Columbia Pictures | Release Date: December 25, 2019
7.4
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 176 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
126
Mixed:
21
Negative:
29
Watch Now
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
2
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
5 of 7 users found this helpful52
All this user's reviews
1
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
11 of 23 users found this helpful1112
All this user's reviews
3
DkneppDec 29, 2019
Confusing and disjointed. Can't hold a candle to the Winona Ryder version. The most interesting thing about the movie was the costumes. Acting was generally good, but Amy was just terrible!
4 of 9 users found this helpful45
All this user's reviews
1
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
3 of 7 users found this helpful34
All this user's reviews
2
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.
6 of 17 users found this helpful611
All this user's reviews
3
netflicDec 29, 2019
Do not waste your time and money.
Fake, fake, fake. A huge waste of many good actors' talent as well.
3 of 10 users found this helpful37
All this user's reviews
3
Rick-CastDec 28, 2019
The actors, soundtrack are pretty much the saving grace of this movie. However it falls flat that it is the same story being told so many times and provides nothing new.
2 of 10 users found this helpful28
All this user's reviews
1
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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews