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.
38 Reviews
Actress Overkill
mcleodjack19 December 2018
Jarring Jo
rebekahrox10 February 2019
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.
Not the best version of Little Women
gregberne1125 January 2019
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.
No Jo
lastrow30 December 2019
I finally figured out why Sarah Davenport and her depiction of Jo was so annoying - she was acting like one of the Disney animated princesses, facial expressions, body language and everything. Like a peeved Ariel, or Elsa, or all of them. Angry huffing little foot stompers. Ruined movie for me.
disappointing mish/mash
skeezix3269 July 2019
Not So Little On Emotion!
rgkarim30 September 2018
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
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
I've read the book over and over and watched every adaption........
lindajeancamp4 July 2019
My favorite character has always been Jo. However, the actress who played Jo in this rendition was so over the top dramatic she ruined the movie. Why didn't the director get her to dial it back? Instead of spirited and passionate this actress made her manic and mean spirited.
Jo is the problem
erzbetwilson2 February 2020
Jo is not very likable and in fact is downright mean most of the time during this movie. This could have been so much better if the writers had made Jo more endearing instead of rude and nasty. Yes, in Little Women Jo is headstrong and independent but she's never unpleasant and in this movie that's exactly what she is - unpleasant. The rest of the film is just so-so with no real depth. It's certainly not a film one will recall or watch more than once.
Slow moving, boring, drivel.
nancy244528 September 2018
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.
So underrated!! (No spoilers)
joelwilson-597619 April 2021
I loved the movie. It was very heart touching, warm, and a wonderful movie. I don't know how everyone else point of view on the story and stuff but I assure you it's not a waste of your time. And yes it's so underrated.
Absolutely horrible
kennedyc-6148526 January 2019
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
Glad to See a Modernized Version
epsalmonsen28 September 2018
Warning: Spoilers
"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.
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.
Not well done
bensentl2 July 2019
I love the story of little women and have enjoyed other movie versions of this story. This version just doesn't cut it. I am sure she is a fine actress but Sarah Davenport who plays Jo is absolutely unlikeable. I found the movie contrived, overacted and to be honest hard to watch. I see there is a new version in a year with Meryl Streep and others.....so we shall see. Skip this version.
Miscast, mediocre, overacted, cloying, and completely and thoroughly expendable
Lee-1074 May 2019
The 10-second forward option Netflix offers is really quite useful sometimes, especially when you're watching drivel like this. I grew up reading Louisa May Alcott's novels and have seen almost every adaptation of "Little Women." And by far I've never seen anything as bad this one. The actors are miscast and there is entirely too much reliance on flashbacks and on the 1994 adaptation of "Little Women." Also, Jo's character is for some inexplicable reason changed. Yes, Jo is headstrong, but she's not a selfish person who makes everything - even her sister's illness - about herself and somehow thinks that her feelings are deeper or more intense than those of others. This is probably not the fault of Sarah Davenport, the actress who plays Jo, because she has the "look" of Jo, but man, she really does make for an annoying Jo. In all the adaptations of "Little Women" I've seen, I've never been this annoyed with Jo or this unmoved by her story.
There are actors in this movie that I actually like, but boy are they miscast. Lucas Grabeel - I'm sorry to say - does not have the acting chops or the gravitas to play an iconic character like Laurie. Remember, Christian Bale played Laurie and you need an actor of that caliber to pull off a convincing Laurie and Grabeel simply doesn't have it. Speaking of Bale, and more specifically the 1994 version of "Little Women," which starred Susan Sarandon, Winona Ryder, Kirsten Dunst, Claire Danes, etc., this 2018 version follows almost every beat of the 1994 movie, but the difference between the two couldn't be more glaring. I don't have anything against someone wanting to modernize "Little Women." It is a timeless story that doesn't need to be constrained by time - or even place. But I hate it when the thousandth adaptation of "Little Women" comes along and it is this miscast, mediocre, overacted, cloying, and completely and thoroughly expendable.
There are actors in this movie that I actually like, but boy are they miscast. Lucas Grabeel - I'm sorry to say - does not have the acting chops or the gravitas to play an iconic character like Laurie. Remember, Christian Bale played Laurie and you need an actor of that caliber to pull off a convincing Laurie and Grabeel simply doesn't have it. Speaking of Bale, and more specifically the 1994 version of "Little Women," which starred Susan Sarandon, Winona Ryder, Kirsten Dunst, Claire Danes, etc., this 2018 version follows almost every beat of the 1994 movie, but the difference between the two couldn't be more glaring. I don't have anything against someone wanting to modernize "Little Women." It is a timeless story that doesn't need to be constrained by time - or even place. But I hate it when the thousandth adaptation of "Little Women" comes along and it is this miscast, mediocre, overacted, cloying, and completely and thoroughly expendable.
Contrived
westsideschl21 December 2018
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.
Horrible
ldavis-0525011 August 2020
When jo and meg go to the New Year's Eve party they are not even wearing coats. They are supposed to be in Concord Massachusetts on December 21st it'll be single digits or the teens. At best it would be 25° F
Just some things like this that are not well thought out .... and why would Laurie be going to Stanford instead of Harvard ... doesn't make sense.
Also the actress who played Jo sucked. She talks like she's chewing her face. The acting is just awful. She doesn't have any lovable attributes like the real Jo
I really wanted to like this and I went in with an open mind. I think they did a good job with modernizing the story honestly .... but these little things ruined it.
Well the actress who played Jo that's a big thing lol
But I have to give credit to the story itself and how they modernized it. They did A pretty good job I think. I would like to see another modernization ... maybe one that takes place in the 90s so it's modernized but we didn't have cell phones and texting lol
Just some things like this that are not well thought out .... and why would Laurie be going to Stanford instead of Harvard ... doesn't make sense.
Also the actress who played Jo sucked. She talks like she's chewing her face. The acting is just awful. She doesn't have any lovable attributes like the real Jo
I really wanted to like this and I went in with an open mind. I think they did a good job with modernizing the story honestly .... but these little things ruined it.
Well the actress who played Jo that's a big thing lol
But I have to give credit to the story itself and how they modernized it. They did A pretty good job I think. I would like to see another modernization ... maybe one that takes place in the 90s so it's modernized but we didn't have cell phones and texting lol
Unbelievable... everything
ektrader-017183 October 2018
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.
Touching, Well Made, and Wonderful
givevision3 October 2018
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.
I enjoyed every bit of this film. I was quite moved multiple times, and left the theater very affected.
Garbage movie
adelinamaritiu21 February 2020
Boring cliche
theundead866 February 2020
I found the main character extremely annoying and otherly self obsorbed. The title of this movie is very misleading . With a title like Little Women, the plot would have to be something special and not something that boring. One would think it was about feminisme but it was about a crazy, man-hating female with a really bad temper.
Worst movie I've seen
simaba5 January 2020
This was possibly the worst and most cliche movie I've ever seen!! I'm honestly shocked who would still I invest in such a thing? So annoyingly predictable. Waste of time. Please if you have some respect for yourself and your time don't watch this.
A different version of the usual story. Maybe less memorable, but different.
filipemanuelneto28 March 2024
Louisa May Alcott's classic novel has received several film and TV adaptations over the decades. Some are more significant than others, and this is definitely one of the smallest, but perhaps the most creative I've seen, opting to give us an updated, refreshed version of the story as always. At a time when literary classics are treated as "sacred cows" by cinema purists (at the same time that, paradoxically, "politically correct" versions of the books are presented, without the expressions and words that the authors wrote, but which we don't like it), it's innovative and courageous to do something different, even if it's a weaker work.
Like many people who do not speak English as their native language, I have never read the original book, nor found a well-written Portuguese translation, respectful of the original source. So, I'll stick to the film. It's quite good at giving us an airy version of the story we've already seen, and it's certainly a labor of love for everyone involved. Certain things worked well, others were not believable (particularly the imaginative play of the sisters, who spend time playing games that are very childish for their age), but the essentials - the unity between sisters and the way they face different difficulties - remain untouched.
Directed by Clare Niederpruem, the film is not exceptional and has a TV flavor, as if it had been designed for a direct-to-DVD version or for the television market, not for the big screen. However, it gives us decent cinematography and regular production values, considering it didn't have the biggest budget. The dialogues are well written, and the film does not waste too much time on irrelevant things, even though the levels of sugary melodrama are high and make the film a somewhat sweet experience, which will not please everyone. The ending is anti-climactic.
In addition to the opportunity to see a different version of the story, the film seriously relies on a very female cast, with much more commitment and energy than skill. The sisters are assured by Sarah Davenport, Melanie Stone, Allie Jennings and Taylor Murphy. They are all promising young people who have much more desire and energy than talent, they are still learning the dramatic art. There are still a few other actors around here who will make some high marks, namely Lea Thompson and Michael Flynn, but it's safe to say that each of them is trying to take advantage of the opportunity to improve as much as possible in their art and skill, and that this film will not be the masterpiece of anyone involved.
Like many people who do not speak English as their native language, I have never read the original book, nor found a well-written Portuguese translation, respectful of the original source. So, I'll stick to the film. It's quite good at giving us an airy version of the story we've already seen, and it's certainly a labor of love for everyone involved. Certain things worked well, others were not believable (particularly the imaginative play of the sisters, who spend time playing games that are very childish for their age), but the essentials - the unity between sisters and the way they face different difficulties - remain untouched.
Directed by Clare Niederpruem, the film is not exceptional and has a TV flavor, as if it had been designed for a direct-to-DVD version or for the television market, not for the big screen. However, it gives us decent cinematography and regular production values, considering it didn't have the biggest budget. The dialogues are well written, and the film does not waste too much time on irrelevant things, even though the levels of sugary melodrama are high and make the film a somewhat sweet experience, which will not please everyone. The ending is anti-climactic.
In addition to the opportunity to see a different version of the story, the film seriously relies on a very female cast, with much more commitment and energy than skill. The sisters are assured by Sarah Davenport, Melanie Stone, Allie Jennings and Taylor Murphy. They are all promising young people who have much more desire and energy than talent, they are still learning the dramatic art. There are still a few other actors around here who will make some high marks, namely Lea Thompson and Michael Flynn, but it's safe to say that each of them is trying to take advantage of the opportunity to improve as much as possible in their art and skill, and that this film will not be the masterpiece of anyone involved.
Not Well Done
morganfgetup9 August 2021
Warning: Spoilers
The fact that they made the story take place during the 21st century through the story off. This film has been remade multiple times and it's a classic. The story takes place in the 1800s and the timeline should not be changed.
Some things need to be left alone
donnodcassandra-4109927 December 2021
Everyone says " Great adaption from the original one" but it's not really , the first one was about four sister being different in very dark ages to be a women , that's way it's called LITTLE women , they where different , they had real dreams ( which was very bad to do in those times ) and wanted to have equality and respect as most men in those times , THAT was interesting and the fact that it was a possible true story , the 2018 movie sucked , women in those times could dream bid , have a job , almost any job and be there own people , Jo was just a jerk not a passionate girl about her beliefs , she was annoying and just a kid all the time , not to point out that her actress was not changed since Jo was a teen and so it didn't make sense to be told that she is now 28 like... When?? And her other sister looked like 30 ... ??? , It was just boring and didn't have point to be made.
Had my doubts going in; but, this is a beautifully realized modern update of a classic!
inkblot117 October 2018
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!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
