wolfgangvonposakilla

This film ends up being a pointless update of a classic story. In desperately trying to be different director Greta Gerwig has injected the classic tale with a heavy dose of modern cinema gimmicks, namely an anachronistic narration, breaking the fourth wall and going meta.

The events of the story are now told out of order. So much so that it must be almost unwatchable for people who didn't see a previous adaptation or read the original. I've seen the much superior '94 adaptation not that long ago and even I had to pause and piece things together in my head. Even worse is that the film puts some of the important climaxes and turning points of the story in the very beginning completely deflating their gravitas, and then afterwards via flashbacks tries to explain to you why what you just seen was supposed to be emotionally impactful. So the film spoils it's own content.

Casting is off too. Saoirse Ronan as Jo excluded. She's pretty good, though nowhere close to Winona Ryder's performance in the '94 adaptation. Most others fall flat or even break immersion. Emma Watson isn't really convincing as the older motherly sister. Eliza Scanlen as Beth is quite forgettable, but to be fair Beth was always the least interesting sister. Still, again a much better performance from Claire Dames in the '94 adaptation.

But then, Florence Pugh, oh boy. While generally a decent actress, not great but adequate in my opinion, even though her deep voice can make her delivery grating and off-putting, her casting as the youngest sister Amy is laughable. At the time of filming Florence was 25 years old. She's not exactly a dainty slim woman and there's the deep voice. She looks and sounds older than every other sister. The scenes where she has to play a whiny bratty tween really strain the suspension of disbelief. The '94 version had the magnificent Kirsten Dunst as Amy, Dunst being actually 12 years old at the time and arguably one of the best child actresses of all time.

Towards the end the film suddenly decides to break the fourth wall and go meta. While it's brief and only happens twice, characters suddenly starts speaking into the camera. Then Greta Gerwig introduces a sort of Meta story-loop where main character Jo in essence becomes the personification of real life writer Louisa May alcott and supposedly ends up writing the actual novel "little women". Yes the original real life novel was loosely based on L. M Alcott's life but she never inserted herself in such an obvious way. It's not a biography.

So in conclusion, you're really better off watching the '94 version if you haven't already. You almost need to have previous knowledge of the story anyways or you're likely to be very confused. This version is just a scrambled repeat with worse casting and performances.

That being said, if you're not paying too much attention, the individual scenes on their own are pretty entertaining. So this version still nets a low 6, whereas the '94 version is easily a mid-to-high 7.

100% boring and ridiculous.

I'm not going to root for the main character when he's an egocentric CIA agent. The CIA ... that evil, shadowy, scheming organization that started countless wars, threw countries in disarray, caused millions of deaths and directly liquidated countless people domestically and abroad. And all for the "Benefit of the USA" (read for the benefit of the rich, the powerful and the CIA itself).

It's one thing if some deranged terrorist threatens the whole world and the CIA steps in, then you could root for said agent character. But here the mission is purely about benefiting the USA at the cost of Soviet Russia. This film was made by a notorious nationalist and CIA worshipper (Tom Clancy) in 1990, just before the fall of the USSR so still during the cold war and well ... it shows. The film is pure propaganda. Americans are infallible heroes, Russians are self-hating bumbling idiots who dream of playing cowboy and riding pick-up trucks in Montana. Now I ain't no 'self-hating Westerner', but there's a limit. There's a reason they don't make movies as black and white as this one anymore, they would be laughed out of theatres today.

Now about the actual content of the film. There's some good actors in the film that are unfortunately woefully miscast. A Scotsman and an Australian playing Russian officers? What's next? An Austrian bodybuilder playing suburban American characters? Oh wait ... This is Hollywood casting all right. Now not everybody is a good actor. Alec Baldwin has never been good in anything in his entire career, no change here. There's a reason South Park mocks him.

Beyond the poor acting there's the annoying technobabble, which takes up half the film and put me to sleep. There's every single event, turn and twist in the film coming off as highly implausible and there's some ridiculous submarine combat. Looks more like a kid playing with his toys in the tub. Real submarines don't stop and starts and reverse and turn like they're speedboats. People dare to call this their favourite submarine movie? Please, go watch Das Boot if you want tense, claustrophobic, realistic, gritty submarine action.