Little Women

Columbia Pictures | Release Date: December 25, 2019

7.5	USER SCORE Generally favorable reviews based on 503 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

charles19Jan 4, 2020

Wow. What is happening to the movie critics these days? This was an awful film, and they didnt even notice. Is this what is taken for art these days? Firstly, the writing was incredibly poor and the dialogue stilted and unnatural, likelyWow. What is happening to the movie critics these days? This was an awful film, and they didnt even notice. Is this what is taken for art these days? Firstly, the writing was incredibly poor and the dialogue stilted and unnatural, likely because it reflected the book too literally and was not adequately adapted to a movie screenplay. Secondly, the direction was very poor. There were major gaps in the plot making it seem incoherent at times. It left the viewer disoriented. Thirdly, the acting was only fair to midling. These are lightweight actors and they did nothing to anchor a poorly written screenplay. The only good parts were the costumes and cinematography. I love period piece dramas. But this was a waste of a couple of hours.… Expand

11 of 19 users found this helpful118

All this user's reviews

ArminAfsharFeb 2, 2020

Der Film hat praktisch keinen Konflikt. Bis die Hälfe vom Drehbuch geht nur um Charakter Beschreibung! Das Drehbuch ist Flasch und Dramlos. Nach 90 Minuten fängt man zu gähnen, weil es einfach nicht passiert und die Geschichte endlos weiterDer Film hat praktisch keinen Konflikt. Bis die Hälfe vom Drehbuch geht nur um Charakter Beschreibung! Das Drehbuch ist Flasch und Dramlos. Nach 90 Minuten fängt man zu gähnen, weil es einfach nicht passiert und die Geschichte endlos weiter geht. Falls man denkt, dass nach 110 Minuten etwas in der Geschichte schieflaufen kann, irret sich!… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

seel82Dec 26, 2019

Boring and overdone. Why does this movie need to be made every 15-20 years?

The 1800s has oversaturated western media for decades. Hopefully this trend fades.

11 of 26 users found this helpful1115

All this user's reviews

EdeltraudJan 7, 2020

Here are all the reasons this movie is not very good, certainly not nearly as good as the Masterpiece Theatre adaptation. Commotion, screaming & frenetic scenes--this is what it takes to be modern & fresh? More like annoying & inauthentic. NoHere are all the reasons this movie is not very good, certainly not nearly as good as the Masterpiece Theatre adaptation. Commotion, screaming & frenetic scenes--this is what it takes to be modern & fresh? More like annoying & inauthentic. No drama to the dramatic parts-I blame the jumpy timeline, what did this device add?
Horrible overblown musical score that bludgeoned us with what our emotion should be. Emma Watson made me cringe with her wooden "acting" & Laurie was miscast. Dern wasn't much better.
I don't like dark, interior movies, this didn't need so much attic & candlelight. Also, bludgeoned us with feminist manifesto, we get it already! The death of subtlety right here. Poor grammar in a period piece about intellectuals? Twice used the wrong pronoun, "You'll be better than me (than I am.)" and "We don't play piano as well as her (as she did)." Worst of all is this obsession with remaking Little Women. The real Alcott family, especially the Dad, has a fascinating story to tell -- why don't filmmakers care about that? Amos reformed education, was an abolitionist & part of underground railroad movement. He was for women's rights, he was part of the transcendentalist movement & founded a "utopian" community ( it failed, but still), the family was vegetarian & wouldn't "enslave animals" - he was a true radical & American original. The family moved 22 times as he kept trying to bring his ideas forward & was often rejected. He palled around with Thoreau, Emerson & other luminaries.
One star for costumes.… Expand

8 of 15 users found this helpful87

All this user's reviews

dullurdDec 26, 2019

Over-the-top sappy, overwrought, and boring. I saw this with my girlfriend and her mom. The three of us have pretty different movie preferences, but an hour into this, we all looked at each other and decided to leave. Honestly perplexed whyOver-the-top sappy, overwrought, and boring. I saw this with my girlfriend and her mom. The three of us have pretty different movie preferences, but an hour into this, we all looked at each other and decided to leave. Honestly perplexed why no other reviewers appear to feel this way.… Expand

16 of 33 users found this helpful1617

All this user's reviews

SakinahJan 17, 2020

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This Movie, that I absolutely refuse to call Little Women, is a slap in the face to anyone that has read the book, loved the classic story and has grown up with these characters ; Meg, Jo, Beth and Amy!

I am a fan of Greta Gerwig and of 'Lady Bird', which is why it was all the more unexpected that this movie turned out to be so disappointing and such a betrayal to me.
Especially as Greta herself has said that this story was first introduced to her as a child, so she knows what it means to grow up with these characters and this story.

Let's start first with how the story was unfolded. Starting in future and jumping back to the past then jumping to the future??? It ruins the whole emersive experience that the true Little Women story provides.

The reason that the story has attracted so many young girls is because that's when the story starts, when they are little girls and draws you in as they grow, learn and mature.

Next, the dreadful casting of characters that do not capture the true essence of the sisters! The terrible idea to have younger Amy and older Amy played by the same actress makes the younger Amy extremely unlikeable. And although I am a fan of Saoirse Ronan, her portrayal of Jo was completely inadequate, scatter-brained and weak.

The others so blended into the scenery they're not even worth critiquing with one exception. The one star was given for Meryl Streep.

Even if I could get behind the chaotic way in which the story was told and the drab choice of actors and actresses, I absolutely draw the line at Greta Gerwig's choice to merge the life of Louisa May Alcott and the character Jo March!
This is where the chunk of my feeling of betrayal comes from. If Greta wished to make that creative choice she has all right to do so but then Greta Gerwig cannot call this movie Little Women! Because it is not!!

Greta has 'adapted' the original story to the point where the story has shifted perspective from the central theme being family to it being about women's rights.

If this is the story Greta wanted to tell then she should have done a biographical movie about Louisa May Alcott without riding on the coat tails of Little Women!!!

Greta Gerwig's explanation that she used materials from letters and diaries of Louisa May Alcott is just insulting. It's all the more reason that it should have been a biographical movie of Alcott's life.

Critics and Reviewers are commenting on what a wonderful movie this is, and it may be in its own right, with important themes being represented, but it is not LITTLE WOMEN and should not be misrepresented as such!!!… Expand

3 of 9 users found this helpful36

All this user's reviews

hypeatiaApr 15, 2020

Badly made, terrible acting and a real disappointment after Frances Ha. The whole thing was a clumsy retelling of the story with little inventiveness.

2 of 8 users found this helpful26

All this user's reviews

HaleybApr 12, 2020

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie was so boring all that happened was one sister died. Worst movie I’ve ever seen in my life.… Expand

2 of 10 users found this helpful28

All this user's reviews

neal64May 4, 2020

This movie missed every note of the time period as well as the tone and overall message from the original book. Gerwig successfully took over a classic novel and twisted it to match her personal emotional agenda. Every choice made in thisThis movie missed every note of the time period as well as the tone and overall message from the original book. Gerwig successfully took over a classic novel and twisted it to match her personal emotional agenda. Every choice made in this movie from the costumes (a personal Oscar snub in my opinion) that dishonor the characters and the time period to even showcasing music that came out long after the book was published. The non-linear structure paired with the lack of time sensitive choices, made it almost impossible to follow along. Every character except Jo is miscast, yes even the 23 year old playing the 12 year old. Meg meant to be the oldest who is concerned with fitting into society and behaving properly, and who is constantly telling Jo in the book what is in and out of fashion, is played as a hippie child who lets her down and is never seen in a bonnet? Beth, who offers much more to the dynamic of the March family than she is even given time to breathe in this movie. Amy, who is much like Meg in openly caring about social status and being swept away by a prince charming is played as a careless, annoying child. She should be played later in life as a poised, smart young woman but is seen screeching and flailing in public, which would have been her worst nightmare in the book. Don't even get me started on Gerwig turning the lime scene where she is physically assaulted by the teacher into a comedic sketch where she is then rewarded for her vapid behavior by getting to meet Laurie. Lastly, Marmee is supposed to resemble Jo, even saying that as a young woman she was temperamental and wild and angry. We can see this throughout the course of the 1994 movie through Susan Sarandon's acting. But when Laura Dern out of nowhere in the 2019 version says "I'm angry all the time" I don't feel or buy it whatsoever. Dern portrays her as a chill, hippie mom who somehow dyes her hair blonde and wears her buns aggressively high for the time period. I could go on and on about everything this movie did wrong, but I would run out of space, so I'll end it here.… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

HadzhipetkovaApr 4, 2021

So much worse than the 1996 version!
The cast looks nothing like the description in the book.
Jo does not act boyish enough as she is supposed to, and she does not look boyish either. Amy, who is the youngest sister, looks older than everyoneSo much worse than the 1996 version!
The cast looks nothing like the description in the book.
Jo does not act boyish enough as she is supposed to, and she does not look boyish either.
Amy, who is the youngest sister, looks older than everyone else, including Teddy. They have 24-years-old access playing 12-year-old kid! Her voice is deeper than her oldest sister Meg.
Teddy is supposed to be Joe’s age, but he looks like teenager when already married.
The only person who looks and acts appropriate for their role is probably Beth.
The storyline is a complete mess, keeps jumping back and forward between the first and second part of the book, and thus makes everything very confusing even for someone who was read the book, especially because the characters do not age, apparently, or change in any way.
There are a lot of made up moments and dialogues throughout the movie, that do not appear in the book.
The whole first part of the book - the actual ‘Little women’ part it’s rushed through, and most of the important dialogues are cut off.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

prev next

Page: