Sarah Davenport ruined this movie. Her overeacting and dramatics are annoying as hell. Let this be a lesson to actors. This is NOT what you want to portray on screen. She needs to tone it down about halfway.

Making films is HARD. This is Clare Niederpruem's directorial debut - the first film she's ever directed - and you'd never guess. This movie is extremely capably crafted, and holds its own quite easily with any of the other films currently in the movie theaters right now. Every aspect of the film was great - the acting, the cinematography, the production design, the sound, the editing - and most importantly, the storytelling.

I enjoyed every bit of this film. I was quite moved multiple times, and left the theater very affected.

Just saw this with my wife and daughter. I enjoyed it very much. It is a very touching story. I thought the actors portrayed the character and personalities really well. Unlike some of the user critics here, I did not find any of the characters to be "one-dimensional." I also did not feel that the pacing was "slow" or "boring." I mean, it's not a Marvel action movie film, you know.

I haven't read the book, but my wife, a serious reader, says that it was a very good modernization of the story. Sometimes modernizing a well known story doesn't pull off successfully. Mostly failures, as a matter of fact, in my opinion.

This main story line is about Jo coming to terms with life and her change of that view. It was an interesting journey.

I give it 8 stars plus a couple extra. It deserves far greater than the silly 4.8 rating it has now.

Jo March (Sarah Davenport) is one of four sisters, living in the Boston area. The others are Meg, Beth, and youngest one, Amy. Having aspirations to become a writer, Jo directs her sisters in home-grown productions of her works. Mother Marmee (Lea Thompson) encourages all the girls by giving them model "air castles" in the attic of the old, crumbling house, so they can decorate them with their aspirations. Meg, who is the oldest and home-schooled like the rest, wants to make friends with the popular crowd outside the family. By contrast, Beth loves home-life and playing the piano while Amy is a budding artist. Father is away fighting in the Middle East and the girls love skyping with him. Soon, a new young man, Laurie Lawrence, moves next door with his Grandpa. They, unlike the Marches, are wealthy. But, when Meg and Jo attend a party, Jo meets Laurie as they both seek refuge in small room. Friendship thrives. All the girls soon love Laurie as a brother. Laurie's tutor, John, develops an eye for pretty Meg, rescuing her from a party of temptations. Beth makes friends with Laurie's gruff Grandpa when she plays his piano on a visit while Amy constantly nags Jo to take her along with outings between her older sister and Laurie. But, as the four girls grow older, changes are inevitable. Jo, especially, has a hard time reaching her dreams, struggling on re-writes of her stories with a Columbia professor, Freddy Baer. Also, tragedy arrives. Will the girls make their parents are proud, as Papa always refers to them as "little women"? When I heard of this modern adaptation of a beloved classic, I was skeptical. Yet, this production is mostly faithful to the original, inspiring novel of Louisa May Alcott. The girls retain their unique personalities and the story is true to original plot. Sometimes the chronological ORDER of the events has been changed but it doesn't alter the impact. But, Meg still burns her hair with a curling iron and Amy still burns up Jo's writing notebook in a fit of revenge! As the principal character, Sarah Davenport is especially effective. Also, the settings around Boston, the costumes, and the careful direction make for a lovely movie to behold. Ladies, don't miss this chance to bring your daughters to a movie that is powerful in its "girls can be anything" message!

"Little Women" has been made for film or TV several times, but they always tell the story directly from the text, setting it in the 1860s. Most of the reason behind my 8/10 stars comes from the respect I have for a movie version of "Little Women" that gives the story a contemporary setting. There are some things I don't particularly like about the new edition of the title (Professor Bhaer is portrayed as a bit too dashing and successful and there is a out-of-place impromptu jam session led by Laurie), but I am just happy that someone put in the effort to put these characters into the modern era and show how timeless the March family's struggles and triumphs really are.

To me, I think the gold standard of updating or modernizing older literature is "10 Things I Hate About You." I watched that movie several times before I realized that it is a retelling of "The Taming of the Shrew," and that's because it is tethered to Shakespeare's work instead of being chained to it. It works as its own story, in other words. I had that running through my mind while watching "Little Women" today; could this be a stand alone story? If it was called something else and not readily apparent that it was a modern take on the Louisa May Alcott tale, would it still be any good? It's honestly hard to say as the movie seems to try to get the viewer to fact-check how well they have interpreted each of the March sisters for the 21st century.

My wife, who is the real "Little Women" aficionado, loved the movie today, but conceded that I had a point when I indicated that that it felt like the new version was not just based on the 1868 novel but perhaps just as much on the 1994 film. My wife made sense of this by pointing out that fans who were the target audience of the Winona Ryder-led movie are probably watching the new one with their kids and would be looking to compare the two movies in any way they could anyhow. It's funny how art reflects reality, and then reality reflects art and then back again.

Ultimately, this is a good movie. I really give the filmmakers a hat's off for attempting something with "Little Women" that has not been done yet, even if it wasn't pulled off flawlessly. It will probably not become the modern classic that the 1994 version has become, but maybe it will inspire the movie industry to update other stories from the pre-film era.

Good movie especially for preteens and movie with a good heart. People are so critical these days and girls can be so mean sometimes, but this movie has a good theme.

Exaggerated over acting; excessive verbosity. Not clear what the book reading was about (for admittance to a program?; for publishing?). One of the sisters as an older student developing a relationship w/a professor is not wha's needed again in a story.

I loved this modern version of Little Women. The characters were true to the book and not too extreme. There was a good balance of serious and funny scenes. I loved the cinematography. It was fun having Lea Thompson play Marmee.

See like you've never heard of Luisa May Alcott.

Went to see it because "Faith & Films recommended it. I took my wife and my adult daughter along. They were whispering back and forth the whole movie. Upon exiting I was given a negative verdict.

I found out that it wasn't as good as the one where Elizabeth Taylor plays Amy. Or that they like the one better where Susan Sarandon plays Marmee. Oh, and by the way, the Kid from High School Musical we played Laurie wasn't enough of a hunk. Wife and daughter were both annoyed by the portrayal of Jo.

So, I haven't read the book or seen previous renditions, and I loved, loved the movie. It was Little Women as a modern rom-com. Yes, it was a bit "Hallmarky" at times, but the parts were played with absolutely NO irony. It didn't poke fun of or take a condescending air toward this coming of age story these four girls. The lack of cynicism was refreshing.

I would see it again. My favorite part? Jo's control issues correcting everyone's grammar. And . . . her cracked cell phone screen.

The lead character Jo is a horrible person. I never right reviews but she made me so angry. She is a horrible sister. She is constantly cruel to the youngest sister for no apparent reason. She believes the world revolves around her and thinks she is the greatest person of all time. She honestly believes there is absolutely no flaw to her

Oh my gosh. I thought this movie would never end. I just could not make myself care about any of the characters in this movie except maybe the father of the girls. The character Jo was so irritating that I don't see how she could have ever made a friend, and certainly not with the professor. I would not want to spend more than five minutes with her. The movie's moving from past to present was hard to follow because with the exception of one character, the actors always looked the same age. I couldn't find any of the romantic match-ups believable, nor could I find the relationships among the sisters as touching as I was supposed to. Nothing about the story, the characters, or the relationships seemed authentic.

Robbie K with the last review of the night, and with it one that aims to look at the latest book turned movie remake. A timeless classic constantly tweaked, tonight's film hopes to bring the passion, drama, and emotional roller coaster ride that this story has been for ages. Enough jabbering, let us get to business as I review:

Movie: Little Women (2018)

Director: Clare Niederpruem Writers: Louisa May Alcott, Clare Niederpruem Stars: Lea Thompson, Ian Bohen, Lucas Grabeel



LIKES:

Acting: Certainly not the same performance of the previous installments but the new age twist of this movie brought with it plenty of talent to pave the way. The girls had fantastic chemistry for me, a nice little community very knit together and crafting a family that although dysfunctional felt like a realistic display of the modern drama. Passionate, yet somewhat controlled, each leading lady contributed greatly to the film overall, though I have to say Allie Jennings and Lucas Grabeel were my champions of the bunch.

The Modernized Twist: The originals love to tell it from a historical component/traditional side that holds its charm, majesty, and timeless sense of wonder. However, the outdated version can be difficult to hold attention, so the modernized version appeared. I myself certainly enjoyed the modern edge, finding issues that I believe will speak widely to the audience of today. The girls face a number of issues including marriage, dating, peer pressure, and envy, all with valuable lessons that should appeal to the younger crowd.

The Setting/Prop Departments: I'm a sucker for making a setting look good and this Little Women accomplished the task of bring suburban life to full swing. You'll feel quite quaint in the girls crowded home, become a part of the adventures that they sail through in their youth, and during the more dramatic moments feel their pain in the confines of the castles they so wanted.

The Cinematography: It's not the most dazzling sights or the ability to make fictional creatures come to life, but the camera work in this film is incredible in regards to amplifying the emotion of the moments. Focusing on faces, utilizing the light and make up to shine, and even emphasizing those tears are all incredibly combined to get those tears flowing for other audience members. Nice work indeed. The Musical Score: Yet, much of this movie would be lost without the incredible score to support the scenes. Powerful orchestra work, mostly led by the piano, is the means to which the emotion is maximized. Having that beautiful, sad score only brings out the beauty even further, adding that nice supporting punch that gives you goosebumps, or at least resonates in your heart. Even the Indy music works in regards to helping add a little spunk to the fun moments, the lyrics probably a good poetic representation of the moments that is stronger than the dialogue.

DISLIKES:

The Time Jump: I always though the originals were a straightforward approach through life, but I haven't seen these in a while so I can't be sure. This movie decides to jump back and forth between past and present, a nice symbolic representation of the mind set of Joe as she finds the inspiration to handle things in life. However, for this film the flashback seems rather random, the purpose of them diluted and the placement hard to believe given my other dislike. I think a straightforward approach would have worked better for me in the grand scheme, but points for creativity.

The Age Defying: As the flash back scenes progress you would expect the girls to gradually get some aging to them. This movie does a poor job of keeping to that consistency, with many of the girls looking the same six years later, despite them being in their prime growing years. Age defying magic may be desirable, but it shatters the reality and annoyed me when suddenly the time jump happened and only one person really changed. For a movie going for realism, they didn't accomplish this.

Not Focusing On The Other Girls Enough: The story is told through the perspective of Joe for the most part, and this time they decided to short sight the other ladies. Sure there are enough details to give you the gist, but I felt that much of the girls emotional growth was left in the dust, especially Lea Thompson's character. When some of the big dramatic moments happen, they are actually passed over quickly, a mere shadow of what they could have done. Such discretion was a little disappointing to see, though it did keep the pace interesting and out of melodramatic territory. Though Beth's tale is probably the exception to the rule.

Jo: The character Jo is a strong one, bringing a central pillar to brace all the supporting subplots on. While I can get on board with some of the times she reacts, Jo's character was a little overdone/soap opera level for me to handle at times. The overboard reactions for everything got annoying for me, and seeing her turn into the brat had my empathy levels really stretched to help understand her outlook. Seeing as she overtook most of the plot and at times was removed from the rest of the group, this story development was not the best direction for me for a story about family.

The VERDICT:

Overall, the movie accomplishes the goal of being the emotional stimulator that it wants to be. The modernization will help make it relevant to the modern generation, also helping improve the pace, to give you the movie version of the classic book. However, while the skeletal frame is still there, the movie lacks a lot of the details previous editions held and doesn't quite have the same togetherness. Still, a sob story lies in this film, with great morals and portrayals of life despite defying the aging process. So for you drama lovers, this one is for you, but in regards to a theater visit, you're best left until it hits home viewing in my opinion.

My scores are:

Drama/Family: 6.5-7.0 Movie Overall: 6.0

Perfectly enjoyable modern take on Little Women. I really liked the choices made to modernize the story. Some examples: Beth dying of cancer and Jo shaving her head for solidarity. Professor Bhaer being Jo's supportive(and very attractive) but critical professor at college. Father home from Iraq. I loved his relationship with his wife (the always appealing and talented Lea Thompson) and his girls. Straitlaced Meg going a little crazy and getting drunk and making out (briefly) at a party. Jo being an aspiring fantasy YA writer. Devotees of the original Little Woman will immediately be able to compare these with similar plot points in the original. The two thing that bothered me was A) the casting of Laurie. The actor did not look the part, though I did love the way they updated the character. The major problem (B) was the character of Jo. She was spoiled, arrogant, petulant, and immature throughout. She was a real drama queen and made even more irritating by the hammy acting on the part of the actress. She was also rather stupid. Had the character been better written, i would have given this a 7 or 8.

I came in with no previous Little Women experience, so I didn't have the nostalgia of comparing how they modernized it. That being said, I just watched an incredibly slow-paced, unbelievable, movie filled with unlikeable and/or one-dimensional characters. I can only compare it to a Hallmark movie without the feel-good moments.

12:17 p.m. Spoiler Alert if you wish to be surprised by the new "Little Women"

I finally got to see the new locally made present day set version of "Little Women" tonight. Overall I was enthralled with the modern adaptation, but there were a few things that bugged me.

Meg who is often portrayed as blond in this version is brunette, and shorter than Jo so she looks younger. She does do a good job though of portraying the gayness of wanting to get married.

As some of the other reviewers have pointed out this version does focus more on Jo than the others even in spite of being from her perspective. There is one jarring scene where she is particularly unkind to Amy. Though realistic, the reason fans of "Little Women" love it so much is in it's idyllic portrayal of sisters. When you tune into "Little House on the Prairie" or "Lark Rise to Candleford" although there is poverty it is never apparent. There is in "Lark Rise esp. no mention of a privy let alone the site of one. You don't see the squalor. You don't see the butchering of animals. You don't see people only bathing once a week - if that. "Little Women" is loved because it is as well idyllic but in the sense of how families get along and we love it for that even though we know that it isn't true. Just as a real life a pioneer house would have a privy behind the home - it is almost jarring when first visiting Nauvoo to see recreated - albeit unworkable privys, real sisters throw cruel insults at one another with regularity and with the intention of hurting. "Little Women" is not supposed to do that. Jo is also jarring in being too much of a look a like to Anne Hathaway and at first I couldn't decide if it was Anne Hathaway. Older Amy looks like new Mandy on "Last Man Standing" - Molly McCook. You expect her to be pretty - but that pretty?

Some of the reviewers pointed out that with the exception of Amy which in this version as in some of the versions is played by a younger and an older actress, the other three actresses - as well as the two boys and the parents - appear the same at all of the different ages, including having the exact same hairstyles throughout. I wondered though if some of that though could be that with Meg, Jo, and Beth all being brunette was to keep them easily recognizable. It could also be a matter of budget and saving on a stylist and wigs. It also makes continuity in shooting much easier.

I personally don't care for it when chronology jumps back and forth. They did a good job of labeling each change and having the "jump backs" consistently growing closer to present time, but it was still confusing particularly at first.

Short hair seemed too mod for sweet conservative Beth. And then after recovering from Leukemia the first time her hair looked exactly the same as pre-chemotherapy.

Nice modern touch however for the famous Jo hair cutting scene though to be in support of Beth's chemotherapy and not for money for Marmee - but yet at the same time another one of the things that was jarring - and quickly grown back to it's original length.

Because of the PG-13 rating I wondered what would make me feel uncomfortable. There didn't seem to be any language issues. It was evidently for the two parties. Both parties made me very uncomfortable. Alcohol was apparently flowing, and the scene with Meg and a boy at the apparently no date prom - which didn't make sense - was way too s. I also think even a "trying to fit in Meg" wouldn't have put on the dress - if you could call that two piece aberration that - that she did. It was a nice new touch at the first party that she fell into the pool. I was disappointed though in Laurie that at the second party that he didn't jump into help her like he does in the previous versions - although he did send Brooks. Some commented on Laurie being too "boy next door" and not "hunk next door." Yeah, that was a bit of a surprise in casting, but it grew on me.

I liked the change in having Mr. Lawrence only pretend to be mad at Beth for playing the piano. In the traditional versions your heart always aches for her when Mr. Lawrence gets angry at her thinking that it is Laurie that is is playing and she runs out. It was as well a nice touch that she ends up developing a friendship with Mr. Lawrence over music.

I liked the modern skyping with dad in the military. At the same time though only once do we see a cell phone, and we never see Jo typing her writing - oh maybe she did at Aunt March's. We should have seen Jo as well as the others with a constant phone or lap top in hand. And I really don't know - but I highly doubt that a hard copy manuscript is ever submitted. I would assume manuscripts are now emailed or sent in on a flash drive. The publisher definitely doesn't wish to have to completely retype your manuscript.

Although I love Barta Heiner I didn't know quite what to make of the character of Aunt March. What was Jo doing in her attic? Was that where Jo was staying during her time in NY? It was never made clear. In some scenes she was cranky and in some scenes nice. And why was she wearing pants to Meg's wedding?

Nice touch getting to sorta see Jo's wedding. They couldn't make up their mind what her colors were however. And would she really wear tennis shoes to her wedding? Yeah, I know in Jenni James "Cinderella" the title character wears tennis shoes to her prom.

I loved loved loved the added thing of the castles and the imagery and metaphor presented through them.

"Little Women" 2018 LINDA ANN SHELDON·SATURDAY, MARCH 2, 2019

12:17 p.m. I finally got to see the new locally made present day set version of "Little Women" tonight. Overall I was enthralled with the modern adaptation, but there were a few things that bugged me.

Meg who is often portrayed as blond in this version is brunette, and shorter than Jo so she looks younger. She does do a good job though of portraying the gayness of wanting to get married.

As some of the other reviewers have pointed out this version does focus more on Jo than the others even in spite of being from her perspective. There is one jarring scene where she is particularly unkind to Amy. Though realistic, the reason fans of "Little Women" love it so much is in it's idyllic portrayal of sisters. When you tune into "Little House on the Prairie" or "Lark Rise to Candleford" although there is poverty it is never apparent. There is in "Lark Rise esp. there is no mention of a privy let alone the site of one. You don't see the squalor you don't see the butchering of animals. You don't see people only bathing once a week - if that. "Little Women" is love because it is the same in how families get along and we love it for that even though we know that it isn't true. Just as a real life pioneer house would have privy behind the home, real sisters throw cruel insults at one another with regularity and with the intention of hurting. "Little Women" is not supposed to do that.

Some of the reviewers pointed out that with the exception of Amy which in this version as in some of the versions is played by a younger and an older actress, the other three actresses - as well as the two boys and the parents - appear that same at all of the different ages, including having the exact same hairstyles throughout. I wondered though if some of that though could be that with Meg, Jo, and Beth all being brunette was to keep them easily recognizable. It could also be a matter of budget and saving on a stylist and wigs. It also makes continuity in shooting much easier.

Short hair seemed too mod for sweet conservative Beth. And then after recovering from Leukemia the first time her hair looked exactly the same as pre-chemotherapy. Nice modern touch however for the famous Jo hair cutting scene though to be in support of Beth's chemotherapy and not for money for Marmee - but yet at the same time another one of the things that was jarring - and quickly grown back to it's original length.

Because of the PG-13 rating I wondered what would make me feel uncomfortable. There didn't seem to be any language issues. It was evidently for the two parties. Both parties made me very uncomfortable. Alcohol was apparently flowing, and the scene with Meg and a boy at the apparently no date prom - which didn't make sense - was way too s. I also think even a "trying to fit in Meg" wouldn't have put on the dress - if you could call that two piece aberration that - that she did. It was a nice new touch at the first party that she fell into the pool. I was disappointed though in Laurie that at the second party that he didn't jump into help her like he does in the previous versions - although he did send Brooks.

Some commented on Laurie being too "boy next door" and not "hunk next door." Yeah, that was a bit of a surprise in casting, but it grew on me. I liked the modern skyping with dad in the military. At the same time though only once do we see a cell phone, and we never see Jo typing her writing - oh maybe she did at Aunt March's. We should have seen Jo as well as the others with a constant phone or lap top in hand. And I really don't know - but I highly doubt that a hard copy manuscript is ever submitted. I would assume manuscripts are now emailed or sent in on a flash drive. The publisher definitely doesn't wish to have to completely retype your manuscript.

Although I love Barta Heiner I didn't know quite what to make of the character of Aunt March. What was Jo doing in her attic? Was that where Jo was staying during her time in NY? It was never made clear. In some scenes she was cranky and in some scenes nice. And why was she wearing pants to Meg's wedding? And why is she called Aunt March rather than Aunt (insert her first name?) Nice touch getting to sorta see Jo's wedding. They couldn't make up their mind what her colors were however. And would she really wear tennis shoes to her wedding?

I loved loved loved the added thing of the castles and the imagery and metaphor presented through them.

This film is a well-crafted and touching update of one of my favourite books. Not perfect, but very memorable and uplifting, reminding us to value our families, use our imaginations in every aspect of our life, be kind, and above all be persistent and brave in the face of adversity.

Loved the sister's final oath and Beth's reminder that we all have to grow up.

A thoroughly lovely film.

Well this is not the best version of Little Women ever put on the big screen but it is not as bad as some of the reviews are saying either. It is pretty basic and "contrived" as someone said but it is also a family movie and isn't trying to be very deep. I thought the acting was ok and the story was fine, I mean it is based on the classic. At the least I thought it was a nice idea at trying to modernize the old story. It just could have been better and more engaging.

I really enjoyed this. I haven't read the book but I have seen the other movie versions. I thought it was a great modernization and an entertaining movie on its own merit. It's well-made. Someone did a comparison to the Hallmark movies but I don't think it ever felt like it was made-for-TV, it had much higher production values. If it's too schmaltzy, take that up with Alcott. I, for one, definitely cried.

I cried twice. This is third version I've seen and I love them all. Highly recommend this modern adaptation of classic.