Let's Talk Movies #35 – Sparrows and Panthers and Dinosaurs…Oh My!

Which Movies Might You See? (Multiple Votes Allowed)

  • Feb. 16th - Black Panther – Action adventure with Chadwick Boseman, Michael B. Jordan and Lupita Nyo

    Votes: 32 60.4%
  • March 2nd - Red Sparrow – Mystery thriller with Jennifer Lawrence, Joel Edgerton and Mary-Louise Pa

    Votes: 15 28.3%
  • March 9th - A Wrinkle In Time – Adventure fantasy with Reese Witherspoon, Chris Pine and Oprah Winfr

    Votes: 26 49.1%
  • March 16th - Tomb Raider – Action adventure with Alicia Vikander, Walton Goggins and Kristin Scott T

    Votes: 10 18.9%
  • March 30th – Ready Player One – Sci-fi adventure with Tye Sheridan, Olivia Cooke and Simon Pegg

    Votes: 10 18.9%
  • May 4th - Avengers: Infinity War – Adventure fantasy with nobody famous

    Votes: 27 50.9%
  • May 18th - Deadpool 2 – Adventure comedy with Ryan Reynolds, Josh Brolin and T. J. Miller

    Votes: 19 35.8%
  • May 25th - Solo: A Star Wars Story – Adventure fantsy with Alden Ehrenreich, Donald Glover and Woody

    Votes: 27 50.9%
  • June 8th - Ocean's 8 – Action thriller with Sandra Bullock, Cate Blanchett and Anne Hathaway

    Votes: 24 45.3%
  • June 22nd - Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom – Action sci-fi with Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard and

    Votes: 22 41.5%

  • Total voters
    53

Vash01

Fan of Yuzuru, T&M, P&C
Messages
55,483
I saw Bombshell today. Very important topic. This should have been a great movie but it is just good. The acting was great, but the movie doesn’t reach the heights it should have, with the exception of one scene in which Margot Robbie’s character cries while talking to her friend on a phone. Charlize Theron is amazing as Megyn Kelly. The Oscar for lead actress may be between her and Rene Zellweger (Judy). Margot Robbie also gives an Oscar worthy performance in the Supporting actress category.
 
Last edited:

mrr50

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,357
Saw newest Star Wars installment. I'm not sure what I think. All the odd characters were really good. I not sure I'm thrilled with some character treatment. It'll be interesting to hear what everyone thinks.
 

miffy

Bad Brit
Staff member
Messages
12,042
I really want to see Cats to see what all the negativity is about. Preferably the unedited version they are pulling because there are human hands and feet visible in some scenes. :shuffle: I have listened to the soundtrack and I am surprised to quite like what Taylor Swift did with Macavity but be completely appalled by Jennifer Hudson murdering Memory. Completely oversung :blah:
Will anyone here admit to having seen the movie? :lol:
 

Vash01

Fan of Yuzuru, T&M, P&C
Messages
55,483
I really want to see Cats to see what all the negativity is about. Preferably the unedited version they are pulling because there are human hands and feet visible in some scenes. :shuffle: I have listened to the soundtrack and I am surprised to quite like what Taylor Swift did with Macavity but be completely appalled by Jennifer Hudson murdering Memory. Completely oversung :blah:
Will anyone here admit to having seen the movie? :lol:

I want to see it but the negative reviews are making me hesitate. I loved 'Cats' in a theatre (on stage) and I am afraid the movie may not be that good.
 
Last edited:

Aussie Willy

Hates both vegemite and peanut butter
Messages
27,978
I really want to see Cats to see what all the negativity is about. Preferably the unedited version they are pulling because there are human hands and feet visible in some scenes. :shuffle: I have listened to the soundtrack and I am surprised to quite like what Taylor Swift did with Macavity but be completely appalled by Jennifer Hudson murdering Memory. Completely oversung :blah:
Will anyone here admit to having seen the movie? :lol:
I am kind of in the "want to see it to see how bad it really is" camp.
 

AJ Skatefan

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,927
I want to see it but the negative reviews are making me hesitate. I loved 'Cats' in a theatre (on stage) and I am afraid the movie may not be that good.
I really want to see Cats to see what all the negativity is about. Preferably the unedited version they are pulling because there are human hands and feet visible in some scenes. :shuffle: I have listened to the soundtrack and I am surprised to quite like what Taylor Swift did with Macavity but be completely appalled by Jennifer Hudson murdering Memory. Completely oversung :blah:
Will anyone here admit to having seen the movie? :lol:
I saw it and loved it! My partner didn’t like it and criticized it the whole way home though. I don’t care. I enjoyed it!
 

Kasey

Fan of many, uber of none
Messages
16,362
Just saw "Little Women", and it is fantastic! Some of the timeline issues needed to be explained to the twins (8 years old), but all of us who went loved it, from the 8 year olds to my 72 year old mom. The audience applauded at the end, and while I don't do that and find it kind of silly, I considered joining in. I am biased since it's my favorite book, but really, I can't imagine it being made better.
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
41,023
Just saw "Little Women", and it is fantastic! Some of the timeline issues needed to be explained to the twins (8 years old), but all of us who went loved it, from the 8 year olds to my 72 year old mom. The audience applauded at the end, and while I don't do that and find it kind of silly, I considered joining in. I am biased since it's my favorite book, but really, I can't imagine it being made better.

I consider that high praise because fans of a book would be the harshest critics. I‘ve been out of the loop regarding the awards for the 2019 films and just checked out the film’s wiki page and am really surprised that like the 7th screen adaptation of this book has ranked highly on some notable critics’ top ten films of the year and received so many awards/nominations from various critics’ circles: notably for Greta Gerwig as director/screenwriter; Saoirse Ronan for Actress; and Florence Pugh ("Amy") for Supporting Actress. Laura Dern received a New York Film Critics Circle award for Supporting Actress but it was shared with her role in Marriage Story, a movie by Gerwig’s partner, Noah Bambauch.

I don’t think even the 1994 adaptation which tops many people’s lists received as many accolades though it did receive Oscar nominations for Actress for Winona Ryder; Best Costume Design; and Best Score (fun fact: its loss to The Lion King that year inspired the Academy to temporary separate the score award between drama and musical/comedy because they thought Disney would just keep dominating the Score award and they wanted other films who had worthy scores to have a chance of winning, but Disney was winding down and then the Academy no longer needed to separate the category).


That's always been my problem with her portrayal as well. So many people love her as Jo, but she just never rang true for me.

I will say out of all the actresses playing “Jo” that I’ve seen (haven’t seen Ronan yet), I most believed Winona Ryder to be a writer. By that point and even after, Ryder had a lot of experience playing writers of some sort.
 
Last edited:

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
41,023
Sorry for double posting, but saw this video comparing the 1933, 1949, 1994 and 2019 versions of Little Women.


It has some spoilers about how the 2019 film is constructed, but it is such a great watch and explains the motivations behind and the themes explored with each adaptation and how it reflects the time period in which they were created.
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
41,023
Sorry for my last two posts being about this movie, but I just watched Greta Gerwig's Little Women and I felt compelled to write a lengthy review of it. I'll put it in spoiler tags, but the TL;DR version is that I loved it but it will not be the one I would recommend for people if this is their first exposure to the material. Instead, it is a version to watch after you read the book and/or watched any previous film adaptation of it.

It also did what I did not think it would do, which is answer my question going in. When I heard this movie was being made, I groaned because I wondered if we really needed a new big screen adaptation of this movie after the 1933, 1949, and 1994 versions, not to mention all the American TV-movies, the most recent 2017/18 BBC limited series adaptation, the lengthy Japanese anime version, the Broadway musical version, and the play version. I just didn't know what Greta Gerwig would do to make it seem like it was needed because I don't think anyone asked for a new version. It all seemed superfluous to me and some even wondered if Gerwig agreed to do this so the studio would bankroll a project she actually cared about in the future. The answer is Gerwig made me realize that YES, I really needed a 2019 version as she has something new to say with it.

First off, I have to tell people, this is an auteur adaptation of Little Women. Those of you looking for the usual plot A to plot Z retelling of the novel will not get this here. Gerwig tells the story in close non-linear fashion, interjecting the first half of the novel as flashbacks sprinkled throughout the current (second half) scenes. Doing this may not give the best dramaturgical structure or make for the most dramatic arc, but what it allows us to see are the themes Gerwig really wanted to hammer home. In a way, this is an example of a film adaptation being more of a film essay/analysis of the book, in a much more obvious way than Jane Campion's treatment of Henry James' The Portrait of a Lady. I find that to be intriguing and really made me realize a new adaptation of Little Women can offer us something new.

Also, this is certainly a 2019 version of LW because it is the least subtle adaptation and audiences these days don't deal well with subtext and nuance (I could rant about this more, especially with theatre but I will save that for another time). Usually, that would bother me, but Gerwig so deftly and intelligently structures the flashback and current scenes together that I am more in awe of her editing skills and how she clearly knows the novel inside/out.

Secondly, the 1994 Winona Ryder/Christian Bale/Susan Sarandon version has been criticized by some book purists of taking the character of Jo and making her a stand-in for Louisa May Alcott as opposed to being the actual Jo as written in the book. It has also been criticized for interjecting 1990s post-women's liberation movement feminism into the movie (most evidently with Sarandon's version of "Marmie"). If you're one of the people who has a problem with that, then you ain't seen nothing yet. This time, it isn't Susan Sarandon as Marmie lecturing Mr. Brookes about women having fainting spells being due to being confined to the home over needlework while restricted by their constricting corsets. This time, Jo embodies feminism all the way through.

Gerwig puts the pedal to the metal where that is concerned. This Jo is soooo Louisa May Alcott, especially with how they treat the "Under the Umbrella" scene and it seeming like Professor Bhaer was written last minute to appease her publisher - the scene starts as usual with Jo chasing Bhaer, and then all of a sudden we get a scene interjected with Jo debating with her publisher about needing to write Jo getting married at the end of her novel and her finally acquiescing after much back-and-forth about why Jo should or should not get married, but not before she successfully negotiates higher royalties and keeping her copyright to the novel (saying if she's forced to marry off one of her characters, then she should get paid well for it) and then we cut back to scene and the whole "My hands are empty/not empty now" scene played in such a rushed way compared to EVERY OTHER VERSION I've seen. That meta treatment will be the most controversial aspect of this film, but I think it works well here because I've already seen what I consider to be the best literal non-meta/commentary screen capture of that scene thanks to Winona Ryder (looking super radiant and beautiful) and Gabriel Byrne that I didn't feel such a big need to see it recreated.

Thirdly, let's talk Amy. This Amy is such a bitch in this version. And yet, this Amy is probably my favorite Amy. I think every other treatment of Amy I've seen tries to reconcile Alcott's harsh writing of this character with trying to also make her not so bad where it seems like whiplash at times and I don't feel like I get a good feel for her. In this version, Amy is such a bitch (like she's barely seems apologetic about burning Jo's manuscript), and yet, I feel like this is the FIRST time I get Amy. It's as if Gerwig was like, this is who she is, you take her or you leave her but you can't deny that you know her. She also writes Amy's motivations and insecurities so well that despite her being such a bitch you have to say you see where she's coming from. Gerwig gives Pugh a monologue where she plainly states why she should marry for money and why that is NOT wrong for someone of her station and gender during this time period since women don't own anything and any money she did have prior to marriage would belong to her husband, as would her children. She says it so matter-of-factly that she's not just telling Laurie but educating those who probably did not understand the context of how women needed to navigate that world for their own financial security. Florence Pugh such an improvement from Samantha Mathis' uncomfortable portrayal of Amy that it's not even funny.

I did miss seeing a young Amy played by a child because she was one during the first half of the scene and it makes her actions much more excusable although the Japanese anime version made you almost side with Amy during the burning scene because they made Jo such a bitch to her right before she did it; Jo was justified in telling Amy off multiple times, who was annoying her about attending the opera or whatever it was with Laurie and Mr. Brooks with Meg, but man I almost wanted to burn her manuscript too. By allowing an adult actress play her, Gerwig avoids the creepiness of the 1994 version where we see Christian Bale being all big brotherly to child actress Kirsten Dunst and then marrying that same character in the same movie. This allows Gerwig to really go forward with developing a believable romance between Amy and Laurie, which I felt was seriously missing from the 1994 version.

