User reviews

'Little Women' is one of my all-time favourite books. Love the well-rounded and easy to care for characters and their interactions, strengths and faults and the story resonates with me every time and makes me feel many emotions.

It has been adapted quite a few times, and while none of the adaptations are quite perfect they do a noble and very respectable job adapting a harder to adapt book than one would think. They also fare very strongly on their own merits. This three part adaptation is the latest one and to me it's one of the lesser ones. By all means, it's far from bad and the generally mixed to positive critical reaction is understandable, just as much as it is understandable than the fan reaction is divisive. Actually, from personal opinion there are many admirable qualities, mainly the cast, but the adaptation doesn't completely satisfy.

As an adaptation, it's a bit of a mixed bag. There are omissions and also a fair bit of re-ordering. There were times, in the first two episodes, where initially there was dismay at how crucial scenes were left out and then appear later with nowhere near as much impact and skimmed over (like Beth and Mr Laurence). Characterisation varies. The four sisters, with only reservations with Amy, are handled very well, while the adaptation is even better with giving more complexity to Marmee and having the best developed Aunt March of all the 'Little Women' adaptations personally seen. 'Little Women' (2017) also really underwrites old Mr Laurence, whose change is far too quick, and Professor Bhaer (a problematic character in the first place) is a cipher practically, his apology for insulting Jo's literature rang hollow to me.

What would have perhaps solved all this would have been making it four parts, but just focusing on 'Little Women' and adapting 'Good Wives' (condensed into a 1 hour episode and feels especially rushed) another time like the following year. That way there would be more time to delve into everything properly and the episodes wouldn't have felt as rushed and jumpy.

Having said that, there is always an effort by me to judge book to film/television on its own merits. On this front, 'Little Women' (2017) is uneven, with so much to like but falls short in other areas. Pacing is too hasty, while more could have been done with the burdens of the sisters and how they're overcome throughout all three episodes and not just the first (Jo comes off the most successfully, but Amy didn't seem to change enough and there are parts, like her revenge on Jo, where what should have been childish behaviour was far too mean). Emotional impact is also uneven, Father's and Beth's illnesses are handled very well, as are the heart-breaking tragedy in the final episode (even when you know it's coming), Meg's outburst and the burnt book. Why Mr Laurence was the way he was earlier in the story, he and Beth, the Moffets, everything regarding the downsides to being rich and with Professor Bhaer weren't delved into properly.

For my tastes too, the score was too twee and felt at odds with everything else, and, while she got the personality spot on, Kathryn Newton is too old for Amy and Amy's burdens are not given enough growth. Professor Bhaer is completely bland.

On the other hand, there is a lot to admire. 'Little Women' (2017) looks great. The scenery and costumes are beautiful and evocative and everything is elegantly shot. The script is cosy, thought-provoking, intelligent, has coherence and it flows well. The storytelling, despite its faults, avoids being mawkish, captures the feelings of sisterhood perfectly and the interaction is spot on (Jo and Laurie for instance). It's nicely directed too.

The cast are the main reason to see it. All four girls are wholly credible and flesh out their characters' personalities just as much. Maya Thurman-Hawke's (helped by that Jo has been the most interesting and developed of the girls) multi-faceted turn is a particular revelation. Willa Fitzgerald charms as Meg and Annes Elwy's Beth is very heartfelt. Jonah Hauer-King makes one understand what the girls see in him.

Making even more of an impression are the adults. Emily Watson brings dignity, nuance and poignant sincerity to Marmee, making her more than just a saint, while Angela Lansbury has a whale of a time as Aunt March. Dylan Baker is a firm and sympathetic father figure, and despite being underused and with not enough material Michael Gambon is suitably curmudgeonly.

Overall, could have been better but admirable. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Truth be told, I usually write reviews when I don't like what I saw, check the ones I entered for I'm not lying and in this opportunity, it is somehow not the case and yet... Honestly, it was a bit weird to watch so many British actors and actresses in a famous well told (and loved) American book but, hey! They carried it through so hats off, Angela Lansbury even got me to love Aunt March, that was a first.

