It wasn’t that bad of a movie. Honestly, if you hadn’t read the book or seen the 1933 version you would find little wrong. The plot makes sense and you understand the characters. But if you were to compare it, this film does fall short in originality and following the plot.<\/p>\n
The girls do go out and buy themselves presents. This definitely didn’t happen in the book but what it does accomplish is solidifies the girl’s interests for those who don’t quite catch on. Amy loves to draw; Beth loves music but won’t talk to anyone; Meg is vain; and Jo loves books and reads them quickly. To us it doesn’t seem a little redundant, but for those who have yet to see the film it is somewhat necessary. And one of the bigger problems is Amy’s magnificent bust even though she is barely a preteen, while Beth looks to be no older than nine years old. Amy is most definitely no little woman in this film. She does act like one though.<\/p>\n
As far as originality, yes the 1949 version steals almost every shot from the 1933 version. At least they flipped the layout of the tea room to try and make it different. Also, there was that unbearably long take when Laurie took Jo from one side of the room to the other so they could dance. That was pointless. Also
\nThis film does lack innovation as far as adapting the text and at sometimes makes a mockery of it, but as far as being a film it isn’t that bad. Sometimes comparing a film to others like it can weaken your ability to analyze that film. Sure it would have been better if they just redid the 1933 version in color, but Katherine Hepburn was way too old. But then again, maybe she could have played Marmee…..yeah I don’t think so either.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
It wasn’t that bad of a movie. Honestly, if you hadn’t read the book or seen the 1933 version you would find little wrong. The plot makes sense and you understand the characters. But if you were to compare it, … Continue reading