[9.5/10] The most ingenious choice that Greta Gerwig’s *Little Women* makes is to chop up the story so as to juxtapose present and past. It not only immediately marks this adaptation as distinct from its predecessors, but helps to recontextualize and connect different parts of the story to make it feel new again.

The audience has a chance to meet and appreciate Freidrich before Laurie has burrowed into their hearts. By the same token, the joy and connection between Amy and Laurie can be front and center from the get-go, without springing it on the viewer halfway through the story. And the bookend approach allows Gerwig to put Jo’s drive and travails as a writer into the spotlight early.

But the biggest advantage it confers on the film is how it allows *Little Women* to constantly contrast the lives that these young girls imagined they would lead one day, with the lives each finds themselves inhabiting in the future. Like the novel it’s based on, Gerwig’s adaptation is anchored squarely around considering the wildest dreams of its titular set of sisters, and measuring them against the paths actually available to women in their time, and the places their choices and passions take them. The jumps back and forth and time allow Gerwig to check expectation with reality, to trace cause and effect, and to resolve the two with poignance and grace.

It also allows Gerwig and company to flesh out each of the young women at the center of the narrative. Jo March still commands the story and the screen. Saoirse Ronan throws herself into the role, conveying all the punch, heedlessness, and subtle vulnerabilities of the character with endearing abandon. It is both a dream role and a hard one, but Ronan makes it look effortless.

And yet, this adaptation makes time for the other March sisters to falter and flourish. Amy is vivid and real from the jump, with her questioning of her own talents, her sense of being second to Jo, and her truth-telling relationship with Laurie put front and center. Meg’s chance at a life of elegance and plenty, the love that pulls her away from it, and the joys and hardships of that choice are given time to breathe. And Beth remains the heart of the film -- still a little too pure for this world, but one who suffers for her own goodness, reminds a kindly neighbor of what’s been lost, and spurs her sister to take up what she’s put down.

All the while, *Little Women* is utterly gorgeous to look at through the March Sisters’ misadventures. Gerwig and cinematographer Yorick Le Saux capture the bucolic beauty of scene after scene draped in New England splendor. The pair construct tableaus of faraway elegance and local beauty in turn. But these visuals aren’t gratuitous. Beyond making the movie a treat to watch, it helps sell the contrast at the heart of the film. Scenes set in Jo’s youth have a golden hue, an inviting glow that conveys the idyllic, hopeful tone of those early days. And the ones set in her adulthood are darker and starker, visually communicating the various cold realities the March family has had to grapple with in later years.

As necessary as it is to contend with those cold realities, it’s just plain fun to vicariously share in the joy that Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy share with their mother and friends in their family home. Apart from its structural choices, apart from its character focus, the greatest strength of Gerwig’s *Little Women* is how well it captures this sense of young people at play, of a headstrong young woman in their element, and that unfathomable, spontaneous vigor of youth.

The March Sisters, and their friends and close confidants, fight and babble and hug and exalt together. There’s a move toward *Gilmore*-esque speed and overlap in conversation after conversation, expressing the happy chaos that envelops these lives. This story is founded on the breadth of possibility forged in such a simple, familiar environment, on the pleasures and satisfactions found despite absences and meager means, on blessings shared and passed around. The warmth of the March household would not work if those who orbit and inhabit it, did not seem so real in their rough-and-tumble interactions and simple joys.

Those joys, however, are meant to run up against the expectations of adulthood that clash with allowances of youth. That’s the role Aunt March plays -- the naysayer to the slack existence her brother and his wife and children have made for each other. But Gerwig does not make her a villain. Instead, she is merely practical, a woman who knows from her own experiences which choices are permitted and which invite difficulties, delivered with an amusing wryness that makes her endearing even as she aims to stifle her nieces’ dreams.

That’s the crux of Gerwig’s adaptation. The March sisters imagine wondrous lives for one another, borne on the backs of each’s great talent. Jo pictures herself as a bold writer in the big city who never marries anything but her art. Meg sees glimpses of a life where she’ll never have to work, where there’s time for things like acting and society and beautiful dresses. Amy envisions the life of the genius painter overseas who stands with giants. And each finds those dreams running aground on the many limitations of the real world, with tethers made extra taut for the declaratively fairer sex.

All except for Beth, whose dreams lie in the simple doing of good, the making of music for those around to hear it rather than for the masses, despite her prodigious abilities. She is the cinch of *Little Women*, not merely in her death which brings the March sister home. But in her life of quiet kindness at home, in her peace with what must come and the joy to be found despite it, a joy they found together in the attic and can still share and revive no matter how big or little they are now.

Jo, Amy, and Meg each regains a measure of that golden glow in the shadow of the house they grew up in. Amy loses the artists life in Paris she imagines, but finds happiness in a partner who vindicates her talents and for whom love triumphs over station. Meg is denied by circumstance of the beautiful things and easy life she once pictured, but is buoyed by the care and satisfaction of family and a life built with the man she loves. Even Jo turns away from the “spicy” stories that sell to stuffy cigar-smoking New York publishers and finds her truth, finds her greatness, in the bonds fraught and familiar at home, with a winking-but-joyous connection to a beau of her own. And each is seen sharing the fruits of their talents, passing them on to a new generation of young men and women.

