Support group for those who didn’t enjoy the new Little Women movie

[PuppyMonkey]

SPOILERS!!!!

I feel guilty for even DARING to say this in RL, everybody seems to love it, it’ll win all the awards and Oscars and everything, of course it will.

And I did like some of the performances and stuff.

But God, I hated what they did with the flashbacks and flash forwards. I went with two girls who should have loved this and from talking to them afterwards, they clearly didn’t understand a lot of it. Eg that Beth was ill and recovered but got ill again and died. They though Jo was dreaming the bit where she recovered.

And they didn’t realise that Meg had children.

I know I know, they might be just a bit slow on the uptake , but it shouldn’t be a confusing story.

They took the heart out of the story imho. What’s worse, they made it boring.

There’s a scene towards the end where Jo writes her book and has all the pages spread out on the floor, getting them in the right order. IF ONLY GRETA HAD DONE THAT WHEN SHE PUT HER FILM TOGETHER.

I’m sorry. But I need to know I’m not alone.

I thought it was all so Hollywood. Very twee. And I didn’t like the way it jumped about - very confusing.
I’m so glad I got to say that. The friends I was with loved it and the audience clapped at the end of the film. I just didn’t get it

They though Jo was dreaming the bit where she recovered.
Was it not a dream when she ran downstairs and going her sat at the table?

I never wanted to see it but took a service user. Absolutely loved it. Would never watch it myself. Also recently watched David copperfield and that just dragged.

@MyDcAreMarvel oh dear, you too?

No, Beth got Scarlet fever and recovered - That was the scene where Jo rushed downstairs and saw Beth sitting at the table.

Then later Beth got poorly again (I think the scarlet fever affects her heart or something) and that time, she died. Which was the scene where Jo rushed downstairs to find Marmie weeping.

It was all done so badly, I’m still getting cross about it.

Clapping at the end? FFS.

To those not understanding the ending... Greta Gerwig has confirmed Jo ends as a spinster in her version (she holds the book alone at the end - her ‘baby’). The school and the marriage are just the ending the publisher demanded...

I took my DDs. DD2 and I had watched the TV series a few years ago so she understood what was going on. There was lots of heated whispering with DD1 because she had no idea what was going on so I had to keep saying 'flashback!' to her.

I enjoyed bits of it. Jo and Laurie should never have married, Jo doesn't respect him, he's a spoilt boy, the Professor is her intellectual equal, it's a meeting of minds. Amy grows up and sorts Laurie out so he'll be a loyal husband to her. For women of that class in that time marriage was the only way to acquire money, she was the only one who listened to their aunt and married 'well'. Marriage in pre-20th century books are about economics not love.

I liked the split ending, particularly because LMA had been told to marry off Jo and so changed the ending of the book. It's like Marianne marrying Colonel Brandon, it's needed for the 'happy ever after' but isn't necessarily true to the character.

And agree with Ursula, the cinematography and visual references were wonderful.

So Little Men and Jo's Boys are a figment of my imagination?

A figment of your and Jo’s imagination! The film follows the plot of the book. She then meets her publisher who tells her to change the ending so we have the fictional ‘umbrella kiss’ tangent and the real Jo spinster tangent to choose between...

@PuppyMonkey but what did you think about the flashbacks?

@UrsulaPandress I loved Little Men and Jo's Boys. In the series of books, these two were my favourites.

Yes I didn’t realise it was a flashback. I haven’t read the book , just heard the vague plot line. Feel a bit stupid now

I totally agree. I read it 25 years ago so the disturbed narrative didn’t work for me. And there were a couple of monologues about the limitations of women’s lifestyles that seemed way too obvious and sledgehammer for me. I didn’t hate it, but it’s just not worthy of the hype.

I saw it at the weekend. I loved the cinematography, the costumes and music. However as someone who has not read the book the constant flashbacks made it all very confusing to follow. As mentioned previously everyone looks the same age through the whole films so it was very hard to keep up with whether we were in ‘present’ or a flashback. Particularly the scenes of ‘current’ Beth being ill intermittently with scenes of her ill in the past

I loved the version with Susan Sarandon and Wynona Ryder. I will however watch the latest film when it comes to Amazon Prime in the near future and see what I think.

It is tooth enamel destroyingly saccharine-sweet.

I was bored rigid by it , especially by the endless group hugs and everyone lolling around with heads in laps. The only consolation is our local Odeon is dead cheap and I was using a Times subscription 2 for price of 1 ticket.

Saoirse Ronan and Florence Pugh were watchable (although compared to Pugh's performance inLady Macbeth of the Mtsensk Districtthis was pretty dreary milk sop stuff)

Emma Watson was , as usual, completely pointless and could have been out acted by a cardboard cut out.

The men were all too tedious to waste any time commenting on.

I agree the hair grew back unbelievably fast! The flashbacks are because that’s the trend nowadays and every other thing I watch seems to be filmed like this. It was indeed weird that Beth died and then was there again for ages straight afterwards in the form of a flashback.

Ooo I saw it and was very conflicted.

What I didn't like:

The same actress playing young and mature Amy. She was ludicrous in the school room scene.

The pace at which they all talked and talked over one another in the early scenes. It made them seem a bit obnoxious and affected to me.

Marmee! She came across as a bit smugly goody-goody, whereas in the books she was just earnest and kind.

Jo fancying the prof on the doorstep because of his face rather than just being intrigued by his kindness and gentlemanliness as she is in the book.

The injected speeches on the economics of marriage etc. They felt anachronistic.

Ditto Jo and Laurie dancing when they first meet. Some of the dancing looked so modern!

Amy's candle held for Laurie?! What?!

The squashing of events together, e.g. Beth's sickness with the arrival of the pianoforte, which I felt diluted both events.

I quite liked the freshness of the flashback structure but I agree it was confusing and I don't know how anyone unfamiliar with the books would manage.

The terrible scene towards the end where everyone tells Jo she is in love with the prof... That was bad enough but then rather than running up the path after him when he had only left 30 seconds previously, they READIED THE CARRIAGE and went and made Jo look fancy! I realised when they cut to the publisher afterwards that this is supposed to show a departure into fantasy and wish-fulfilment, but it really felt painful to me. I actually loved the idea of splicing Louisa May Alcott's real life with the contrast of Jo's more traditional happy ending, but I think it could have been achieved without making her engagement to the professor a total farce.

What I liked:

The beauty of it. Someone upthread said it was like looking at a Renoir and Monet and I totally agree. The colouring and composition were gorgeous.

The ending with the book as her pinnacle of achievement. I thought it was clever and meaningful (although I still wish the Professor Bhaer scenes had been handled differently) and I was still thinking about it long after the cinema.

Saorise Ronan as Jo. I didn't expect to like her so much but she was great. And physically a better fit for the role than Winona. Although I did love Winona.

The costumes. Loved grown up Jo's masculine shirt and dress. And the colours of their clothes in the first Christmas scenes.

I could write a lot more but should prob sleep while my baby is sleeping 😁

I agree, especially about the modern dancing!

Saw it a few weeks ago and now it feels pretty unforgettable.
Emma Watson made an awful Meg. Wasn’t keen on Amy either.
I said on another thread that Beth looked way too healthy...like she could’ve fought off the Ebola virus.
Laurie..looked too young,not meaty enough.

Nah..

Just come in from seeing Dolittle
Pretty underimpressed with that too

I have read all 4 books many times do I followed the plot (was confusing) and just kept thinking of scenes not yet seen yet.
Laurie was too young, he seemed 17 throughout!
I did like the idea of the ending being a made up fantasy. And sone explicit comments from amy and aunt march about women having to marry.
But I shall stick to Winona ryders version!

Actually the stand out character for me was Aunt March
I thought methyl Streep played her really well , injecting a bit of humour and softness into what comes across in the book as a very scornful, cold unloving person.

Jo must’ve married prof bhaer at the enD There’s Jo’s boys and good wives.

I didn’t like it, but my DDs who haven’t read the book loved it. Emma Watson couldn’t act her way out of a paper bag, at no point could I tell how she felt about anything. Amy looked about 20 all the time, even when she was 13. This made things like her not being allowed to go to the dance confusing. Laurie, on the other hand consistently looked about 15.
I’ve been to Louisa May Alcott’s house in Concord. The set was very like her house, although it isn’t in the middle of nowhere (and wasn’t then either). Her family closely mirrors the book, her younger sister was the first American woman to study art in Paris, and was quite successful. Louisa was the one who went to war, as a nurse, not the father. He was an educationalist with radical ideas for the time about how children should learn.

Loved the book. Agee whole heartedly about the film Being a let down. Amy was wrong. Where were her mispronunciations? Where was her selfishness? Where was the humour? Marmee was far too distant from the girls. Then poor Professor Bauer was deprived of getting Jo’s book published for her and delivering “My Beth”. Where was their relationship in New York? The going back and forwards was ridiculous as it added nothing but prevention to a lovely, much loved story. It ended up with little heart in its pursuit of feminism.

Pretension not prevention blooming spell check!

Just saw the post upthread that Jo stays a spinster in the film. I completely misinterpreted this and thought the film indicates she ends up with professor Bhaer.

There is the chasing him in the rain scene that seemed to be left a bit ambiguous as to whether it happened or was fictional as part of her book- but then in the ending scenes at the school she opens, professor bhaer is there with her and they exchange a smile which I assumed was to tell the audience that she obviously did get him to stay?!

Very confusing film.