Now, seeing Uma and Ethan's daughter making her debut, that was also OK, she pulled it too, now, I'm not so sure about the rest of the cast. Little Women was, and still is, a favourite of mine from my early childhood. It is a book that is so easy to revisit from time to time and be welcomed by the Marsh family, you can and will fall for at least one of them... and that's, perhaps, what I found most difficult in this adaptation. In spite of my attemps and their good intentions, I couldn't fall for any of the girls; Mrs Marsh, Emily Watson did a perfect job, an almost predictable role got some substance. It is the first time, as the other reviewer points that we get to see something else but the saintly image that is usually portraited in this character.

However, I'm not going to lie, it is almost impossible to dissociate my mind from the 1994 movie for it is a classic, they took 3 books into one movie and it felt right, everything fell into place. Sadly, I cannot say the same here, they had even more time to include a lot of details and yet, felt (again, it's just me, you don't have to agree) a bit rush. They chose to erase some scenes and included them later on to no avail, Beth and Mr March, what happened there!? Nothing for it was not included when it is really important in the whole story!

I won't say I loved it but I havent' disliked it either. In doubt, always, go back to the books and then to the 1994's adaptation. This felt... bland. It lacks... no drama, power, yes, that would be world. It lacks something, which is a pity, for it was a chance to tell again this beautiful story and even go straight forward for they usually stop before the Litlte Men books' start.

One day, maybe, someone would take the time to do it. Watch it, you won't dislike it but I can't promise you'll love it either.

I was a bit dubious coming in, but I should have known with BBC and Heidi Thomas attached to it that it would be good. Mostly in my review I will address some of the complaints I have seen regarding the series, and how I believe they were minor, hopefully to encourage you to watch it! I don't believe you'll be disappointed.

Some of the other reviews have complained that it is very fast-paced and takes out many of the unique, quirky aspects of the March sisters and their lives. But omitting the charm and beauty of nature around them? it does not. The sets and shots of nature are beautiful and draw you into their world. Yes, we may feel that we don't get to know the sisters as well as in the book or in some other movie versions, but I believe the miniseries gives us a lovely glimpse into their lives for its length.

I worried about the acting, but everyone did a very fine job. I especially appreciate Jo, a perfect balance of boyishness and independence without being inappropriate to the time period. Amy, as many viewers has complained, was too old for the part in the beginning, and annoyingly had obviously dyed hair, but I was able to overlook these because I was enjoying the show so much, and believe me, I'm usually pretty picky and distracted by such things. Meg and Beth are my favourite people to play their respective roles.

The story does have a bit more of a modern feel, and as some have complained that carries into their speech, but it doesn't stand out too horribly. I didn't care for how some of the little happenings of their lives were switched around seemingly for no reason, especially how soon Marmee is called away to Father.

So, not perfect, but I enjoyed the 3 episodes very much. I cried several times at the very sad and sweet moments between the family, because, after all, I've read and watched the story ever since I was very small, and have 3 sisters of my own, and have gladly welcomed this new series into my heart. Hope you enjoy it too!

I have read Little Women so many times that I have lost count and was looking forward to seeing this rendition. What a disappointment. As others have mentioned the acting is mediocre at best and the script seems trite. I only watched about half of it and then tuned out.

Little Women (TV Mini-Series 2017) was a BBC/Masterpiece Theater production directed by Vanessa Caswill. This novel lends itself to the world of cinema, and many good versions are available. However, I liked this one best.

Maya Hawke does very well as Jo, which couldn't have been easy, because she's very beautiful and Jo is supposed to be the plain one. Kathryn Newton plays Amy March, who is beautiful but "willful." Willa Fitzgerald portrays Meg March, the most beautiful and most conventional sister. Annes Elwy plays Beth, who is extremely shy. Elwy is Welsh, and speaks Welsh, but I didn't hear any accent when she played the role.

Angela Lansbury plays Aunt March perfectly. Believe it or not, I thought she was even better than Maggie Smith(!).

Mark Stanley plays Professor Bhaer, which is a difficult role. Directors have protrayed Professor Bhaer as old and stodgy, in which case you wonder what Jo had in mind. Other directors have made the character young and handsome, and so Jo's choice is a no-brainer. I think director Caswill got this casting exactly right. Somewhat older, but not stodgy, and just handsome enough to attract a young woman like Jo.

My favorite actor in the movie was Emily Watson who played Marmee. She is a highly experienced English actor. (Again, no trace of an accent.) She looks like the character she portrays--saddened and toughened by a life of genteel poverty. Raising four very different daughters on her own could not have been easy, but Watson allows us to believe she could do it. Just her work alone would be enough to make me recommend the movie.

This version of Little Women was made for TV as a three-part miniseries. Three hours of screen time gave director Caswill the opportunity to address most of the many plot lines in the novel. We saw the movie on DVD, and we could have watched it as a single long movie. However, we watched it in three one-hour episodes, as intended by the producers. Either way will work.

Little Women has a pretty good IMDb rating of 7.2. I thought that it was much better than that, and rated it 9.

Amy was played by a 20 year old actress playing a twelve year old child. She was obviously too old, yet they insisted that she milk her childish ways (can you tie my skate, marmie says I'm old enough to do my own hair, etc.) to the point where I was actually laughing at scenes that weren't intended to be funny. Drug store box bleached hair (it was a ghastly shade of yellow), not a fitting actress for the part in any way. Enough said, Amy was everything that was bad about this film, well, almost.. They completely skipped the plays and left Jo and Laurie full drama. To those who say this film is to the book, I ask, what book did you read? Some say they should have used British actresses. Why would they do that for a tale that took place in Massachusetts during the Civil War? Did. I love it ? Yes! I just acknowledge that there were parts I couldn't get past. Though I thought Beth had a bit of overkill, I thought the actress was fantastic and clearly played on the directors vision. She is a fantastic actress. I preferred Claire Danes but this woman (let's face it, she's over 20) is a brilliant actress. I think that the actress that played Marmie was possibly the best of anyone that I have seen tackle the part. She pulled raw emotion from me in a way that Susan Sarandon didn't (even though I loved her in the part). The real show stopper was Maya Hawke, as Jo. She was everything that is Jo for me. It was like she had leaped from the page. I loved her on Stranger Things and have been a fan of her mother and father ever since I was a child. I loved that they led up to Jos Boys. I think in all they did a fantastic job, but I think That they should have sucked it up and used 2 actresses for Amy, and not this one. She didn't fit the part.

If you're a fan of the book, you'll enjoy this series. I've read the book several times, and was glad I chose this version of Little Women to watch over my holiday break.

If you haven't read the book you may feel the acting is a little flat or the speech odd in places. But I've found that movies and mini series that stay true to the older books they were written often after aren't as dramatic what we're accustomed to. They didn't try to modernize the show. It remains the same wholesome story about the March family's struggles living in the US during the mid-to-late 1800's.

The March family is middle class. Enough money to have food on the table, a comfortable home, and one servant. But not enough to buy much that is new or to afford travel as their wealthier neighbors do. They are concerned about those around them who are less fortunate, and sacrifice of themselves to care for others. The daughters' personalities vary - with a tomboy, a "princess", and two girls whose personalities fall in between. There is war, death, love, friendship... Basically it's just about real life, and well worth watching in my opinion.

I really wanted to enjoy this, but, well, there's just something lacking straight from the beginning. It's all filmed very nicely, albeit in a modern way, but that doesn't always fit the type of story we're being presented. However, if you want to see how to film a period setting in a modern way that works, just watch 'Anne with an E'.

Perhaps the oddest thing about this version is that despite the added running time provided by a TV mini-series, it manages to feel rushed and incoherent. If I didn't already know the story, I'd be wondering why these characters were doing what they were doing. It's as though they forgot to include the scenes that join events together. In a much shorter running time, the 1994 film manages to feel positively sedate in comparison, and scenes lead naturally from one to the next.

Then there's the casting. There's a lot to like here (Angela Lansbury, Michael Gambon), but the younger cast, through no fault of their own, just don't jump out. Jo, Meg and Beth aren't different enough. It feels as though the casting director had the same look in mind for all three, so you don't get a sense of them being truly different sisters. Then there's Amy. The actress, again through no fault of her own, is far too old at the beginning. She appears to be a similar age to Jo, Meg and Beth, yet is supposed to be the youngest by at least a noticeable margin. As a result, behaviour that should simply feel like that of an occasionally vain and impulsive child becomes immature, petty and unlikeable.

Lastly, the soundtrack is far too contemporary. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it has to be old-fashioned, but it also has to feel appropriate. For example, there's a scene where the characters are playing in the snow, and the music felt so out of place that I wondered if the composer thought the scene was set in the Caribbean. Then again, it's difficult to compete with 1994's score by Thomas Newman.

Perhaps the score is a perfect example of where they went wrong. In trying so hard to be different and not simply repeat what's been done before, they've managed to lose the atmosphere and spirit of the original story. As a result, despite the impressive production values, I couldn't warm to this version. Let's hope the new version (due in 2019) does a better job...

I've enjoyed every adaptation of Little Women that I've seen, and this was no exception. As someone who enjoys comparing adaptations across time, I find the story told in this newer style of acting, directing, music etc. a valuable addition to the collection. Some people may not like aspects such as scenes of the Civil War where Father is, and this is the first time we see any of Meg's labour, but for me neither is excessive and both are worth including.

This adaptation isn't perfect, any more than its predecessors are perfect, but let me not list my small gripes here. I found it overall well written, well acted and well cast. The descriptions of the characters were clearly considered when casting (if not 100% adhered to), which is a nice touch and the cherry on top of the actors' generally fine performances. In particular I found Meg engaging, Aunt March very satisfying and Laurie almost straight from the pages of the book, while Father is (I feel) a loyal interpretation yet unlike any I have seen before.

I loved the naturalistic cinematography, lighting and sets, and of course the costumes in this new adaptation of the Louisa May Alcott classic story. I love Maya Hawke (daughter of Uma Thurman and Ethan Hawke), in the lead role of the free-spirited writer daughter Jo March. She is intelligent, charismatic and sensitive. I'm not so much a fan of Emily Watson, in the role of Marmee. Yes, in a way it's a thankless role - basically she's there to play the sainted mother. Watson plays a lot of these roles - her eyes welling up at key tragic points and her smiles warming the room. It gets a bit boring. The script, especially in the last episode, gets way too schmaltzy, and all the loose ends of the plot are very neatly tied up. Too often, scenes have a formula of two characters in a room, reciting predictable dialogue at each other. The actor who plays Dr March, the father, also has a thankless role, and is basically there as a minor player. I felt that this adaptation plays it safe. It doesn't try to do anything radical. It tells the story a bit like a soap opera - albeit a very expensively shot one. Overall, it's not an unpleasant way to spend your time, but neither is it very riveting.

My favourite little women adaption. Its close to the book and because of 180min, important scenes are very detailed and lovely directed. There is no other adaption where the relationship between Jo and Beth is better portrayed. No other adaption which shows the dark shadows of civil war which were important part of this time. Also the music is awesome and one reason for why this adaption is deeper than other ones. Only character portrait I dont like is marmee. I guess Laura Dern and Susan Sarandons interpretation is much better.