Fourth, about Laurie...I know this is sacrilegious here, but I never really liked Christian Bale as Laurie. I thought he was just blah despite him trying. I much prefer Timothee Chalamet's more charismatic portrayal. I know in the previous paragraph, I said this version has the best version of Amy/Laurie's romance, but despite that, it's still WTF. I love that Gerwig allowed Saoirse Ronan's Jo to be a stand-in for almost EVERY Little Women fan out there by being all WTF when she finds out they got married. Like Laurie did not have to be with Jo, but did he really need to be with Amy? This Jo barely hides her confusion and almost anger about it, especially after Gerwig added a new scene where Jo writes Laurie a letter basically saying ask her again and she'll say yes to his proposal due to her loneliness and thinking she made a mistake with not accepting (she did not write that in her letter to him) and putting it in their secret mailbox. The best part is that Gerwig makes Pugh play Amy as if she just wanted Jo to say she's ok with it so she can move on from whatever conflicting feelings she may have and be totally selfish about it and go forward gung-ho about her future with Laurie rather than actually caring if Jo is actually ok with it, which is VERY consistent with this Amy and almost makes me respect her for it. Well played, girl.

Another thing about Laurie, Gerwig filmed this one scene so perfectly, where all the women including Marmie show up to Mr. Laurence's house and there's so much noise, laughter, and zaniness that it's so comforting and familial and fun. Then they rush out as fast as they came in, and it's just Laurie, Mr. Laurence, and Mr. Brooke alone and it's again super quiet and sad. Just from that one moment, we get everything about Laurie's loneliness and desperation to have that March energy and comfort around him more often or all of the time.

Fifth, Eliza Scanlen makes for a much stronger Beth than Claire Danes who really ramped up the weak, sickly side of her to the point where Beth seemed almost like an invalid - and I'm not just talking physically. This version brings back Beth's relationship with Mr. Laurence so Chris Cooper isn't wasted here. I missed the poignant and beautiful death scene between Ryder and Danes in the 1994 version with that perfect soundtrack playing, but the way Gerwig handles it here shows such film craft and perfect editing with the way she contrasted Beth surviving her first bout with scarlet fever and not surviving when it all hits her hard that I can't help but applaud Gerwig's effort. She knew she couldn't compete with that 1994 scene so she doesn't try and thus gives us something new to take from it.

Sixth, the 1994 version gives us an almost Christmas film. Because of that, I watch it every Christmas and I go back to scenes from it to get me in the warm mood of seeing beautiful scenery of snow. This version plays that much less and there's actually scenes of beaches and sun. Some times, this version looks like a summer movie.

Seventh, there's a monologue that Gerwig writes for Saoirse Ronan about her conflicting feelings about not wanting a woman being defined by marriage or companionship and instead have her defined by her work, skill, and what she has to offer, but then at the same time being so lonely and really needing someone. That hit me hard. My sister and I ended up talking for an hour just about that. I think Gerwig truly understands that sentiment as it has played in some of her previous work (even only as an actress) and it really fits this version of Jo.

Eighth, although Louis Garrell doesn't have as big of a character to play with Professor Bhaer the way Gabriel Byrne did, I will say he is written just enough for us to understand why Jo would like him. He is way harsher and to the point and totally humorless with his critiques about her writing that it can't help but come off as funny but also insightful. You sort of realize Jo needs that in her life. He is also very hot, unlike Byrne, so we're more forgiving. Sad but true.

Ninth, this is the first Little Women I've seen where Mr. March, their father, doesn't just disappear after he comes home that Christmas. He doesn't have a big role nor does Gerwig rewrite him to have a bigger part than he does in the novel, but he's seen throughout the last half of the film much more. That was refreshing.

Tenth, I'm not a fan of Emma Watson's acting at all, but she gives her best performance here. I think Gerwig's editing helped a lot as she really contrasted Meg living a scrimping and poor lifestyle as Mr. Brooke's wife and her living it up at that one coming out ball she had. She shows that Meg indeed meant it when she said all she needed was Mr. Brooke to be happy and she's not afraid of being poor while at the same time, just because you mean it does not make it easy or make you want nice things less. But we never doubt Meg could do it. The 1994 version took away Meg's troubles with adapting to being even poorer than she was living with her family pre-marriage, so it was nice to see that again. I once read on the IMDB message board of the 1994 film that someone saying you're most like Meg is like someone saying you got sorted into Hufflepuff, and I couldn't help but laugh at Gryffindor Hermione Granger as Hufflepuff Meg, but this Meg doesn't seem like such a "loser" choice to be.

Finally, Saoirse Ronan makes for a really spunky Jo. She shines in this role although I think Jo as written in the book is best portrayed by Katharine Hepburn while Ryder's Jo is my personal favorite just due to her being the most relatable to me. However, I found Ronan totally believable and persuasive in this role and she is the perfect embodiment of Greta Gerwig's Jo.
 
Last edited:

Maofan7

Away (Workload)
Messages
19,979
Upcoming Movie Releases between 3.1.20 - 10.1.20

3rd Jan 2020


The Grudge

City of Joel


10th January 2020

Like A Boss

Underwater

The Informer

The Murder Of Nicole Brown Simpson

Les Miserables

The Corrupted

Three Christ’s

Inherit the Viper

My Spy
 
Last edited:

Maofan7

Away (Workload)
Messages
19,979
Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker - critical and fan reaction + box office

Little Women opens big at the box office

But ‘Bombshell’ bombs at the box office

Meanwhile, the South Korean film, Parasite, which won the Palme d'Or at the 2019 Cannes Film Festival, is currently the 5/2 favourite to win the Oscar for best picture (ahead of The Irishman at 3/1 and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood at 5/1). The Oscars are now just 6 weeks away and take place on the 9th February 2020.
 
Last edited:

mjb52

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,995
I've had a book about the Three Christs situation on my to-read list for years but have been too lazy to get to it. How convenient to have a nice movie to watch instead! I'm sure it will be SCRUPULOUSLY accurate.
 

MacMadame

Doing all the things
Messages
58,551
According to what I read, the book wasn't that accurate either because the Doctor claims to have helped the 3 Christs and made breakthroughs that he hadn't. :D
 

agalisgv

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,154
Saw 3022. It was on limited release and is available on Amazon Prime streaming. It’s sci-fi (of which I am a huge fan). I liked it. It’s about a time in the future when there’s limited interplanetary travel, and the fuel station Pangea detects a potentially extinction level event on earth, and the crew are possibly the only humans left alive. It’s about survival and continuing in the midst of loss of hope.

Most seem to find it rather dark, but I actually found it hopeful :shuffle:. It’s not very long, so well worth seeing.

Also saw Dark Waters and Richard Jewel, and recommend both. I found DuPont’s response to Dark Waters rather tone deaf. But both movies did a good job of fairly and accurately depicting events in question. That’s what makes them both so disturbing.

Star Wars was fine. I’m ready to bid adieu to the series...

My son gave Cats a 0. He considered it child abuse to sit through it. He’s a tough critic sometimes...
 
Last edited:

Japanfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
25,542
I don’t think even the 1994 adaptation which tops many people’s lists received as many accolades though it did receive Oscar nominations for Actress for Winona Ryder; Best Costume Design; and Best Score (fun fact: its loss to The Lion King that year inspired the Academy to temporary separate the score award between drama and musical/comedy because they thought Disney would just keep dominating the Score award and they wanted other films who had worthy scores to have a chance of winning, but Disney was winding down and then the Academy no longer needed to separate the category).

It tops my list because I would sell my first-born (if I had one) for just a glimpse of Gabriel Byrne. :love:
 

oleada

Well-Known Member
Messages
43,434
Totally loved Little Women. It took me a minute to warm up to the time line, but I loved it in the end. I read the book as a kid, and as the oldest sibling, I hated Amy for being such a brat who got everything. But I think that this is the first time I got her character and the first time I got the Amy/Laurie relationship. I already loved Florence Pugh from Lady Macbeth and Midsommar, but she was fabulous here. Don't get me wrong, I love Saoirse and I think she was a fabulous Jo, but I think Florence stole the show.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information