poster

Little Women (2019)

7.9 | Dec 25, 2019 (US) | Drama, Romance, History | 02:15
Budget: 40 000 000 | Revenue: 216 600 000

Own your story

Four sisters come of age in America in the aftermath of the Civil War.

Featured Crew

Writer, Director
Executive Producer
Second Unit First Assistant Director
First Assistant Editor
Set Designer
Makeup Artist
Producer
Producer
Second Unit Director, Production Design

Cast

profile
Saoirse Ronan
Jo March
profile
Emma Watson
Meg March
profile
Florence Pugh
Amy March
profile
Eliza Scanlen
Beth March
profile
Laura Dern
Marmee March
profile
Tracy Letts
Mr. Dashwood
profile
Bob Odenkirk
Father March
profile
James Norton
John Brooke
profile
Louis Garrel
Friedrich Bhaer

Reviews

avatar
r96sk
9 | Sep 14, 2024
Just a really great movie! I didn't know anything about the original Louisa May Alcott novel and haven't seen any of the other six (!) film adaptations. 2019's 'Little Women' evidently makes for the perfect introduction to this story. All events here are nicely portrayed, I found the pacing a little slow in the beginning as well as some tiny timeline issues, but once things get going it's very much a pleasant watch. It's a really touching and, in the end, surprisingly wholesome movie, I was waiting for exaggerated drama and antagonists to appear but they never really come, which is quite refreshing. The cast is stacked. Saoirse Ronan and Florence Pugh are the obvious standouts, though the likes of Timothée Chalamet, Emma Watson, Eliza Scanlen and Meryl Streep all stick out in my memory too. My only criticism would be how the sisters don't always act how the look, a very quick glance at Wikipedia suggests the sisters in the book are all under-16 but visually here they don't seem that young; so there are some moments where you have adults acting like 14 year olds, which is a bit odd. This isn't a major criticism of mine, mind.
avatar
GenerationofSwine
1 | Dec 25, 2023
It's Little Women... with "modern sensibilities" and that should be enough of a warning... which is odd given that the novel, and even the 1994 movie both had feminist ideals. But then they weren't made for "modern audiences," so they have more of a focus on characters and story than pushing "The Message." And that was the issue here, yet again "THE MESSAGE" was the most important part of the movie, and to make sure you understood that the characters were, well caricatured, some of them reduced even further to nothing but cliches. The plot was... rushed. It seemed to want to jump from message to message rather than tell a cohesive narrative and because of that one of the saddest parts of the novel was almost laughable, almost comedic in this version, most like because it really didn't fit with The Message and needed to be rushed. And the same thing happened with the dialogue, it was rushed, clipped, and meaningless unless pushing, you guessed it, The Message. The result was that there is little in the way of character development, you can't really get attached to anyone, they have little personality compared to the other adaptations and the source material, but then you get the feeling that this version wasn't about the sisters, it was about the politics that appeal to the "Modern Audience." And that is a shame, because the modern reader still picks up Little Women and loves it because of the March sisters and not because of "Modern Sensibilities." But, hey, kudos for not race swapping.
avatar
Gimly
4 | Jan 17, 2020
Guess 2019's just the year for Florence Pugh to be in critically acclaimed and letterboxd beloved movies that I just genuinely didn't care for much. _Final rating:★★ - Definitely not for me, but I sort of get the appeal._
avatar
Luis_989
6 | Dec 31, 2019
Opinions are opinions. Subjective or objective, but I find quite interesting the positive response Greta Gerwig's second feature film has received, considering the so self-complacent film she created. I personally believe that. Do not confuse that feeling with me saying this is a misdone film. There's talent in her direction but Gerwig instead of looking for a challenge having the doors as open as she has them at the moment, she sat in the conformism and made a film that feels totally built as a ''For Your Consideration '' And be afraid if she's not considered. I don't deny that Gerwig loves the novel, she shows it and certainly this version is her personal vision but despite the nice attempt, there's nothing new or fresh in her take. I have to admit and emphasize that at this point it's completely stupid and naive to ask for a radical change in a story which has already been told a lot of times in film, however, it also cannot help feeling like a cheap mean of exploiting the story considering our current times, where feminism is now a driving force in the industry. Like I said, she went for the safe bet. And yet despite Gerwig's attempt to increase that specific plot weight, she also avoids going to issues that wouldn't work for the story she was trying to tell, because although they're not girls with money, they have the privilege of being protected from the civil war. Jo is a young woman aware of herself and her mind, which in those times wasn't something positive but obviously the external world is not a concern for her, only her personal interests. And that's ok, we get to be that way, especially when we're young, but how do you try to make woke characters, if it's only in the things that suits them? That's where the pertinent questions should be asked about what it was decided to take in order to make this new version work according to the director's perspective. In the end, despite the production quality, Little Women is just a conventional and ordinary repetition of a literary classic that I personally think has already been too used. But the proposal works both to be loved and to be hated and that depends a lot on the mentality you carry with you when you go to see it. As always the rest depends on what you get from the film.