat9620]

@@floralovespringandflowers6227 Frankly be told: Laura Dern and Emma Watson are splendidly casted in their roles as Marmee March and Meg March. Like, all this useless pathetic hating bulls**t on Emma Watson is worth for nothing. Like, she nailed her part, perfectly.

[@megalberda1733]

I could write a large essay comparing the 1994 version to the 2019 version to the book.

[@floralovespringandflowers6227]

Me too! 😂😂😂

[@floralovespringandflowers6227]

@@DOCU Yes, please! 😊

[@isabellamoya3934]

Same lol

[@AmaraEmme]

Do itttt

[@adriennepender673]

Just my opinion, it I didn’t like Chalamet as Laurie. He was fine as Laurie as a boy, but he was too immature to be the adult Laurie. Saiorse has such a fierce maturity that it was just a lop-sided relationship, TO ME. I’m a fan of the book, however I’ve never been a Jo/Laurie shipper, they were too ‘brother and sister’ for me. Jo has a big heart despite her toughness, and I always wanted someone worthy of her. At least in the 1994 version, Jo and Bhear have a relationship, where you could maybe see her love is justified. If Gerwig really wanted to keep Jo single, why change Bhear at all? I wasn’t a fan of the ambiguous end. I did like the movie, those were just the few things that bugged me.

[@mhawang8204]

I'm kind of curious if Chalamet being immature is the point. I always thought that Jo thought of Laurie as the boy next door/brother/friend because they grew up together. She could never see him as a man (she spoke of running away on a pirate ship before he proposed to her). And Jo was single in the end. She didn't wear a ring. Keep in mind that this movie basically collapses the lives of Jo March and Louisa May Alcott (hence the 2 book covers at the beginning and end). Bhear was written into the story because that was the only way Alcott could get her book published. He feels tagged on in this movie because Alcott/Jo never wanted to include him at all.

[@adriennepender673]

Alice Wang Yes, Gerwig consolidates Alcott’s life with Jo’s, and that Alcott’s publisher (and the public, I suppose) wanted Jo married off - I know all that. But again, if Bhear is just a device ( for Alcott and Gerwig) then why change him at all? Why make him young, and hot, and French, lol, if you’re just going to discard him in the end? The “because, I can” response from Gerwig just rubbed me the wrong way, as a writer myself. Bhear doesn’t feel AS tagged on in the book; he has substance and dimension.

[@dynesteefields4396]

@@adriennepender673 Its because this film is geared towards our time. An older Professor Bhaer would have creeped some people out.

[@vihmake]

@Adrienne Pender My thoughts exactly. I am so happy you mention it!

[@marlynnek6449]

Agree. Chalamet looks too young and scrawny. I think Watson didn't pull off eldest sister either. Physically wrong types.

[@yolandamorgan7096]

The 1994 movie blows away the 2019 version. Both actresses are good, but Winona Ryder was luckier to get the better movie.

[@somethingclever8916]

I agree. I see this as an Oscar push

[@pequena_ninera]

Not to mention Christian Bale is a great Laurie. I just didn't like the adult Amy they chose.

[@marionarda2790]

@@pequena_ninera especially since the mature extremely low voiced actress is playing Amy at age 11 to 12 . Ridiculous

[@SierraSeaWitch]

My favorite part of this movie was that it actually based the on-screen version of Amy March on the version of her in Book 2! It isn't that this movie worked to humanize her - it just followed the character development Louisa May Alcott wrote and the other movies ignored! I was so happy to see what Greta Gerwig did with the script and I loved this movie.

[@ichschlafegern]

Loved the cast. My only issue is Amy. Young Amy doesn't look young at all, which makes her childlike actions annoying af. Her face even looks more mature than ALL her sisters'. Oo They should at least have put more efforts into making her appear like the youngest sister, pigtails all the time etc.

[@glenngelvosa4904]

Not only did she look the oldest but also sounded like a chain-smoker.

[@TerraMystique]

I wish they would have used two actresses like they did with the 90's one. Anyone with half a brain would be able to tell they were playing the same character.

[@jacqchic86]

I felt like giving her the bangs throughout her childhood and transitioning to a full up do was how they represented her as younger in the flash backs

[@emersonelledge2219]

YES That was my one fault with this movie. I enjoyed in the 1990s version how they changed actresses for Amy, and I was hoping they would do that in this movie

[@brendadrew834]

Have seen all the "Little Women" movies ever made except this one! Will watch it at some point, but the 1994 one will always remain my very favorite one, beautifully filmed, acted with gorgeous music by Thomas Newman! I'm a modern day Marmee who lives in Liberal MA and has all daughters and lost my middle one to coma and brain injury! My oldest is a mom and artist and my youngest is also an artist like myself and is also a published author as well. "Art reflects life", life reflects art! Orchard House in Concord is open to the public and you can still see the bedroom and desk where Louisa May Alcott wrote the book and still see the piano in the front parlor and still see "Amy's" drawings on the walls of her bedroom! Contrary to what the narrator said, they were all "feminists" back then during the Transcendental era in the 1800s. "Marmee" in real life was the country's first social worker, "Meg" in real life was a teacher as was "Jo" along with being a writer and "Amy" an artist who died after childbirth! Louisa help raise her daughter until she was eight when she went back to Europe to live with her father! Louisa was also a nurse during the Civil War in Washington DC, got very sick and was never the same healthwise again. She was also the first woman to vote in a public school election back then! Louisa and her father a teacher/philosopher who was the first teacher to admit a black child into his school "Fruitlands' back then, died just days apart from each other! They're all buried except for "Amy" on Writer's Hill at Sleepy Hollow Cemetery with writers Nathaniel Hawthorne of "The Scarlet Letter" fame, Henry Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson!, May they all rest in peace~

[@jjescorpiso21]

Wow, really loved this information. I've adored the story but never bothered to look behind the scenes, so to say. Thank you :)

[@BeautifulSyrena]

The only thing that I didn't like about this version is that I felt that Laurie's and Jo's relationship was not shown as beautiful as in the book. I guess it was better for the audience because it's hard to see how Jo and Laurie were as one and then they split, but still I was hoping to see more of their friendship before he proposed

[@jenniferle8294]

i definitely agree!! By the time Laurie proposed to her in this film, i didn't really see how they had "fallen in love" besides them just seen next to each other in a couple of scenes. But the movie made up for that by really kiling it with laurie/amy's relationship. :)

[@prerna6420]

Ironically the one time I actually liked Professor Bhaer, Jo doesn't end up with him

I think it sorta leaves to the imagination. I like to believe they've remained friends and this close, deep friendship turned into something more in the years to come.

[@mischiefmanaged7274]

Oh why, I found him so interesting in the 1994 adaptation

[@blissclair9743]

I like him because she doesn't end up with him! :D

[@sassypants7536]

yeah exactly! I mean that man was beautiful, and clearly in love with her.

[@AlbertaRose94]

In the book it's a sweet romance that progresses to marriage and Jo inheriting Aunt Jo's house.

[@anedinburghgirl5851]

I HATED the achronological way the movie was filmed. It really put me off. I don’t think I would’ve minded as much if they’d had a younger actress play Amy (like in the 1994 version that I grew up with). The casting was amazing and Florence Pugh was brilliant but I think it was quite hard to distinguish between the time periods because she doesn’t look 13 or like a young teenager and there’s literally no difference between Amy 10 years ago and Amy in the present time. If I hadn’t seen the previous movie and read the book, I would’ve been very confused and in fact my friend and I were quite confused and thought we’d walked into the wrong screen for a few minutes at the start... I love everything else but I feel like that was something that made me not love this movie and only like it.

[@FatimaLopez-jr1th]

THANK YOU! Finally someone who hates the time jumping too! I keep reading about how amazing this idea was, and I hated it from the beginning. Mainly because I went to see it with my boyfriend, who knew almost nothing about the story (he bizarrely knew about Jo's writing, the rich neighbour and Jo cutting her hair, but didn't know about Jo and Lauire's relationship and Beth dying), so I was crushed when they talk about the two main plot points in the beginning of the movie. He literally said when the proposal scene started "But I now know she turns him down." And he was confused about Beth falling sick a second time, and asked me "But didn't she die already?" and I had to tell him "Not yet, I think this is the one." It was horrible.

[@FatimaLopez-jr1th]

Also, in this movie it is the first time I actually liked Amy, and the actress is amazing, but I just couldn't believe her as a 12 year old... and the time jumps didn't help with the confusion. *Rant over.*

[@anedinburghgirl5851]

Fátima López Oh my God. All of this! I think, for new/first time viewers or people who haven’t read the book, this adaptation completely ruined a couple of the main plot points. In the 1994 version I grew up with, you get to watch the characters grow and evolve and then you find out Jo doesn’t accept Laurie’s proposal and Beth dies when they’re all older. This one was jumping around so much and it completely ruined some of the really poignant and important moments. While this was the first time I’ve also not hated Amy, they really should’ve cast an actual 12 year old because it made it quite hard to distinguish between the time periods and I really would’ve gotten so confused if I’d known nothing about the film or the book and had gone to see it. I was confused enough with the prior knowledge! I think the lack of structure sort of ruined it for me. If you could edit the movie and put it in chronological order, I’d maybe be able to look past the 24 year old pretending to be half her age because she was such a great actress but I don’t know if I’d watch it again because it’s too confusing...

[@FatimaLopez-jr1th]

@@anedinburghgirl5851 I just said the same last night: this is one adaptation I don't think I will be revisiting any time soon.

[@anedinburghgirl5851]

Fátima López Definitely not! It has made me want to watch the 1994 adaptation again though!

[@AlbertaRose94]

In the book Jo inherits Plumfield, MARRIES Professor Bhaer, they have two children and turn Plumfield into a boarding school for difficult boys.

[@GillDawe]

I didn't mind the changes made, and I thought the added monologues from Amy and Jo really made a great impact. My only problem.. was that they didn't cast two actors to play Amy. The parts with her as a child made me SO uncomfortable at times, like when she needs money for limes, or when the teacher hits her. I get that it would be difficult with this structure to have two different actors playing the same character, but it really took me out of the movie every time we saw "young Amy." It was just so clearly a grown ass woman playing a child.

[@prerna6420]

I loved Amy and Laurie this adaption. They were finally done right

[@annasmith6090]

In Louisa May Alcott's letters to her publisher, there's no evidence that she was convinced to make Jo end up married. She has a letter to a friend of hers saying that Jo should've ended up a spinster and marriage sells, but a lot of people believe that she was just trying to impress her friend as she was extremely feminist. Louis May Alcott did have a few major crushes, so I think it likely that she wrote Jo an ending that would be her own ideal. It also completes Jo's character arc from pushing against womanhood to seeing its value.

[@christianealshut1123]

But I do think she originally did want Jo to end up a spinster - her full name is Josephine, i.e. she's actually named after Aunt March, who is a spinster. And there is also the issue of Aunt March leaving her house to Jo to give her some measure of independence.

[@annasmith6090]

@@christianealshut1123 Aunt March is a widow with no living kids not a spinster. She left the house to Jo because she really liked Jo a lot. The house wasn't enough for independence, she'd either have to pay to keep it up or sell it and live at home with her parents for forever. The money wouldn't last forever. Obviously everyone can have their own opinions about original intent, but imo Jo's arc is most fleshed out when she ends up married

[@VuMinhThuFPLHN]

Alcott is lesbian, bro

[@onemercilessming1342]

Any of the filmed versions of "Little Women" ASSUMED that the viewer had read the novels, since the book is actually TWO books (Little Women and Good Wives). So, I recommend reading Little Women before watching ALL of the filmed versions. Do watch all of them, preferably in the order of release. Each one is geared to the time it was released. Then read the sequels Little Men and Jo's Boys. Then read Eight Cousins and Rose in Bloom. Then read Under the Lilacs, Jack and Jill, a Garland for Girls, and An Old Fashioned Girl. After those, read Hospital Sketches, Work, The Inheritance, and A Long, Fatal Love Chase. Save A Long, Fatal Love Chase for last--then find the "forgotten thrillers" by Alcott if you can.

