- Vincitore di 1 Oscar
- 73 vittorie e 229 candidature totali
Emily Edström
- Friedrich's Friend
- (as Emily Edstrom)
Recensioni in evidenza
This movie is about as far away from 'my type' of movie as possible, or at least that's what I thought, but I have to say I enjoyed it a lot.
It's a story about the upbringing and growth of four girls from the bubbling happiness and hopeful optimism of children, into the hard and scary reality of adulthood. Therefore, the focus of the film is the wonderful characters played by Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh, Eliza Scanlen, Timothee Chalamet and Laura Dern. They are all very well acted and every single character is unique and filled with personality.
Acting and characters aside, it's beautifully captured and the environments really breathes life into the film. The movie is also very touching and I couldn't help but cry, both tears of happiness and of grief.
My only complaint is that the story is rather messy and it often jumps between different time periods and places without giving good enough hints of this. I spent quite a lot of time and energy on trying to understand where and when they were, and that is something that could have been done better.
Overall, I really liked the film and I completely understand why it has received such critical praise.
It's a story about the upbringing and growth of four girls from the bubbling happiness and hopeful optimism of children, into the hard and scary reality of adulthood. Therefore, the focus of the film is the wonderful characters played by Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh, Eliza Scanlen, Timothee Chalamet and Laura Dern. They are all very well acted and every single character is unique and filled with personality.
Acting and characters aside, it's beautifully captured and the environments really breathes life into the film. The movie is also very touching and I couldn't help but cry, both tears of happiness and of grief.
My only complaint is that the story is rather messy and it often jumps between different time periods and places without giving good enough hints of this. I spent quite a lot of time and energy on trying to understand where and when they were, and that is something that could have been done better.
Overall, I really liked the film and I completely understand why it has received such critical praise.
This was very good. By all means a well made, well written and shot adaptation. But for me it didn't even come close to the '94 version with Winona Ryder. Each character was phenomenal in that old version, especially Claire Danes as Beth and Christian Bale as Laurie. Also the unforgettable Winona Ryder, of course, and Susan Sarandon. Kirsten Dunst as Amy...oh my goodness, absolutely exquisite.
Even though I enjoyed watching the new version, my preference remains firmly with the old. Though more simply told, perhaps, without flashbacks back and forth and fancy effects, to me it was richer in emotions and with much more memorable, more 'colorful' characters.
I enjoyed watching Amy in the new version, I just didn't understand why she was never little?... She was this mature woman both as a kid and an adult...very strange.
Anyway, you won't regret watching this, for sure. I just doubt I'll ever see it again. Whereas the '94 version I could watch another ten times, with pleasure. I guess that says it all.
Tender, beautiful rhythm, well-kept characters and an atmosphere that holds up to the end. we all know the story, making a good movie was not easy at all. 7/10
Little Women (2019) is a wonderful movie from every aspect. It has a powerful story, superb acting and beautiful costumes and design. Moreover, it seems to me that I am flipping the pages of a painting book. Every scene looks like a beautiful canvas.
I read through many of the reviews for this 2019 version of "Little Women" and noticed that most reviewers adored the film. Because of this, I assumed I also would love the movie. Sadly, however, I was left feeling ambivalent about it...and I noticed that my wife and oldest daughter felt pretty much the same way.
I won't talk about the plot...after all, there's a summary on IMDB and lots of reviews talk about this. What I should mention is that the film is much more like the book than previous versions....a plus. But the reasons I still did not love this film are what stop me from recommending the film. First, there simply is too much story to cram into a little over two hours. If you are going to try to stick closer to the book, then perhaps consider making it a mini-series. This is because although the film is more like the book, to do this they also omit a lot of things....making the story seem a bit disjoint and confusing. Second, I really didn't think they did a good job of helping the viewers to actually care about the characters. Some of this was because the little women in the story were poorly chosen--much too old in some cases (the 12 year-old early in the story looked to be about 20). Some was because the choppiness of the story really harmed the film because the characters just seemed one-dimensional. Overall, a decent story but even with its sticking closer to the book, I much preferred the 1990s version...which was much more charming, fun and likable.
I won't talk about the plot...after all, there's a summary on IMDB and lots of reviews talk about this. What I should mention is that the film is much more like the book than previous versions....a plus. But the reasons I still did not love this film are what stop me from recommending the film. First, there simply is too much story to cram into a little over two hours. If you are going to try to stick closer to the book, then perhaps consider making it a mini-series. This is because although the film is more like the book, to do this they also omit a lot of things....making the story seem a bit disjoint and confusing. Second, I really didn't think they did a good job of helping the viewers to actually care about the characters. Some of this was because the little women in the story were poorly chosen--much too old in some cases (the 12 year-old early in the story looked to be about 20). Some was because the choppiness of the story really harmed the film because the characters just seemed one-dimensional. Overall, a decent story but even with its sticking closer to the book, I much preferred the 1990s version...which was much more charming, fun and likable.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizAfter discovering that the adaptation was in the works, Saoirse Ronan reached out to Greta Gerwig and told her she decided she would play Jo March. Gerwig was initially hesitant to cast Ronan after having just worked with her on Lady Bird (2017), but after realizing that casting herself was, more or less, a very Jo thing to do, Gerwig sent Ronan an e-mail that said, "Yes, you're Jo."
- BlooperA plastic water bottle and Hydro Flask appear in the Laurences' study.
- Curiosità sui creditiThe Columbia Pictures logo is the 1990s version, paying homage to Piccole donne (1994), the previous adaptation of the novel, which the studio had also worked on.
- ConnessioniFeatured in So Far: 'Barbie' (2019)
- Colonne sonoreNocturne No. 5 in F-sharp major Op. 15 No. 2
Written by Frédéric Chopin
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Siti ufficiali
- Lingue
- Celebre anche come
- Mujercitas
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Concord, Massachusetts, Stati Uniti(Orchard and Lawrence Houses)
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 40.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 108.101.214 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 16.755.310 USD
- 29 dic 2019
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 332.103.783 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione2 ore 15 minuti
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti