MovieChat Forums > Little Women (2019) Discussion > Frankly the 1994 movie looks far better ...

Frankly the 1994 movie looks far better than this.


Most of the cast seems to be a bunch of nobodies. Emma Watson can't act for shit. And the guy who playing Christian Bale part. Looks like he on estrogen supplement. Really your pick that guy over Christian "Im fucking Batman" Bale. It just looks like a mediocre Remake.

reply

It does appear to be shite. Emma's brain dead followers will help it make a few pennies.

reply

I disagree. I think it looks pretty good. I would hardly say that most of the cast are nobodies. Emma Watson, Meryl Streep, Laura Dern, Saoirse Ronan, Timothée Chalamet, Chris Cooper, and Bob Odenkirk are pretty well known and are all good actors. Greta Gerwig wrote and directed it, so I expect it to be very good. I wouldn't be surprised if this gets some major Oscar nominations.

reply

Frankly the only people i recognize from this movie is Meryl Streep, Emma Watson, Laura Dern, and Chris Cooper. Ive never seen these other people before. Its not like everybody watches nothing but Oscar Bait movies.

reply

Florence Pugh should end up becoming someone in the industry. She was great earlier this year in Fighting With My Family. Even if you're not into pro wrestling that's a fun film and she's great as the lead.

reply

Well, the trailer looks amazing and almost had me in tears. The focus was on Jo, and Saoirse Ronan did a fabulous job! I'm really looking forward to this.

I saw the 1994 version, and I think I liked it? Hard to remember. This trailer definitely caught my attention.

reply

Yes, this is definitely a stellar cast, but I wonder what they told them to get them involved in this remake.

reply

Mediocre seems to be the accurate word for it.

reply

Looks like it will be "Little Woke Women". The '94 version is about as good as it can get. The '49 version is also very good, in spite of the fact that Allyson and Lawford are too old.

reply

Yep.

reply

I agree with you. The 1994 version is terribly underrated given the high caliber of acting it had.

reply

I LOLd at Chalamet looking like he's on an estrogen supplement, but you're right. He does not come off as especially manly at all, certainly not in the way that Bale did in the '94 film.

Apparently Chalamet does have his share of female admirers though, from what I understand. I guess there really is someone for everyone.

reply

I quote myself from here:
https://moviechat.org/tt1190634/The-Boys/5d39aa49e6724865f92f7569/I-was-REALLY-surprised-to-see-a-new-superhero-series-with-a-blond-white-male-character-and-a-red-hair-female-lead

Anyway, I think there's four archetypes when it comes to white males and modern Hollywood.

1. The violent psychopath. Aggressive, evil, a textbook born-oppressor. Nazi-like. Usually blond, sometimes dark-haired.
2. The pathetic psychopath. Evil, but useless. A loser. His main function is to be easily beaten by the Politically Correct hero or to be the clown. Usually blond or red-hair.
3. The submissive cuck. Weak, emasculated, insecure. Usually dark-haired white.
4. The white knight. This represents the white SJW alter-ego. This is seen as a positive character, but it's some isolated white male that sides with the diverse cast against the evil white males. Usually dark-haired white.

Chalamet fits perfectly the archetype nº3. That's why they cast them, and that will be his role in this movie.

reply

[deleted]

Love the 1994 version. No desire to watch Brits in such an American story.

reply

Ohhh cool Christian Bale played three guy Timothy chalamet portrayed here. Now I want to see it.

reply