Action / Drama / Romance
Action / Drama / Romance
WEB: same quality as BluRay, but ripped earlier from a streaming service
Please enable your VPN when downloading torrents
If you torrent without a VPN, your ISP can see that you're torrenting and may throttle your connection and get fined by legal action!
In the years after the Civil War, Jo March (Saoirse Ronan) lives in New York City and makes her living as a writer, while her sister Amy March (Florence Pugh) studies painting in Paris. Amy has a chance encounter with Theodore "Laurie" Laurence (Timothée Chalamet), a childhood crush who proposed to Jo, but was ultimately rejected. Their oldest sibling, Meg March (Emma Watson), is married to a schoolteacher, while shy sister Beth (Eliza Scanlen) develops a devastating illness that brings the family back together. —Jwelch5742.
Uploaded By: FREEMAN
Aug 15, 2021 at 05:21 PM
grade Movie Reviews
I am the odd reviewer who did NOT love this film.
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.
How could you possibly ruin Little Women?
I've grown up with the 1994 version of Little Women. It's a movie close to perfection, in my opinion. So when I heard about a remake I was skeptical. But with the good reviews I figured I had to give it a chance. I'll admit going into it with the expectation of not having it live up to the 94 version in my own view, but I never expected I would hate it. I mean; how the heck could anyone possibly make a bad movie based on such a powerful story? So I was proven wrong, but not the way I hoped; that the movie is justified in having a higher rating than the 94 version. I'd love to sit here and say that, yes indeed, it was possible to improve upon perfection. But I can't. Instead, I was proven wrong in that, yes, it is actually possible to make a bad movie based on this story!From the very beginning something felt off. It starts, and Amy's in France? What happened to the first half of the movie? Jo's in New York. Meg's already married, with children. And Beth's sick... Part of what made the 94 version so fantastic is the way it builds the story. Starting when Amy's at an early age, following them for years as their sisterhood develops, introducing them to new relationships, like Laurie and John, and events, like the German neighbors giving Beth scarlet fever, in a timely fashion. With the story in a linear fashion, you get to know the characters well, and it builds up an emotional relationship between the viewer and the characters. So that, when Beth eventually becomes fatally ill, you grieve with the family. Here, the event passes by without much emotional response, because the movie hasn't built up our relationship with her yet. We get a few flashbacks, but they miss the mark by miles as to build the same kind of emotions as the 94 version managed by letting us "grow up" with the characters, by following them in a linear fashion.I'll grant you that the movie has some descent moments towards the end, and for a while I almost got into it; not on the same level as the 94 version, but at least there was something there, and I was getting cautiously optimistic about having a better feeling about the movie at the end than I did at the beginning. But then comes the ending and tears it all down again. Partly because the parts about Friedrich are so exceptionally poorly done. Early in the movie, about the only scene we see with him is when he tells Jo that he didn't like her stories, and Jo tells him that she doesn't want to hear more of his opinions. It isn't until Marmee asks Jo about him, as "her friend", that the familiar relationship begins to come into the picture. Then he shows up at their home, with all the misunderstandings and reasons from the 94 version that made it so powerful all but emitted, and only then do we get some flashbacks to how they met. Still extremely underwhelming, and way too late. But what really ruined the ending was how the movie then suddenly, without any sort of pre-warning, starts to mix between being an adaptation of Little Women and a biography of its author, in a way that makes no sense whatsoever. So I started the movie with a question mark above my head, and I ended it with an ever bigger one.Like I said, there were some good moments towards the end; the underlying story is too good for all of it to be bad. But I have to say they tried hard. From the bizarre, underwhelming non-linearity of the storytelling to its ultimate uncertainty about what story it actually wanted to tell. The casting did it no favors either. Having an Irish, British and Australian actress make out three of the four very American sisters seemed wrong; they didn't have the accent down, and for a while I was questioning if they had moved the whole story to England instead of USA. Granted, Saoirse Ronan is the actress that best fills the equivalent