Little Women

audience Reviews

92% Audience Score92%
  • 5 of 5 stars
    Full Star IconFull Star IconFull Star IconFull Star IconFull Star Icon
    I have to give it 5 stars. Why? I do have some slight criticisms but enjoyed watching the film so much anyway that I cannot justify taking any points away. The pace of the movie is wonderful. The script wraps scenes together with past and present intermingling in a way that is both artistic and productive. This style brings a rich meaning to aspects of all of the characters and their relationships. I love the way this was done. Of course this period piece is full of beautifully videographed scenery and it is obvious that a lot of attention was given to detail. Delicious. What I thought I might find here in the way of complaint was that in order to follow the events and the flip flopping between past and present, it seems necessary to have read the book and if you have read the book, You may have already formulated an image of Amy. And Amy might not seem like you imagined her - or at least she wasn't as I imagined. This version of her was a much stronger character with sharper edges. I personally didn't fall in love with her or sense the passion between her and Lori but was amazed at the believability of the youthful as well as the grown up Amy. The acting in this film was real talent. Often, I am annoyed by the casting of recognizable actors and actresses in films like this but Meryl Streep and Emma Watson while recognizable and solid in their parts did not overact or steal attention from the others. No single role stole the show. It was a well balanced story of all characters. I was drawn in. I had to love it.
  • 5 of 5 stars
    Full Star IconFull Star IconFull Star IconFull Star IconFull Star Icon
    This new adaptation only holds an extra 17 minutes over its beloved 1994 predecessor and yet finds the time to add new layers to an old story. While spirited writer Jo is still the central player, each of the March sisters enjoy a good share of the spotlight. None benefit more from this than artist Amy, whose previous depictions as the shallow and opportunistic youngest have here been replaced with an ambitious but realistic young woman who is very aware of her limited options in life. It takes a brave and talented director to breathe new life into a story that has already been adapted for the screen six times, but Greta Gerwig makes it seem effortless. Saoirse Ronan and Florence Pugh are well deserving of their Oscar nominations. That their director was overlooked in her category is shameful.
  • 5 of 5 stars
    Full Star IconFull Star IconFull Star IconFull Star IconFull Star Icon
    Awesome film, great characters, interpretations. Saoirse, Eliza, Timotheé and Florence.
  • 4 of 5 stars
    Full Star IconFull Star IconFull Star IconFull Star IconEmpty Star Icon
    Great version of the classic coupled with tremendous casting of experienced and young actresses and actors. Have overheard several young women talking about its relativeness today.
  • 0.5 of 5 stars
    Half Star IconEmpty Star IconEmpty Star IconEmpty Star IconEmpty Star Icon
    That was so awful!!! I wanted to like it. This was so choppy and disconnected. They jumped around a lot and the March girls were too close in age... adding pigtails does not make you look younger. The cast was not matched up to the parts well. Jo was feisty, as she should be, but her look was wrong. The actress played her well. Aunt March was good... Meryl Streep was a good choice. Other than that, the movie was awful.
  • 5 of 5 stars
    Full Star IconFull Star IconFull Star IconFull Star IconFull Star Icon
    the best movie i have ever seen this movie is even "inception"
  • 4 of 5 stars
    Full Star IconFull Star IconFull Star IconFull Star IconEmpty Star Icon
    Kind, heartwarming, and charming, Little Women is a beautiful portrayal of how family, especially siblings, stick together through hardship and through triumph by the glue of love.
  • 2.5 of 5 stars
    Full Star IconFull Star IconHalf Star IconEmpty Star IconEmpty Star Icon
    I did not have high hopes for this movie and wasn't intending to even see it. But it was on Starz so I watched it. I am a huge fan of the 90s Little Women. I haven't read the book in a long time. I didn't love the characters in this movie. I thought they didn't play into Meg enough. And I really didn't like the flashing back. I did like how they went into the girls adult lives a little more. But I will forever love the 90s movie and personally I feel this one didn't even come close.
  • 2 of 5 stars
    Full Star IconFull Star IconEmpty Star IconEmpty Star IconEmpty Star Icon
    I decided to give this Little Women a chance and it doesn't even compare to the 1994. It's different bc it goes from past to present, but the cast (as talented as they all are) don't connect with eachother. Noone played Jo like Winona, Laurie looks too young in this one and Bale totally takes that part anyways, Emma Watson can't play Meg at all (doesn't fit), Beth was a tie for me, Amy...Kristen Dunst totally takes it as a snotty brat, and well Pugh is am amazing actress she looks older then Jo... it just didn't fit the part at all, no one can take Gabriel Burns altho this guy is pretty good, Susan Sarandon takes Marmee, and as much as I want to say Meryl takes Aunt March bc she's a goddess, Mary Wickes plays a grouch way better lol. Whoever rated high should definitely good check out the 1994 version.
  • 1 of 5 stars
    Full Star IconEmpty Star IconEmpty Star IconEmpty Star IconEmpty Star Icon
    Sucked, took things out of order and bounced around too much