"Little Women" has been made for film or TV several times, but they always tell the story directly from the text, setting it in the 1860s. Most of the reason behind my 8/10 stars comes from the respect I have for a movie version of "Little Women" that gives the story a contemporary setting. There are some things I don't particularly like about the new edition of the title (Professor Bhaer is portrayed as a bit too dashing and successful and there is a out-of-place impromptu jam session led by Laurie), but I am just happy that someone put in the effort to put these characters into the modern era and show how timeless the March family's struggles and triumphs really are.
To me, I think the gold standard of updating or modernizing older literature is "10 Things I Hate About You." I watched that movie several times before I realized that it is a retelling of "The Taming of the Shrew," and that's because it is tethered to Shakespeare's work instead of being chained to it. It works as its own story, in other words. I had that running through my mind while watching "Little Women" today; could this be a stand alone story? If it was called something else and not readily apparent that it was a modern take on the Louisa May Alcott tale, would it still be any good? It's honestly hard to say as the movie seems to try to get the viewer to fact-check how well they have interpreted each of the March sisters for the 21st century.
My wife, who is the real "Little Women" aficionado, loved the movie today, but conceded that I had a point when I indicated that that it felt like the new version was not just based on the 1868 novel but perhaps just as much on the 1994 film. My wife made sense of this by pointing out that fans who were the target audience of the Winona Ryder-led movie are probably watching the new one with their kids and would be looking to compare the two movies in any way they could anyhow. It's funny how art reflects reality, and then reality reflects art and then back again.
Ultimately, this is a good movie. I really give the filmmakers a hat's off for attempting something with "Little Women" that has not been done yet, even if it wasn't pulled off flawlessly. It will probably not become the modern classic that the 1994 version has become, but maybe it will inspire the movie industry to update other stories from the pre-film era.
To me, I think the gold standard of updating or modernizing older literature is "10 Things I Hate About You." I watched that movie several times before I realized that it is a retelling of "The Taming of the Shrew," and that's because it is tethered to Shakespeare's work instead of being chained to it. It works as its own story, in other words. I had that running through my mind while watching "Little Women" today; could this be a stand alone story? If it was called something else and not readily apparent that it was a modern take on the Louisa May Alcott tale, would it still be any good? It's honestly hard to say as the movie seems to try to get the viewer to fact-check how well they have interpreted each of the March sisters for the 21st century.
My wife, who is the real "Little Women" aficionado, loved the movie today, but conceded that I had a point when I indicated that that it felt like the new version was not just based on the 1868 novel but perhaps just as much on the 1994 film. My wife made sense of this by pointing out that fans who were the target audience of the Winona Ryder-led movie are probably watching the new one with their kids and would be looking to compare the two movies in any way they could anyhow. It's funny how art reflects reality, and then reality reflects art and then back again.
Ultimately, this is a good movie. I really give the filmmakers a hat's off for attempting something with "Little Women" that has not been done yet, even if it wasn't pulled off flawlessly. It will probably not become the modern classic that the 1994 version has become, but maybe it will inspire the movie industry to update other stories from the pre-film era.