part of the 94 version. She kind of looks like Winona Ryder in the role, and is mostly believable in the part, the main shortcomings coming down to the underlying way the story was told. Emma Watson as the earthly Meg doesn't work at all, she doesn't at all look or act the part. She would have worked better in the part of Amy. Talking of Amy; how Florence Pugh was found worthy of an Oscar nomination is beyond me. She worked fairly well in the older years, and perhaps even on par with Samantha Mathis who was admittedly the least effective casting in the 94 version, but she was just laughably bad as the younger Amy. Particularly cringe worthy were the parts where she throws a tantrum with Jo, and burns her book; her whininess didn't seem at all real, and nowhere near as childishly innocent or heartfelt as when Kirsten Dunst did them in the 94 version. The scene with the limes was also truly horrible. And Eliza Scanlen as Beth makes no impact at all. Claire Danes managed to stir up all sorts of emotions throughout the 94 movie, and you truly felt bad for her Beth. Laura Dern doesn't fit the part of Marmee at all, nor does Timothée Chalamet work well as Laurie; he looks like a teenager throughout the whole movie, and you never get in touch with his true emotions of feelings for the March family, the way Christian Bale did. And the poor actor who did Friedrich had pitifully little to work with, and the relationship between him and Jo doesn't seem in the least real.The movie is basically a mess from beginning to end, and the few good moments the movie does have can only be ascribed to an original story so powerful that it is impossible to ruin completely, try though they certainly did... I've given an extra point in my rating for that reason, and for some descent attempts by Saoirse Ronan, but you won't find me seeing this piece of turd again. The story deserves better. Fortunately, it has the 94 version, which is certainly the one I'll continue to stick with for the foreseeable future.
This was a bad movie
Like many of the reviews here stated, I downloaded imdb for the first time just so I could review this movie. I am seriously surprised at the amount of positive reviews for this movie, but I know they must be fake to boost its rating. I have many things to talk about.First: the accents. I was so confused in the beginning before I realized it wasn't intentional. At first, I thought saoirse ronan (jo March) was doing a different accent than her co-stars before I realized she was struggling to hide her real Irish accent. Emma watson seemed to have a bit of trouble too but not like saoirse. It also threw my off how a lot of them sounded like we do today. The revolution was only 100 years before this so I would expect some sort of British-American accent mix but that's not what we got,Second: the cast. I feel like casting took four random white actresses and expected me to think they would work together as close sisters just because their white. There was no chemistry and all the scenes where they are giggling and laughing and playing around felt forced and there was still no chemistry. Saoirse was probably the best out of all of them with the woman who played Beth behind. It was really painful to watch a 24 year old (who looks 30) Florence Pugh play the youngest of the sisters. It was hard to watch her act like a child when she seemed like she was that age in real life 15 years ago. Emma Watson was ok I guess, nothing really stood out. Laura dern as mammie was ok too, nothing special. Meryl Streep did fine but something felt off. Probably just the bad script. Timothee Chalamet was fine too but he just seemed really young, and he looked way too young to be married to Florence pugh's character.Third: the non-linear timeline. I literally had no clue what the heck was going on. I only caught on when I noticed that amy March had a bang in the flashback and didn't when it was present time. There was literally nothing done to distinguish them from seven years in the past to the present. It was annoying and if I want to understand what happened more (which I don't) I'm going to have to go back and rewatch.Something that also didn't sit right with me was the one black woman having one line in that one singular scene. It was really some white savior type stuff going on there and it was very poorly done.I didn't read the books, so I can't go into detail about how the ending was different and pathetic compared to the books and how jo's love interest should've been German instead of French, but this movie was honestly very bad. Just because you have an ensemble cast, it doesn't mean they're going to mesh well together, and you can see that here in this movie. Please don't waste your time. Watch the one from the 90's - the chemistry is there and it's much more well done.
Read more IMDb reviews