DarthSkywalker
Your Most Aggro Pal (he/him)
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2004
- Messages
- 125,138
- Reaction score
- 65,709
- Points
- 203
A better director, with a cast on par. This has all the chance to be as good, if not better imo.The 1994 Gillian Armstrong adaptation is the definitive Little Women for me. The cast cannot be beaten and are all perfect in my eyes, especially Thomas Newman's classic and timeless music. I also like the Elizabeth Taylor adaptation to a lesser degree.
I don't like Emma Watson's acting, but since she's playing the slightly stuck up, goodie goodie Meg she'll do okay since that role fits her stuck up, pole up her backside "acting" style. Also Saiorse's acting is going to embarrass Emma's.
I'm against this, since the 1994 is timeless and holds up, but I do understand that this current generation needs their own adaptation with their own young actors plus Greta and co. needs their Oscar baits. I like Saoirse and Timothee so I'll check this one out once it's on free-to-air TV.
I love the 1994 adaptation, but this actually kind of reminds me of the 2005 Pride and Prejudice situation, though not a 1 for 1. Plenty adore the 1995 BBC adaptation, said it couldn't be beat. But as a film and adaptation of the material, I feel like the 2005 version easily outdoes the BBC adaptation. Beyond it just being a far more cinematic telling of the story, with top notch direction, cinematography, music, editing, etc. The general tone of the story matches the youthful nature, by updating it with some more modern sensibilities in that regard. The 90s classics adaptations are for the most part, very good imo. But they feel adapted with an older energy, even by 90s standards, even Little Women, which does trend more youthful then most of the others imo (like Lee's Sense and Sensibility). If you give me something more akin to Lady Bird then a BBC adaptation, I think it has a real chance of being the adaptation.