It's the classic American novel by Louisa May Alcott. It's the story of the four adolescent March girls; Jo (Maya Hawke), Meg (Willa Fitzgerald), Amy (Kathryn Newton), and Beth (Annes Elwy) as they approach womanhood. They wait with their mother Marmee (Emily Watson) for the return of their father (Dylan Baker) who is away in the American Civil War. There is new neighbor Laurie Laurence (Jonah Hauer-King) who is staying with his grandfather (Michael Gambon). Despite their limited resources, the March women continue to help the less fortunate. There is also their rich great-aunt (Angela Lansbury) who lives in her mansion.

It's interesting that the Brits are doing an American classic. Having said that, the bigger story is a new generation of actresses doing these classic characters. Time keeps rolling on and on. It's Maya Hawke's turn to play Jo as Winona Ryder once did in 94. It's funny to know that Winona and Ethan made a generational movie back in the day. Quite frankly, Winona and Maya have only one degree of separation after Maya joined Stranger Things. As a new version, this is three hours long and is able to add in more of the story. It does take its leisurely time especially the first part. They're not doing big acting. Kathryn Newton is a little old to play the youngest Amy but by the end, her character ages up to the actress. The four younger actresses along with Watson and Lansbury do good work. The Irish countryside injects an old world feel to Massachusetts which does make sense for a period piece. This is a good version for a new generation. There is another film version coming soon.

Unlike many classic adaptations the BBC has released in the past, problem after problem weighs down Little Women and stops the series from being a truly enjoyable watch.

The book itself is largely written in a sweet, innocent voice/tone, and it works well within the text. However, when translating or trying to capture that same voice or spirit in actual dialogue for the screen, it comes off as amateurish or overly sentimental when spoken aloud. The text's tone is actually one of the reasons why this book is difficult to adapt. It is not the acting that lets the series down, rather it is the words that are unbelievable. People simply don't/didn't speak in such a way, even in the Victorian period. If this version is trying to modernize the girl's characters/eccentricities and the story's main message, why could it not modernize the language a bit or be a little more age appropriate- of course, still keeping it in line with the book's tone. An adaptation of Little Women should strike a balance between the two parts of the girls' and Laurie's journey into adulthood. First, establishing the way things are and have always been in the March home in a playful tone, and then, as they are forced to change through the circumstances of life and love, the tone becomes more heartwarming and more mature. From the get-go, this version applies a serious and mature tone despite the language used and the children's level of maturity, so, there is never a real transformation in character/perspective for any of the children, only in the circumstances they find themselves in.

Another glaring problem is the editing and structuring of the plot. Simply put, many scenes are too short; the scenes are like snapshots; they tell the basic story from a surface, visual level, but it lacks any depth, detail, or real explanation. This version misses the opportunity, being that it is longer and has more time, to include parts that have been left out of adaptations before it- parts that develop or establish the characters, their relationships, and their motives (examples, Jo visiting Laurie when ill, meeting Mr. Lawrence, Laurie's backstory and mother, the girls engaging in Jo's plays, Laurie joining in). Actually, this version excludes more than it adds, which is a little baffling. How can so much be glossed over?

The last problem is the accompanying score. If I am not mistaken, the music used within the series seems to be lifted from or inspired by the Radio 4 play of Little Women. Which is an odd choice, being that it is not of the period. Adding a modern score can work, but here, it is a miss-match.

Though the 94 film has its faults as well, it remains the best crack at adapting Alcott's work, which is disappointing seeing that the BBC had so much potential.

This is not a faithful telling of Little Women, rather they try to add to the original story. They flesh out a few things that were not clear in the original but, it turns out, adding to this story does not make it better. For me, the acting wasn't particularly stellar either. Maya Hawke, nepo baby, leads this story, poorly. Not interesting enough to play Jo. Kathryn Newton as Amy doesn't really capture the role and seems bratty most of the time. It is hard to buy Laurie's interest in her as anything other than a rebound. I did enjoy the additions with regard to Mr. Brook and additional information around Laurie and Mr. Lawrence, but in the end I could take this or leave it.