[@withniejules2244]

I've been trying to read Little Men for the longest time and I can't get through it for some reason. I'm still trying to read it. Love Little Women though.

[@onemercilessming1342]

@@withniejules2244--I had the same difficulty with Under the Lilacs. However, If one does a little research on the times, and if one has some historical background on living in Massachusetts (most notably about the bitterly cold winters), which was a VERY conservative state regarding the roles of women until at least the 1960s, Little Men should be easier to understand. First of all, Jo is the strength of the family. Professor Bhaer, her husband, starts to become a bit shadowy (as Jo's father was in Little Women/Good Wives). Remembering what a tomboy Jo was in her youth helps when seeing how she understands these boys, who get into all the normal scrapes boys of the time seemed to fall prey. If you're still having trouble with Little Men, try reading The Bobbsey Twins series. It's set in a slightly later period, but the oldest set of twins (there are two, a 12 year old set of boy and girl and a six year old set of boy and girl), Nan and Bert (the younger are Flossie and Freddie) feature as Nan is the steady one and Bert tries smoking behind the barn, nearly gets caught, and tosses away the corn silk cigarette...the rest is for you to read. However, it will help establish a setting for Little Men. Good luck. (Oh, by the way, sometimes the most rewarding books to have read are the ones that pose difficulty. I hated Jane Austen's books in junior high school (back in the day). Now, I reread them every few years.

[@onemercilessming1342]

@@87fio--Imagine my surprise when, at a layover in the Chicago Midway airport, I entered a bookstore and found a reprint of one of the earliest publications of Little Women/Good Wives that didn't transliterate Alcott's original phraseology (such as "box her ears" and "saleratus"). That was an incredible find. It was even printed in the two parts as separate novels in one binding. Keep looking, and, after you read them in Spanish, try reading them in English and compare the two languages.

[@jeansandjacketrequir]

I have already read "A Long, Fatal Love Chase." ;-)

[@CAJ100]

The achronological narrative was wrong. You lost the sense of the girls growing up, shedding their childhood. Also, no one was fooled by the lighting or bangs. They all looked 20-30 the whole time.

[@brooklynnenoe8371]

C H. Oh man I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks this. I think it was unnecessary and very distracting.

[@floralovespringandflowers6227]

It did bother me a bit and I watched adaptions, read the books and watched a series about the story. So I thought of all the poor souls who did not know the story and I found it hard for them. My friend, who went into the movie theatre with me, did not know the story and she said that she found it distracting and sometimes hard to catch up. I am therefore happy that you guys think that too. I did not find it suitable. And while it was a creative idea, I loved especially about the book that you can see these beautiful girls growing up. Cause the way of growing up is shown so beautiful. The movie ruins this a bit.

[@user-vm2rz3mg3v]

I personally loved that resource, I wasn't familiar with the storyline (because when I bought the book I accidentally bought a children's version so I was like, might as well watch the movie then) but I think it's really a matter of paying attention, I didn't find it distracting and really enjoyed putting the pieces together, to me it really didn't take away from the experience of seeing them grow, but I can see why people might have a hard time catching up. And obviously when you read the book you get the full experience so the movie is sometimes hard to like because it's not nearly as breathtaking as the book but I liked this adaptation and the way it was oresented

[@liv97497]

Okay I have to say that honestly, you just had to pay attention. I've never read the book or seen the other adaptations and I didn't have one shred of doubt over how the timelines were playing out. The visual differences were clear enough and I didn't even mind young Amy - I wasn't sure what her exact age was supposed to be but I guessed pre teen. *But* I understand that when you've seen other versions and read the book, you unavoidably have your own version in your head and it's impossible not to compare to what you feel it should be.

[@jenniferle8294]

Although I agree, yes it was a weakness that you didn't really get to grow up with them and therefore build that bond, I appreciated that this movie used their achronological narrative to dig deeper into other themes that other adaptations hadn't explored (eg Amy and Laurie). At least this movie was bringing something new to the table and provoked new conversations about this classic.

[@gothicavictoria1341]

No, the achronological timeline was not good. It made the story flow in a clumsy manner, made some scenes far less impactful than they are in the book and other adaptations, and makes for sloppy storytelling. The only reason why anyone is applauding this style is because they think it's fresh and cool. However, just because something is cool or new, doesn't make it good. There are ways to make achronological narrative can work if you employ it correctly and make it flow. The director didn't do that, and because of this, it made the flow of the movie's narrative clunky, clumsy, and not very emotional or impactful.

[@courtneysokal6590]

The 2019 version was very good and I enjoyed it very much, but the 1994 version is perfection.

[@anz10]

Check out the 1949 version that's my fav

[@courtneysokal6590]

anz10 I love that one! I used to check it out of our library when I was little and couldn’t get enough. I do adore 1994 though. I skated to the music and Christian Bale will forever be my Laurie. ♥️

[@anz10]

@@courtneysokal6590 the 1949 version was the first version I saw. I have just recently seen the 2019 one. The 1949 one will always be close to my heart 😁❤

[@cristinal8884]

👌👌👌

[@mrsloveydove4579]

No, gum is perfection! 😉

[@missdeejay]

Though Saoirse Ronan did a very good Jo, I think Winona Ryder is the best Jo, not just in the acting, but also in the physical description set in the novel (Jo was a brunette, with gray-brown eyes, not a strawberry-blonde girl with blue eyes). I didn't consider appropriate to cast Florence Pugh as both younger and older Amy, so I disagree with Ms Mojo when she says "Amy's characterization was right". Florence was great as older Amy, but younger Amy is supposed to be a 12-year-old in the novel, yet they have a very deep-voiced Pugh playing such 12-year-old. They should have casted a younger actress to play young Amy. Louis Garrel was a miscast for Bhaer, not just because he was young and handsome, but because his characterization of Bhaer is that of a cold, and distant man. Bhaer is described in the book as "kind and warm", who criticized Jo's writing with kindness and showing her his love for her.

[@no.1garlicbreadenthusiast]

He was incredibly kid & sweet in the 2019 version though he just was a little blunt with Jo about her writing one time & she flipped out.

[@jazziered142]

To me the Professor in the 1994 version is handsome.

[@rebeccam4397]

I sure didn't think so when I first watched the 1994 movie at 11, when it was brand new. But I loved the movie dearly. Now I'm 36 and I've probably seen it 20 times, and with maturity, Gabriel Byrne's Professor is more and more appealing.

[@mimesthaisilva8321]

I’ve always thought that actor was handsome. As I was watching this video I was like “WHAT???”

[@kerridwynntheacegoblin6465]

It reminds me of the 1983 BBC adaption of Jane Eyre, where they had Timothy Dalton, a decidedly handsome man, play Rochester, a man frequently described as unattractive and even ugly in the book. I was distracted every time he was on screen.

[@rebeccam4397]

@@kerridwynntheacegoblin6465 I never thought Timothy Dalton was handsome, but to each their own!

[@jenniferle8294]

me too!!!!!1 lol

[@mayaganguly5495]

I actually felt the scene with Marmee helping the war effort was particularly strong at showing viewers the Civil War on the home front. In many ways I was more moved by that one scene with the poor man whose son fighting than the other five adaptations I’ve watched.

[@redalbatross5649]

But most important, where are the bonnets.

[@siribaimusic]

right?? and what's with the hoopskirts in Paris? The civil war is long over and with it its fashion..

[@MsSonnencreme]

But bonnets are sooo ugly and would have hidden their faces

[@thatlemonadeguy6742]

Micarah Tewers, a real life american icon

[@redalbatross5649]

@@MsSonnencreme I don't want faces, I want historical accuracy.

[@francessmith9368]

Just another pretty movie without any understanding of the original book or the historical context. Lots of acting and frolics! Really! Isn't it a shame all these women didn't take the period or story seriously? Silly mistakes with costume design, everyone's hair flying about, no bonnets, no period refinement. Adhering to the period would explain the whole story. What this director has done is arrogantly lay her opinion on the tale and destroy it!

[@wangyuxiao1]

Everyone is talking about this newest version and the 1994 version, and here I am, still loving the 1949 version the most……

[@anz10]

Me tooooooo you're not alone

[@hitoshiigarashi5350]

That's a cartoon

[@stefannydvorak7919]

Hitoshi Igarashi No it’s not.

[@aicc1728]

2017 version was pretty great too

[@candi0826]

My fav one is with Winona Ryder haven’t seen the new one yet. But will always love that version better.

[@RoxyKandyKoRn55]

My favorite version with winona Ryder...Luved all the actors n actresses in the movie...Luved it so much bought the DVD😁

[@candi0826]

Roxy KandyKoRn me too 😊

[@zoharsarig9474]

AGREE Winona just is Jo.

[@siobhanmcshanehill895]

you can't know that if you haven't seen it

[@susannestein3955]

The 1994 version is my favorite one!

[@jamesparker760]

The whole cast was very competent, but the complete mastery and intuitive genius of Saoirse Ronan is unmatched. I saw the movie 7 times and was moved the same way each time. There was no "law of diminishing returns "here. Saoirse is the "BEST ACTRESS OF THIS GENERATION" elevating everything and everyone around her.

[@scottibrown3274]

I’m sorry, but there have been so many adaptations of Little Women, that I just didn’t see the big deal about the 2019 version. Don’t get me wrong, it was good, but to me, the 1994 version was the best

[@ajpat9620]

Nah.. Both the 2019 and the 1994 versions are equally the best.

[@MissMichoko38]

Same here even if I really like most of the casting choice! My favorite version will always be the 1994!!!!!

[@TishaMae]

1994 will always be the best version since it is true to story while having it's own heart. This felt like the director just wanted to make her own fanfic of the story honestly and from her quotes it seems it. Not to mention this is the third adaptation in two years... Give it time to breath people

[@ajpat9620]

@@TishaMae Nope. The 2019 version is now the best version. It surpassed and preceded the 1994 version. Still, both of these versions are equally superior.

[@TishaMae]

@@ajpat9620 you're entitled to your opinion but it's more of a self insert for the director and fanfic so no thanks. Plus 3rd one in two years figure out another story

[@namitma]

Can't thank Greta enough for this version. Strikes right in your heart💕

[@xxcris20xx]

Florence Pugh needs to win for best supporting actress.

[@hopewaterman4674]

100% agree

[@ajpat9620]

It's possible but the win goes to Laura Dern's performance in Marriage Story.

[@xxcris20xx]

@@ajpat9620 I hope not. Florence was way better in my opinion.

[@ajpat9620]

@@xxcris20xx Look. Everyone knows that Florence Pugh's performance was spectacular but she had little chance of winning that Oscar. That Oscar win is going for her co-star, Laura Dern and it's inevitable. Laura Dern has been winning major awards from the Golden Globes, SAG awards, and soon at the BAFTA. Her Oscar win is now assured. It is what it is.

[@xxcris20xx]

@@ajpat9620 I don't think she has a little chance to win. In comparison with what other people said, she was their favorite. Maybe she doesn't win, i think Laura will win too (i don't agree but that's other conversation) but Florence will be more recognized because of that. Getting an oscar nomination is really amazing, no problem if she doesn't win.

[@emilymarguerita2781]

Claire Danes was such a perfect Beth. Her scenes break my heart every time I watch them.

[@winesalot6876]

I enjoyed the movie, and some of the things she changed and twisted I liked, others I didn't. Best part: How fleshed out Amy was. I loved Amy more than Jo in this version, and Jo has always been my favorite. Amy ended up being the best of both words (good and evil, egocentric and humble, intelligent and oh-so-dumb) and her speech to Laurie was *chef kiss*. Worst: How dirty she did Behr. Poor Behr. Even if he never ended up with Jo, I feel like the director was just making fun of him the whole time. She made him a young, hot guy (he was neither). She made his last line and the lead up seem like a big joke (it felt really sweet in the book, even if that wasn't how the author wanted it to end). He was deep and thoughtful, kind and humble. In my mind he is Prince Charming, because he respects Jo as much as he loves her. He's not afraid to be honest with her and he treats her as equal, he values her talent and knows she is better than the stories she sells to the paper. How she had him portrayed almost ruined the movie for me (no disrespect to the actor, I'm sure he's lovely). EDIT: For grammar! And spelling!

[@mwyz]

I really liked the film overall but I don't really see what others do in the Amy/Laurie relationship. Maybe partially because Chalamat can't replace Christian Bale as my mental Laurie? But I also just didn't feel much chemistry. Kind of similarly for the Friedrich/Jo relationship, tbh. I didn't really feel a spark. I really appreciate the family dynamics in the 2019 version, but I think 1994 nailed down the romance a lot better.

[@morganlee8602]

1mwyz I wish the 2019 Amy and Laurie scenes had been in the 1994 version. This has been my favorite book since I was a little girl and Amy was my favorite, so even as a kid I was disappointed that we didn’t see her character develop in that movie like we did in the book. I also don’t think anyone can beat Kirsten Dunst’s portrayal of child Amy 💗 Its too bad that adult Amy in the 1994 adaptation was shown to be so very bland and proper to the point of seeming almost emotionless, which was hard to watch, but Christian Bale will always be Laurie in my head.

[@ajpat9620]

However, there's some chemistry of Timothee Chalamet with Saoirse Ronan as Laurie and Jo.

[@ajpat9620]

As a matter of fact, both the 2019 and the 1994 version had a tie of conveying the romance.

[@floralovespringandflowers6227]

I am so happy you have the same opinion as I. I love the 1994 version. And also because I think that it showed the March's childhood in such a beautiful, cozy and wonderful way but was still feministic. Cause the original story itself was very feministic for its time. So 1994 did not have to force this on us cause it came clear through the original story itself and there 2019 is different. In 2019 a lot is explained, spoken out directely, for example when Amy tells Laurie why she wants to marry rich. In 1994 things are less clear spoken out but still evident.

[@welsan-4115]

Agree about Christian Bale. I also liked Jonah Hauer-King as Laurie in the 2017 PBS version.

[@Mark_R_Tho]

I thought the 90’s Professor Bhaer was way, way hotter🤷🏽‍♂️

[@NiceDrivewayy]

soul sessions tv Bdhrh Christian Bale for the win

[@KrystyneY]

I was thinking that the whole time. I felt like he was the kind of man Jo deserved, a true partner.

[@adriennepender673]

Gabrial Byrne, YUM. :)

[@elsagreen1476]

The non-linear narrative was dynamic and kept me engaged, but it made things confusing. It also failed in strongly buiding up the characters' personalities so the emotional payoffs are diminished. That being said, it's a glorious film. I had so much fun, I cried, and the casting is superb. Literally not one issue with the actors. Lovely film!

[@sassypants7536]

yeah i think you nailed it there, about the emotional payoff. I like that we get to see the sisters as adults and in the future, but Beth's death doesn't pack such an emotional punch since we know it's already happened.

[@mooalijasmine]

I wish film makers didn’t shy away from linear story telling. I blame Lost for the trend. It’s rarer now to see a film or series episode that doesn’t automatically employ the future and rewind or past and fast forward jumping back n forth as a lazy plot device that in itself is meant to create suspense and surprise, but that I ultimately find vastly overused, formulaic, and more than a bit of a cheat. Gerwig doesn’t employ it nearly as tactlessly in this film as it gets used industry wide over the past decade. But it’s automatic use I think detracts where a linear telling would be better storytelling, and I think her movie also would have felt truer linearly. As for its rampant use as a default in media now in general, it allows for unorganised writing and is a transparent loophole used to change tacts as often as a writer changes sensibilities, or even to accommodate the actual change in writers! Ugh... please someone who doesn’t function like a schizophrenic come along who can remain loyal to linear storytelling...

[@frogmouth]

I thought it allowed the characters of Laurie Jo Amy Marmee and Aunt March to come through more strongly than in previous versions while under emphasizing Beth and Meg

[@maevequigley4727]

In my opinion, this version of Little Women missed the mark in so many ways... 1. Casting of all non-Americans in the lead sister roles was a poor choice. I believe that "America" itself is a background character to the Little Women story; American women, coming of age, at a particular time of America finding its core identity. I believe that the casting of non-Americans was slightly distracting to the spirit of the character of America, and made me less invested in the characters. 2. Casting of Amy with a mid-20s actress, playing a 13-year old was too much a stretch. 3. No shade to the actor who played Laurie in this version.... but he seemed much too young to be a believable love interest. 1994 Little Women with Christian Bale was perfection! 4. I believe the a-synchronistic timeline only was confusing and gave no helpful new or interesting angle t to the story. 5. Jo's ending where she herself negotiated with the editor about selling her book, and agreed to add in a husband for herself was an interesting nod to Lousia May Alcott's true story -- but Jo was not Lousia May Alcott. Little Women was not an autobiography of Louisa May Alcott's life, but rather, was inspired by her life. This book was fiction, as were its subsequent sequels. I think it was a poor choice to rip back the veil of the story and show its fabrication of Professor Baehr as part of reality. If they wanted reality, a "true story" of Louisa May Alcott would have been a better movie and more honest in its purpose. 6. The pacing. Lines were shouted on top of each other, and the level of hysterial joviality felt forced. So many of the very best lines from the book were lost by the actors rushing over each other to speak. ("Jo, your hair! Your one beauty." Best line ever, almost entirely lost!) 7. I was so disinterested in this version of Beth that I didn't even cry when she died. What did they do to ruin BETH?? 8. As a lifelong fan of the Little Women books, movie adaptations, and as a person who has taken a pilgrimage to the Alcott family home in Concord, Massachusetts, I must say.... I thought this movie was the worst of the adaptations of the book. I know some people loved this movie, but to me, the director seemed more dedicated to playing with the story from a new angle, rather than celebrating the magic, and deeply touching relationships and growth of the characters in this book. Phew! Glad I got all of that off my chest!

[@thelanehunter]

You can’t have both the achronological timeline and not knowing Beth was sick.

[@notyourdays]

Ikr

[@maggiepeterson7915]

Little Women 2019 was beyond fabulous! Saiorse Ronan and the other actors nailed their parts. Greta Gerwig directed an amazing film!

[@joannaangstadt4878]

Here’s my thing: they like the time change but hate beths story arc. Stay with the original timeline and this wouldn’t happen.

[@nayjay468]

I didn't like the casting of Tim Chalamet as Laurie. Yes, he is young and talented, but he looks like he is 15 the whole time and I couldn't see that Jo would be tempted at all as a woman.

[@shinoharagarcia4769]

True!

[@beatrizg9696]

but she wasn't tempted, she never loved him that way

[@jacqchic86]

Other than his overly youthful appearance, I feel like he embodied the role very well, to a T! Watching him as Laurie made me feel like I was reading the novel while it was on screen. Magnificent

[@ajpat9620]

This is bulls**t, really. Timothee Chalamet is exceptionally casted as Laurie. His great chemistry with Saoirse Ronan as Jo made the movie so good and special.

[@ingec1736]

@@ajpat9620 I think people can just disagree with eachother on that? I thought he was annoying and looked like a child. (Okay, maybe that was just the character, in that case he did a good job:P)

[@tiffcomiskey6197]

You didn't even mention how Laurie told Jo he was married. It was a surprise in the book, yes, but she already knew about their engagement. It wasn't sprung on her completely unexpectedly like in this movie.

[@happyclassygirly]

I did not liked this version at all, Laurie looks like a 16y old when Jo and Amy looked way more matured and older than him there was no chemistry between them. I hated the going back and forth, so confusing and their hairs didn’t matched how they wore it at that time. Just off. I loved the Wyona rider version so much

[@angelina_allanson8759]

The clothes weren't right at all either, it's like they did no research

[@lolablake9196]

I could tell that they used to be rich I found it clear especially with aunt march and I have never read the book. But also I was paying a lot of attention as I love period dramas while the friend I saw it with just got confused but mainly with the unchronological order.

[@MaddyIts2am]

I love the ending being up for interpretation in the way it was shown was a stroke of genuis. Everyone ended up happy with what they chose to see.

[@annasanmiguel611]

I honestly didn’t like that the end made the audience question what was real and what wasn’t. It was just confusing and I had no idea what was going on.

[@quattrocchicollectsquattro3228]

So basically it was like Joker...

[@florf317]

Laurie hitting on all the sisters annoyed me a lot. It's like he couldn't decide on who he liked, or like he was just trying to see which of them would fall for it first. Ugh I hated him throughout the movie.

[@ingec1736]

This!

[@annas.5894]

Flor Fh - exactly

[@myludu]

and yet he had no chemistry with anyone

[@josefins8215]

Hmm but he’s like that in the books to..

[@coolgirlzinuwu1615]

what the hell?! no! laurie was simply very familiar with the girls and teased them and joked around with them. and if you’re talking about jolaurie and amylaurie, jo herself refused laurie’s affection, and amy when confesses of her feelings, laurie feels that this is the right match and his love for jo was a bond much more beautiful than romantic affection.

[@olivia1052]

Has no one noticed that Florence Pugh was trying to play a child? That was completely ridiculous.

[@mathsisdeadtomenow]

That was so weird for me cause at first i thought she was a really young actress (having never seen her before) then in later scenes all of a sudden i was like wait what how'd she grow up so fast!

[@thisaintmee]

Yeah I found it extremely weird as well. Especially with her very mature voice (which I still find irritating). However her acting was incredible! And I think she did justice to the character. She deserves that Oscar nod.

[@marionarda2790]

@@thisaintmee should have used a child to play a child

[@thisaintmee]

@@marionarda2790 agreed

[@irawilliams343]

Jo will always be the best among the March sisters for me. She's strong-willed, independent, fierce and beautiful.

[@sassypants7536]

@soul sessions tv Bdhrh I agree, I love Amy's sassiness as a child and an adult. I like that they made her more self aware and less selfish in the 2019 version though.

[@charlenerafferty3534]

It's Williams all the way Jo no 1 best hate Amy she the worst

[@kerryperryman3025]

Liked it but liked the one from the 90's better.

[@Nathann556]

I almost think this movie demands 2 views. The first time you watch it, I believe a person is weighted down by previous versions of it. If you let this one breathe its own life with a second view, it becomes a masterpiece.

[@CaritoWest]

The 1994 version of ‘Little Women’ was aligned to the book and made the character ‘Jo’ (Josephine) shine to her splendour, creativity and free spirit. Jo was a fighter for what she wanted, ‘despite’ being a girl in those years. Everyone could feel it in her acts, her words, her gestures, her love to live, her sacrifices. In the book, Amy did not have so much presence because the writer’s intention was to make Jo (Josephine) shine. Her intention was to show the power of a girl to fight for her ideals, her passion, fight for her values, family, for the truth! The version of 1994 could perfectly transmit that passion to the audience without the need of dialogue modifications. The performance of Winona Ryder, Susan Sarandon, Christian Bale, Gabriel Byrne, and the rest of the cast did the trick. They played natural, the tone of their voices matched with the intensity and meaning of their words, the body gestures and movements, their eyes! It was all presented and perceived by the audience without the necessity of modifying dialogues In this version, dialogues or thoughts shout out ‘forced’, ‘fake.’ The 2019 version’s actresses add extra drama and that is when the whole story falls into pieces. To make it worse, the director added a line with reference to Prof Bhaer, ‘No, you are not an immigrant, no need to leave’ That was totally out of place. Laurie (Timothée Chalamet) does not have the same charisma as Christian Bale (1994). The same happens with Prof Bhaer, Louis Garrel is not engaging at all, no way to compare this one to Gabriel Byrne (1994). Jo played by Winona Ryder in 1995 and Marmee, Susan Sarandon, were outstanding!!! Here, the current version’s director made the characters say long dialogues and it is boring to the point that it seems like if the personages were reading the script they memorised. We all know how hard it was for women during that time in history, how invisible and useless a woman could have been seen; limiting their roles to mothers and wives. When you read the book, everyone notices it; and we all know it from history. In this version, we feel like if the actresses would be reading from the Wikipedia what the role of a woman was and why her only hope was to marry well. It feels that way when Amy says it. I was very disappointed to the point that I think, Greta Gerwig (director) modified the dialogues to her convenience; with the confidence that she would get an Oscar nomination because she is a woman and this statement is so fashionable!

[@athena4gd]

While I liked this version, I didn’t love it. Friedrich was wrong, and the jumps in the timeline made my husband want to leave the theater.

[@sassypants7536]

yeah, i found the timeline and the mesh between Jo as a character and Louisa May Alcott as an author publishing the book confusing. I liked the fresh perspective on such a well worn story, but it could have been executed better I think. Also I agree, that Beth had no personally beyond ''the girl who dies.'' I love Amy in any version though, just because she's such a sassy brat. Her speech about woman in the 2019 version was so well done, and added a bit more depth and thought to her character.

[@Itstephaniie]

I watched Little Women and while I enjoy it, I still believe that no one could do Laurie right aside from Christian Bale.

[@hitoshiigarashi5350]

Christian Bale = Laurie

[@leilaniwestlund2694]

Itstephaniie hmm ik what you mean. timothee was definitely my fav laurie though

[@hitoshiigarashi5350]

2019 version to 1994 is like Marry Poppins Returns to Mary Poppins.

[@MariaLuisa-vv4ug]

I do not think Greta Gerwig would've been the right person to tackle an issue such as slavery ya'll

[@marlyroberts]

I’m confused as to why not. It’s not like it’s a controversial statement to have one of her characters say “slavery is wrong”. The 1994 version did it at least twice, in much more flowery language, but nevertheless. And it’s not like it wouldn’t have been true to Alcott’s experience: her parents were stanch abolitionists and their home was literally a stop on the Underground Railroad.

[@MariaLuisa-vv4ug]

@@marlyroberts Well, Greta does make a mention of it once in the movie, when Amy is talking with the girls at school before she gets caught drawing. And a broader statement when Marmee is working at the train station

[@marlyroberts]

Maria Luísa Yeah, I thought she did a fine job addressing it. I was more wondering why you specifically think she isn’t the “right person to tackle an issue such as slavery”

[@MariaLuisa-vv4ug]

@@marlyroberts In a deeper way than the mentions? I'm sure she is aware of race issues and sensitive to them, but that is different from being truly capable of capturing the nuances of such a dire and sensitive topic. We are at a place right now where flippant portrayals of racism don't cut it anymore, and were she to include anything more in the movie, that's exactly how it would've had to be, because she wasnt looking to tell a story about the civil war, she was looking to tell a story about 4 sisters coming of age. It is hard to treat a subject like slavery justly when it isn't the focus, or at least one of the main themes, and in a movie already so packed with multiple storylines, it would've been very very easy to fall into trivialization of the issue, exploitation of it, or downright white savior trope. It's certainly her place to support and include people of color in her movies, I just happen to think it's not her place to attempt telling their deeper truths.

[@marlyroberts]

Maria Luísa I see where you’re coming from. It just seems strange to me that you think a white director is incapable of discussing something so simple (slavery = bad) because it has to do with racism.

[@barel1384]

I had trouble telling childhood from adulthood - I didn't notice the difference in light at first, and then I thought it was meant to be pre and post Beth's death.

[@ingridaguero6460]

Are these people American or British. I'm hearing accents every now and then.

[@ThePerksdeLeSarcasmeSiorai]

_ Saoirse Ronan (who played Jo) is culturally Irish but she was born in Brooklyn, raised in Ireland, and has dual citizenship of Ireland the United States. _ Emma Watson (who played Meg) is British but was born in Paris. _ Florence Pugh (who played Amy) is British through and through. _ Eliza Scanlen (who played Beth) is an Australian who was born and raised in Sydney.

[@elsagreen1476]

Everyone in the world has an accent.

[@jeansandjacketrequir]

The actors may not be American but they do try to effect a mid 19th century New England accent that is quite different than a 2020 midwestern accent. It is actually amazing how many British actors can speak a reliable American accent (especially southern). Think of Vivian Leigh in Gone with the Wind and Andrew Lincoln as Rick Grimes in “The Walking Dead”.

[@retnohapsari828]

Pugh is too old and her voice is too heavy she looks and sound so much mature then what we think of Amy

[@quattrocchicollectsquattro3228]

I hated her

[@chiara3536]

@@quattrocchicollectsquattro3228 noo why?

[@reillymckay3419]

​@@quattrocchicollectsquattro3228 i feel like the reason a lot of people hated her is because of how old she looked in the 2019 version, when really she was only 12. So everybody thought that she should be acting maturely and not be throwing all those fits, when really she had so many reasons that a lot of viewers didn't understand. Also because people misunderstood Jo's and Laurie's relationship and how it ended, so they thought they Amy ruined it for them, when really Jo and Laurie were platonic soulmates, and Amy had loved him her whole life. It was supposed to be when he saw Amy when she was grown as a women that he realized how he had always disregarded her as "Jo's little sister" as he was so absorbed in Jo. And how much he realized he loved Amy as a women.

[@leonishart226]

I remember reading Little Women when I was younger, but only the first part as I didn’t know that there was a second. The first part ends at the Marches celebrating Christmas and Beth alive and well. So, I naturally thought that Beth survived. Later I read Little Men and I kept waiting for Beth to show up or be mentioned. It wasn’t until the end of the book that I realised that Beth was dead and I spent the next hour sobbing.

[@rosebookfan7677]

I ❤️ heart this version! Everyone the actresses, actors, Director, producers, designers, etc. did a phenomenal job with this movie!

[@rainyd4293]

I still prefer the 1994 version cuz of Winona Ryder ❤️

[@JSzoo16]

I found too many issues with the movie. Little Women is one of my favourite books, but I just didn't love this adaptation. Beth's death was poorly done. The casting was wrong, age-wise. Timothee Chalamet looked like a sixteen-year boy the whole time and they should have casted someone who looked older than Florence Pugh in-order-to make her look like the youngest of the four. The casting of Professor Bhaer was wrong, it defeats the purpose of that character and his storyline to cast a young, obviously good looking Frenchman. It felt like I was watching a terrible romcom towards the end.

[@stardustangel3528]

Jennifer Sander O'Hearn Okay, but what’s the big deal if he looks 16 the whole time? Some people just look young for a long time.

[@marsescobin]

agree on this

[@astrinymris9953]

I read the book as a child. It wasn't my all-time favorite, but it was a good read. I never thought of Amy as a villain, just a child who grew up over the course of the book.

[@messer12]

You know I never thought amie was bad...that was like selling point for the film...but I always that she just saw things differently...

[@mooalijasmine]

I found this the least sympathetic of all the Amys, although I appreciate this version showing that she’d had a crush on him from the start. As well, I liked that she was self aware. In this movie, I was left feeling that Laurie would always sense Jo was his first true love, and I thought that Amy was pushing a bit too enthusiastically for Jo to partner with the immigrant so that it would all come out seemingly tidy. As it is, this film actually had me thinking that yes, Jo may have been second guessing herself, but it also seemed just as plausible that having opened herself to the possibility that she and Laurie could have worked out. I really appreciated that too late realisation she had that an opportunity was no longer available. As well, she did lose a love, and that’s devastating. A strong feeling that someone had for her is now altered, and that loss was felt strongly in a way that to me paralleled how events on their own accord meant Jo had to move beyond the burning of her book just as the marriage of Amy meant that Jo had to return to the idea of Laurie as a brother, but now not only not a future husband, but also not the best friend she could pal around with.

[@BelovedCaptain]

This version was okay. I do think you lose a lot of Beth’s character development and I don’t think it’s nearly got the same amount of emotion as earlier adaptations. But it’s not bad. The ‘90s version is definitely preferable for me

[@marylewis3754]

Having seen all adaptations now....I love Greta's. Not that I didn't like the others, I did. They each have their merit. I think I watched so many interviews with Greta that I was in her heart as well as her head. Will be seeing it again this weekend with my granddaughters who have never read the novel. Shame on our education system in this country.

[@Ebathora]

The great thing about Gerwig’s Little Women adaptation is that it really is for the fans of the story already! I can see how it’d still be enjoyable to watch as an introduction to it, but seeing how the plot and the characters and little details are played with in this movie is so masterful. Everytime I rewatch it, I can find another clever and thoughtful detail Gerwig put in. Then I can go back and reread the books, and even see that in a whole new light because of what Gerwig chose to highlight in her movie. This movie deserved so many more wins and hype, in my opinion.

[@Io-uj9iz]

Despite differences I love every single version of this book because each one reflects its own historical contest. But I will always remember the 1949 version ( with the strongest Jo/ June Allyson as ever) with both joy and melancholy... I used to see it when I was a child, before 1994 version.

[@YankeeCountess]

personally, I love the relationship between Jo and Friedrich, but the 1994 version handles it the best. Despite the age gap, we can see that they are two people of the same mind and it's through books that they fall in love. If Jo did ever marry, it would have to be a man whose intellect rivaled/complimented her own to win her. This is why I never was on the Jo/Laurie ship. The 2019 version is the only version that I feel does the Laurie/Amy relationship justice

[@JasmineLajeunesse]

It always annoyed me that Jo ditched Laurie for that old dude. Especially when it was Christian Bale!! Omg what a hottie

[@conormurray3865]

Saoirse Ronan = Winona Ryder Kirsten Dunst > Florence Pugh Florence Pugh > Samantha Mathis Claire Danes > Eliza Scanlen Trini Alvarado > Emma Watson Susan Sarandon = Laura Dern Christian Bale > Timothee Chalamet Meryl Streep > Mary Wickes 1994 > 2019

[@ajpat9620]

You've got some parts wrong: Emma Watson = Trini Alvarado Florence Pugh > Kristen Dunst and Samantha Mathis Timothee Chalamet = Christian Bale Meryl Streep = Mary Wickes 2019 = 1994

[@conormurray3865]

@@ajpat9620 The only one I stand by is Kirsten Dunst, she stole the show as young Amy, its more believable that she is bratty and spoilt because she is literally a child, I found Florence Pugh was too old to play young Amy and it didnt really work. However more time is spent on older Amy in the 2019 version and that works in Pugh's favour and she is excellent

[@ajpat9620]

@@conormurray3865 On the contrary, Florence Pugh was believable and convincing in portraying both old and young Amy. She's more better than Kristen Dunst, due to the fact that the new version had a convincing character arc.

[@conormurray3865]

@@keira5999 Amy is the youngest March sister, and its very confusing that Florence Pugh is ment to be younger than Eliza Scanlen in the flashbacks, which is why i find Amy's actions are more believable in the 94 version as Kirsten Dunst is literally a child, so her lashing out and burning Jo's manuscript isn't as sinister but more brat like

[@stefaniachatzigiannidou1660]

Although I absolutely love the 1994 version, Greta breathed new life into this storyline. I think the reason it was different to all the previous adaptations is that, all four sisters get the amount of attention and love they deserve, and we get to observe their character development and insights just as much as Jo's. They're all protagonists, and that is what Greta made sure to note while directing. There were many scenes focusing on the life of each sister instead of just Jo's (although she gets the most scenes, that's expected and not bothersome). I was taken aback by Amy's portrayal and development, Meg's expression of her point of view and how women might have a dream of marrying and raising a family (and that this is definitely ok), Beth's feelings and pure heart being highlighted and supported & of course by the magical Jo this version also brought to life, digging deeper into the loneliness of her passion for staying alone and free. Every version is made to fit its time's purposes and seeing girls be able to relate to all the sisters is beautiful. Love all the other versions as well :)

[@elizaschuchman6481]

I like the whole “Beth dies” thing because as a book fan, I DIE every time a character I love dies. So, i made it easier to let her go when she died because I had the idea in my head she probably won’t get better. I still love her and feel very connected to her, and maybe I did still cry when she died, but it did help from my perspective.