User reviews

This film is simply spectacular! The acting is superb by everone in the cast, the attention to detail here is just breathtaking. I was wondering during the film that how much time and effort were into making this movie.

I was a bit annoyed by the non-linearity of the script and thought it was overdone but besides that I enjoyed this film a lot. Go see this.

Finally saw LITTLE WOMEN 2019. Didn't expected much cause I really liked 94 version by Gillian Armstrong with Winona Ryder , Gabriel Byrne , Trini Alvarado , Christian Bale and Susan Sarandon. Well, the casting was something that I cannot judge which one is better. Both are so so great. But Christian Bale 94, I liked better than Timothée Chalamet 2019 (Although he was good but didn't overcome THE Christian).

Two things really grabbed me.

1. The camera and light. The camera is keep moving even for the steady shots. They released the tripod and moved a little to adjust each actors even a small movement they make. They also use sunlight so beautifully like Pride and Prejudice. Aldo a couple of slow motions and mintage sequences are beautiful too.

2. The music. It is not like here I am listen like Hans Zimmer or Max Richter or even Cliff Martinez who would say even if the movie suck I am still here. Think that at least you've watched a great Music Video cause of my music. In this movie the music is there clearly and when it comes to really important moments, It really boost up the heart of audience. But it's more like supporting way. I felt it from the very beginning. Ok wow this guy knows OST!! Alexandre is more of a classic composer who made OST like The Danish Girl, The Tree of life, Julie & Julia and Philomena.

I cannot say this movie will win (was nominated for 6 Academy) a lot of awards from all around the world but it has beautiful beautiful acting ensenble and light, camera and music wise. Work of art.

Also the acting sometimes made my heart beat. Even the makeup is so great. Of course the director is also an actress so she knows how to deal with these stuff, right?

Last. The time. It goes back and forth from the past to present a couple of times but it was not confusing or breaking any concentration cause it was so nicely connected by editing and bridge music. (The cast y-oung and old -was the same too which didn't matter as well.) Something that was different with the 94 version.

It is an inspiring movie after all and I won't rest tonight to finish my humble feature writing for my next project.

The newest adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's classic novel, "Little Women," was the best version I have ever seen. Directed by Greta Gerwig, the film stars Saoirse Ronan as Jo March, Emma Watson as Meg, Florence Pugh as Amy, Eliza Scanlen as Beth, and Laura Dern as Marmee. Timothée Chalamet stars as Laurie, Chris Cooper is Mr. Laurence, and Meryl Streep as Aunt March.

The entire cast is stupendous. Ms. Ronan stands out in her tour de force performance as Jo, the independent writer, who refuses to marry, and is determined to make her own path. She unflinchingly remains true to herself, her family and her work as both a writer and a teacher.

The main difference between this adaptation and its predecessors is the stream of consciousness approach as the story moves between the present day March family, and the stories of growing up together. Parallels between the challenges when they were children and the struggles of adulthood weave together to tell their story both now and then. Gerwig and her team does a masterful job of storytelling to balance it all in a cohesive manner that holds the audience's attention and intrigue, even if most viewers already know the original story.

To enhance the superb storytelling, the film's cinematography and costume design, recreating 19th century New England, was a bright spot in this visually captivating film. I wouldn't be surprised if this film was among the select few chosen for nominations in both categories at this year's Oscars.

I will definitely introduce it to my mom and my girls. I already imagined watching it many years later and still be touched as hell.

Little Women (2019) is a wonderful movie from every aspect. It has a powerful story, superb acting and beautiful costumes and design. Moreover, it seems to me that I am flipping the pages of a painting book. Every scene looks like a beautiful canvas.

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.

I love that greta's version of tells us more about the sisterhood, family, and being a woman. the romance between jo and march is still there, too, but it's not the first thing you see or feel when you watch the movie (for me at least). amy is still annoying as ever (just like in the 1994 version), but i love that meg and beth have more spotlights in this version, too. every words were written beautifully and touching. i love every single words that coming from each characters. i love how this movie ends, too, it's much happier and realistic. i love that its 2h15m long because i feel like greta is rushing to tell us the stories but she really took her time without boring us (me) at all.

i didn't expect to love this movie that much considered that i really love the 1994 version, but this movie has the same stories and characters but i feels fresh and warm for me.

