Stacie Grosso

I preface this by saying that I had very low expectations for this film, just judging from the trailer. It looked silly and stupid, and I was right; my senses didn't steer my wrong. 1 minute in and I could already tell it was what I inferred. A choppy mess of unnecessary story segues(he just leaves his stall and cash box at the farmers market for some random chick?), bad editing/directing, worse dialogue and terrible acting. I would expect more from Chris Evans film choices at his age and this stage in his career; he's a very talented actor, but this script doesn't require any talent. Expected disappointment realized. Don't waste your time. PS. I was constantly distracted by that terrible wig on Ana's head. Who's idea was that?!

Mixed feelings on this film. Great performances, particularly from Florence, I really felt her character's pain. Harry was excellent as well. The film was slow on the pick up, but I understood where it was going and that there was more lurking underneath this story. A lot of the story line, I felt, was left up to the viewer's interpretation. I'm not sure if that was by design or not, but perhaps that's part of the intent? However, the entire film was pretty intense for me, and I'd likely not watch it again on account of my very graphic memory. I'm happy to have seen it once, and I don't feel compelled to see it again, even though it boasts a cast I truly love. Otherwise, the wardrobe, cinematography, set design, color stories, editing, and sound were all really well done and visually/audibly stimulating. Great musical choices as well. Certainly worth seeing.

As a fan of Louisa May Alcott's novel, the 1994 film, and its predecessor the 1940s film, I'm sorry to say this newest iteration is way WAY below par. A confusing, disembodied mess of scenes, time frames, story lines, and inconsistent speech patterns. We weren't sure if it was the 1860s or 2019, given that it appeared no one had any period linguistic lessons. For those unfamiliar with the story, this would confuse the hell out of you. Even I know tje story so well and yet found this terribly difficult to follow. Emma Watson's Meg didn't feel like she was the oldest, most mature sister. 'Amy' didn't progress from child to young adult, instead she was played by the same mature 23 year old actress, with a deep mature womans voice all throughout the film which did not feel right and took away from importance and story's reliance of chronological order and the sister's growth. Her playing as an immature child made me uncomfortable and it was distracting. 'Beth' wasn't socially awkward and shy as she is written. There was no narator, which is so necessary to the beautiful poetry of the way this story is told. Laura Dern's performance was empty, non believable as Marmie and left much to be desired, which made me upset because she's a great actress. Everything felt forced, extra rehearsed, or not rehearsed at all, and overly tight. Plus the great Meryl Streep had about 2-3 scenes in the entire film, where they plastered her face in terrible yellow tinged make up(the wedding scene). Timothee Chalamet and Saoirse Ronan have good performances overall, but not enough to save this film. However, I do think Chalamet was too youthful and prepubescent looking to play this role. It didn't feel believable. Overall I think the casting was a miss and really they should've sprung for a young Amy as well. It's only true redeeming quality was the beautiful cinematography. The France and Seaside scenes were beautiful to watch. I hope the cinematographer, costume designer, and lighting designer and their teams receive recognition for their beautiful pictures, lighting, wardrobes, and camera angles. I appreciate a new take on an old classic and truly wanted to like this film, even love it. I commend Greta on stepping out of the box and approaching it differently. But this was just a drawn-out, over-blanched, misstepped mess that would not end and did the beautiful story no justice at all. I give this film a D+ at best, and I give that + with haste. If you're a fan of the book or the previous films, this will heavily disappoint, and you'll likely walk out of the theater aggravated and confused like myself, my friends, and those around us. It really was too soon for a new adaption since the last. This film should've brought peace and calm to its viewer, and been lovely to watch. That's what the joy in this story is, and that's what this version sidestepped away from. Bottom Line:: If you don't want to feel degradatated, then don't fall for the hype, and head back to 1994. If you do, you'll get an endearing 19 year old Christian Bale, a willfully fantastic Winona Ryder, a perfect stoic Susan Sarandon, a believably shy Claire Danes, an intelligent German Gabriel Byrne, and young child-like Kirsten Dunst, among others. It's simply a beautiful joy to watch. The 1949 version is definitely worth a watch too, with greats Elizabeth Taylor, Janet Leigh, Peter Lawford and Margaret O'Brien.