I don't even know where to start - from the casting to the screenwriting to the costume design to details as small as aunt march's pet parrot, this is undoubtedly the most lively and wonderful adaption of little women i've ever had the privilege to enjoy. all the negative critiques of this miniseries seem to have a very strict, narrow-minded view of what a proper adaption of this classic story should look like. they compare the quality of this stellar! beautiful! magnificent! piece of work to other adaptions that simply lack the quality of visual aesthetics, acting, and warmth this series offers. not only is it by FAR the most visually pleasing of the adaptions (that cinematography? i'm DROOLING), but each and every scene is so saturated in emotional depth that i'm constantly left in a state of sublime sweetness after each episode. i mean - the scene where meg realizes her love for john brooke was so obviously designed with such care and executed with such warmth and life that you can't resist getting swept up in its raw and honest sweetness. these three hour long episodes are absolutely lovely and deserve all the praise i can give. please don't be fooled by these cold reviews that try to fit such a massively vibrant adaption into their narrow-minded perspective of what a screen adaption of little women 'should' look like - let yourself be immersed in this exceedingly lively and heartwarming series. i swear you won't regret it.

The biggest weakness of this show is its rushed ending. However, while not perfect, the places where it's strongest really shine. The cast is, overall, very good. Emily Watson as Marmee is extremely convincing (and most likely the best Marmee ever put on the scree). There are certain points where she almost stole the show, she was truly impressive.

I was overall very pleased with the cast. Beth is fantastic in this series, she truly shines. Amy's a tricky one, because she does seem too old for her age, but she really does well with what she's given.

Also, I think the romantic chemistry in this series (for all three girls) is very well done. I'm very pleased with that aspect.

Overall, I thought it was very well-made and very entertaining.

I'd never read or seen any of the other adaptations of Little Women, this was my first exposure. I have since been inspired to revisit these wonderful characters via the 2019 (didn't like this one very much at all) and 1994 versions (a very close second, probably better acted to some degree but disadvantaged by runtime), and this rendition is still the one I find to have been the most wholesome and heartening. I thoroughly recommend it people all the time!

If you have seen LeRoy version of Louise May Alcott's classic story and liked it do not waste your time watching this series. A far distance from 1933 and 1949 films and much worse than all its predecessors - even 1994 version was much better - this unnecessarily made series does not only add anything new to the existing versions but also lacks the story main attractives: the family ties between March sisters and with their parents, the homely atmosphere and charming characters that confer the story its strength and main interest. All sisters are so much alike here, hardly differing one from another. Jo's enthusiast personality, Beth's sensibility, Meg's romanticism and Amy's coquetterie are hardly perceived. Many crucial scenes such as meeting Mr. Laurence, the ball and prof. Bhaer himself are rather unsubstantial. The scenery is also dull, rather dark and with no charm at all. And yes, we know Jo does not care very much of her looks but is it necessary to look like a 70's hippy? Not bad, simply uninteresting. Not even Angela Lansbury as aunt March helps. All and all an anodyne and uninspiring version of a great classic.

Time well spent reliving the March sisters story! Well done. Great performances by entire cast!

Wonderful adaptation and beautifully acted and filmed. Excellent music as well.

By far the best Little Women, including the 2019 version!! Excellent miniseries!!

Great rendition of Little Woman, except for the music. The music was nice, but overdone in places. It just was distracting at times. Let the acting and writing stand on it's own.

I've only watched the first part so far, but I might not watch the rest. I'm having a hard time believing the actors in the sister roles. They seem poorly cast, particularly Amy. She looks too old for the role, but that's not the only reason. She just doesn't seem to fit. Her acting style feels like it belongs in a 21st Century teen drama. Meg and Beth are both kind of bland. There's really nothing else to say about them. Jo is okay, but not nearly as good as Winona Ryder in the 1994 movie. I don't feel like I can critique the plot because I haven't watched the whole thing. But choosing the right actors for the main roles is very important. If I had invested in the characters, I would want to continue, despite story problems. But I'm finding the Little Women to be largely boring.