Surprising to see such a high rating for this movie, and I can only guess it's because people don't know the original story. The rating would be much lower if people understood how much stuff director Greta Gerwig changed and added. Greta is a great writer and director when doing her own projects. But when she took on this classic, she inserted herself too much. First and foremost is the back-and-forth timeline. Don't pretend you had no problem keeping up. It was near impossible. You see a married couple, and then you see them meeting for the first time. Okay, that is obviously a flashback. But then you see a different couple, and you have no idea what timeline they are in. Jo has hair in one scene, and then it's gone, then back again. So it was easy to see which timeframe she was in. But not for any other character. The back and forth story frames was the same thing that ruined the last few seasons of LOST, and it was very intrusive of Greta to do that to Alcott's classic. Next, we have Greta's own inventions, characters such as the book publisher who looks into the camera and speaks directly to us in the audience. I don't remember where that part was in the original book. Oh yeah, it wasn't. The director did this on her own and invented an unneeded story line where Jo March was the writer of Little Women, and not Louisa May Alcott. A huge mistake. All 4 girls looked the same age, and this was a big casting mistake, plus Laurie looked 12 years old throughout. I know Great wanted to hire the A-list of young actors, but the characters are not the same age like these actors are.

Sorry to be a "Debbie Downer" but I don´t care for this adaption at all. The quick dialogue is suppose to be spontaneus and flowing but just because someone talk fast doesn´t mean that it is good or believable.

The scenery is beautiful and the costumes are beautiful and thoughtful but that doesn´t change the fact that everything feels a little bit stressed. They are trying too hard. Florence Pugh both look and sounds too old for this part and Emma Watson look too young too be the eldest sister.

Saoirse Ronan and Timothy Chalaméet are ok but the real star is of course Meryl Streep in a supporting role.

Such a pity.

9:50 a.m. I finally saw the new "Little Women" yesterday. A mid-late twentish Megan Follows look a like plays Jo - complete with her smile - that pulls you in and makes you want to be her friend. It was super amazing. It jumps back and forth between the first half of the story and the second half of the story so unless you have read the book - which is chronological, or seen the 1994 version - which is chronological I think you would be horrendously confused. I was worried that this one would have liberal undertones which it sorta did, but nothing that bothered me too much. Jo voices a need to not get married, Amy voices a necessity for it for practical economic reasons. Personally, it is a pretty intense emotional struggle for me. It does have a unique ending from the all of the other versions which reflects those undertones, but worked well. Costumes, scenery, acting, writing, all absolutely amazing. I wondered how much of the scenery was real - it was so amazing - or if any of it was computer created. Oh and it has a nice Mr. Lawrence which was nice to see.

A line at the 12:30 show? All here to see Little Women I joked. Yes, they were & some seeing it again. Best movie I've seen in ten years. Word will get around, it'll be a best seller and then this will be one that we watch every Christmas with the grands. Don't be the last on your block to see it.

Such a pleasure to watch a wonderful feel good film. Granted I got confused by the end with the jumping back and forth but most the time you knew what was going on by the mood of everyone. Absolutely brilliant

This movie was amazing. Amazing actors and actresses. Could not have asked for anything better. Kept your attention through out the whole 2 hr movie. I would recommend this movie over and over again

Having read the book as a child I've always loved the story of the March sisters. This film does not disappoint although it seemed to be in a different timeline order to the book with going back and forward to the past. There were very strong messages to inspire young women as with the original book. I thought it looked stunning and the cast were all very good especially those playing Jo and Amy. I would definitely watch it again. I have only seen the 1994 version once so can't quite recall it to compare. As the book inspired me as a young girl to try and make my own way in the world without the need to be married I believe those messages are still relevant today 35 years later.

The need to be "different" and slice and shuffle the storytelling was bewildering and took away from the emotional buildup viewers get from any other version of the movie (I'm partial to 94 version) or the novel. Laura Dern's portrayal of marmee was nothing like an actual woman of the era would have behaved. You don't get the sense of the how close the girls were the way it's presented... in real life their parting was as they became adults, but the movie starts out with them already parted, and even as someone familiar with the novel and the other movies I was constantly confused about where we were in the timeline (related to Beth). Casting was a bit questionable age-wise - Laurie looked like a teenager throughout, younger than all the girls except Beth. The location was pretty flawless, and captured where the Alcotts actually lived fairly well. I just hated all the time hopping. I wanted to love the movie (and bought a copy because I assumed I'd watch it as much as I watch the other versions, it ruined it for me.

I know I am a little biased been Irish buy Saoirse Ronan is just a wonder in this Little Woman, without her what would the film be, nothing, she is in almost every scene of the 2 hour plus old style story telling drama. Its like stepping back into the years when Hollywood (America) made movies about people, not monsters, not killers, no CGI, Just a group of people brought together knowing if they give this their all it will be viewed/enjoyed long after they have passed. If Ronan does not get the Oscar this time (she so richly deserves) after so many near misses well no matter. Everyone who watches Little Woman in the years and years to come will be so satisfied by the whole production they will be so happy they gave this Film 2 hours of their life. Go and watch it with someone you love, it will be night you will both recall years later.

This was very good. By all means a well made, well written and shot adaptation. But for me it didn't even come close to the '94 version with Winona Ryder. Each character was phenomenal in that old version, especially Claire Danes as Beth and Christian Bale as Laurie. Also the unforgettable Winona Ryder, of course, and Susan Sarandon. Kirsten Dunst as Amy...oh my goodness, absolutely exquisite. Even though I enjoyed watching the new version, my preference remains firmly with the old. Though more simply told, perhaps, without flashbacks back and forth and fancy effects, to me it was richer in emotions and with much more memorable, more 'colorful' characters. I enjoyed watching Amy in the new version, I just didn't understand why she was never little?... She was this mature woman both as a kid and an adult...very strange. Anyway, you won't regret watching this, for sure. I just doubt I'll ever see it again. Whereas the '94 version I could watch another ten times, with pleasure. I guess that says it all.

Bright characters, beautiful scenery and a smart witty style. We all love Little Women no matter what year you have watched it. But Greta brushes the screen with her wit and style. Nothing drolls on. It's funny, witty and snaps to scenes but not too quickly. With just enough time so the audience doesn't get tired. Florence Pough was superb. And so was Chamalat playing Laurie. I loved watching Greta on screen but behind the camera, she is a dream.

Set during the American Civil War and after, the story of four young sisters - Jo, Meg, Amy and Beth - their lives and loves, triumphs and heartbreaks and growing up.

There have been several adaptations of Louisa May Alcott's classic novel with the 1949 (directed by Mervyn Leroy and starring June Allyson, Elizabeth Taylor, Janet Leigh, Mary Astor and Peter Lawford) and 1994 (starring Winona Ryder, Claire Danes, Kirsten Dunst, Christian Bale, Susan Sarandon, Gabriel Byrne and Eric Stoltz) versions being the best among them. Both were excellent, with the 1949 version to the fore (a 9/10 for me, vs 8/10 for the 1994 version).

With this adaptation, writer-director Greta Gerwig (whose previous film was the wonderful 'Lady Bird') does her best to create something new, using a non-linear storyline and some departures from the novel. Ultimately, however, while still quite enjoyable it is not in the same league as the 1949 and 1994 versions.

The non-linearity - jumping back and forth between the women in the adult years to their younger years - while novel, detracts from the plot. It is difficult to build any momentum or engagement due to the back-and-forthness. In addition, it wrecks any intrigue regarding relationships and other developments in the sisters' younger lives, as you can see how it pans out.

The film also doesn't have the warmth that the other two films had. While the bond and camaraderie between the sisters is reasonably well demonstrated, it just feels a bit hollow.

This said, it's a decent telling of the story with some solid performances, especially from Saoirse Ronan as Jo and Florence Pugh as Amy. However, I found Timothee Chalamet, as Laurie, a tad irritating and Laura Dern seemed miscast as Marmee.

Very uplifting, emotional ending which ties everything together quite nicely.

Starting at the end is rarely a good idea because it destroys all the emotional payoffs. We open with Jo selling her stories (so now all the earlier stuff where she's struggling to be a writer is diffused of that struggle). We open with Amy already in Paris and painting (so now we understand that Amy does escape to a more glamorous life as desired), and even worse, we open with her running into Laurie and us finding out that Jo turned down his engagement (so ALL romance in their earlier years is now "who cares?" because we know where it leads). Oscar nominated?? Filmmakers wanted to be different? Put their mark on the story by telling it out of order? Makes no narrative sense. So if you already know the story and you won't to see pretty costuming, watch it. If you don't know the story, watch the 1994 version instead.

I was hesitant about seeing this version because I love the 1994 version and Little Women is one of my favorite books, but this version is a must see.