Not My "Little Women"
I grew up watching the 1949 film of "Little Women" with June Allyson as Jo and always loved it. Then Winona Ryder portrayed the writer, Jo, in the 1994 version and I fell in love all over again. Try as I might, the classic with Katherine Hepburn has never appealed to me.
Learning that SPN's own Kathryn Newton would be playing Amy in a new adaptation of the story, I was eager to see it. Well, I just finished watching the 3 hours online and...I'm sadly disappointed.
From the weird, sexualized opening scene I wasn't sure what to expect. Ultimately, I found this version of the story to be boring. Why did it take them 26 minutes before even showing Jo doing any writing??? In the other movies, it's obvious that writing is Jo's passion! And where were the plays Jo wrote that were put on by the sisters? None of that was here. When Amy burns Jo's manuscript you have to wonder why Jo is so upset. Because up until that moment you don't get a feeling that she's been pouring her heart and soul onto paper for years.
I did think Kathryn did a fine job as Amy and I felt she dealt with the age stretch pretty well. I wanted to like the actress playing Jo, but I felt no connection with her or with her and the time period she was supposed to be in. In difference, the gal playing the older sister did a wonderful job with the prim & proper, Meg.
And why did they make the maid, Hannah, so angry and dislikable??? WTH?
I don't know. They stretched out some things too long and others felt rushed. There's so little connection formed between Jo and Professor Baher. They go to one philosophical symposium and then she rushes off back home! In the other films they went to the circus and the opera...she sewed his button on his coat. None of that for this film! A couple of quick conversations and hey! this is enough to have these 2 be married by the end. *sigh*
I loved the pretty cinematography. All the quiet and beautiful in-between moments of rain and sun, flowers and clothing on the line. They were lovely, but that doesn't make a great film. In all honesty, I've never read the book. I have it. Have attempted to read it a few times, but have never really gotten into it. Some day I shall. But I feel even without that knowledge, this adaptation would fall flat. It simply didn't bring the characters to life as it should have.
Learning that SPN's own Kathryn Newton would be playing Amy in a new adaptation of the story, I was eager to see it. Well, I just finished watching the 3 hours online and...I'm sadly disappointed.
From the weird, sexualized opening scene I wasn't sure what to expect. Ultimately, I found this version of the story to be boring. Why did it take them 26 minutes before even showing Jo doing any writing??? In the other movies, it's obvious that writing is Jo's passion! And where were the plays Jo wrote that were put on by the sisters? None of that was here. When Amy burns Jo's manuscript you have to wonder why Jo is so upset. Because up until that moment you don't get a feeling that she's been pouring her heart and soul onto paper for years.
I did think Kathryn did a fine job as Amy and I felt she dealt with the age stretch pretty well. I wanted to like the actress playing Jo, but I felt no connection with her or with her and the time period she was supposed to be in. In difference, the gal playing the older sister did a wonderful job with the prim & proper, Meg.
And why did they make the maid, Hannah, so angry and dislikable??? WTH?
I don't know. They stretched out some things too long and others felt rushed. There's so little connection formed between Jo and Professor Baher. They go to one philosophical symposium and then she rushes off back home! In the other films they went to the circus and the opera...she sewed his button on his coat. None of that for this film! A couple of quick conversations and hey! this is enough to have these 2 be married by the end. *sigh*
I loved the pretty cinematography. All the quiet and beautiful in-between moments of rain and sun, flowers and clothing on the line. They were lovely, but that doesn't make a great film. In all honesty, I've never read the book. I have it. Have attempted to read it a few times, but have never really gotten into it. Some day I shall. But I feel even without that knowledge, this adaptation would fall flat. It simply didn't bring the characters to life as it should have.