There’s a degree of wish-fulfillment to the close of the film, a heartstring-tugging image of familial warmth in a bucolic setting. But Gerwig earns that warmth. The happiness crafted in a humble home is measured against the metes and bounds of the wider world, and found no less worthy. The choices afforded to women of any station at the time are reckoned with and suffered in, with the ensuing joys and small, self-possessed rebellions made more potent in that unfair crucible. The losses each suffers, the distance between the lives they dreamed and the lives they live, is laid bare in the cuts between past and present.

But in the end, Gerwig does as Alcott did, and makes the fulfillment each chooses meaningful by those terms. The hardships great and small each endures, make it more than a publisher-mandated happy ending when, despite that difference between past imagination and present truth, each of these little women realizes they’re living the lives they truly want.

This was my favourite film of the season, primarily because of the artistry of Greta Gerwig and the skill of the performers. Saoirse Ronan and Emma Watson were brilliant, as I expected them to be, but, Florence Pugh and Eliza Scanlen were new discoveries for me (and I have already begun to enthusiastically follow their filmography). Laura Dern brought a gravitas to the nurturing, generous Marmee that deepened the character. When I saw that Meryl Streep was bringing her legacy to a relatively small role, I knew there were great expectations of this production (I later found out that both she and Saoirse, announced to Greta Gerwig, pre-production, that they WERE going to play those roles). Greta Gerwig is a profoundly intelligent writer and filmmaker, and she attracts equally gifted people with whom to collaborate. This production is rich with insights into the characters that come Louisa May Alcott's own life and borrows from some of her other works. Those who follow me know that I chat with other movie goers as I leave a movie, and, of the 6 people I spoke to, 4 gave the film a straight up 10. Two women (who watched the film together) were confused because they missed the cues as to shifts in the time line, so here's the scoop - the movie begins in the middle of the book, with Jo in New York scrambling to be published. Only once, is a flashback labelled as such, but, the movie continually flips back and forth between the Jo's present and her past. As her present sparks themes from her childhood, we are transported back to those memories. Greta Gerwig is very deliberate in how she places her cuts, long before shooting begins, so don't miss her deliberate artistry. I've already gushed on too long, so I'll end by rating this film a 10 (perfect) out of 10. [Classic Americana Drama]

I was probably the only person in the audience who didn’t care all that much for this adaptation. I know I didn’t care as much as one older gentleman who kept obnoxiously laughing at every minor cutesy scene. Besides, I am very fond of the 2017 PBS Masterpiece miniseries, so I cannot help but to compare. I don’t mind Saoirse Roman as Jo. Given all of her past work, she was a natural (if predictable) choice. I still liked Maya Hawke’s version more. There was more substance to her Jo March. Annes Elwy is more of a Beth to me. And I find it hilarious that Emma Watson, who can’t act her way out of a bag, was cast as a wannabe actress Meg. Every time she came on screen I cringed. The only exception for me was Florence Pugh, whose delightful portrayal of Amy overshadowed Kathryn Newton. But I am not surprised, because Pugh is quickly becoming one of my favourite actresses.

Same with the non-titular characters - Laurie, Marmee, Aunt March, - PBS had better casting.

As far as the direction goes, I hated the nonlinear plot. A lot of times it was hard to tell when we were looking at the past, or the present, and how old the characters were supposed to be in each scene. Whenever the director wanted to show sisterly love, she’d put on a scene full of chaos and giggles, and rolling on the floor laughing, and camera zigzagging between the twirling, chattering bodies. I guess chaos is perfect to guise the shallow characterization or underbaked scene setup. It’s a lazy way to show the relationship within the loving household.

The choppy shuffle of the scenes also made Laurie look like a terrible person. He was professing eternal love to Jo one moment, then fast forward one scene, and he is already in love with Amy. There needed to be a sensible length of time allocated for character growth to make sense of his change of heart, but the direction scrapped that idea.

With all of these negative elements, the new Little Women felt too long for me to bear. I was relieved when it was finally over.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com

The 92nd Academy Awards are presented this Sunday, and Little Women is part of the few 2019 releases that are only now (2020) being shown in my country. I really want to watch every Best Picture nominee before the ceremony not only to provide my honest predictions but also to have a Top10: Best Movies of 2019 more complete regarding the number of films watched. Well, Greta Gerwig's adaptation of the famous book isn't able to crack a spot in my Top10, but it's definitely worth an honorable mention.

There's been a lot of controversy surrounding the Best Director category, way beyond just the Oscars. The lack of a female nominee across a few award shows raised some discontent, and most considered Gerwig's work to be more than enough to warrant more nominations, especially at the Academy Awards. Now, I'm going to be as polite, respectful, and fair as I can. While I do agree that Gerwig does a great job in directing this movie, I still believe that the five male directors nominated for the respective Oscar did an even better one. Even removing Todd Phillips (Joker) out of the equation (which I entirely accept), I would definitely choose Noah Baumbach (Marriage Story) as his replacement.

With that said, do I suddenly become a misogynist? Do I always favor men when I send my own ballots to the OFTA Awards, for example? I don't think so. It's just a humble opinion. Putting that discussion aside, let's focus on the positive aspects of Little Women because there are many! Usually, romance isn't a genre I tend to love, but I really enjoyed this adaptation of Alcott's famous novel. I'll start with the cast because how can't I?

With such a stellar team of actors, I knew I was going to receive some amazing performances. Every character gets a lot of screentime, but Saoirse Ronan is definitely the lead as Jo. She's the odd sister, the one that doesn't really want to follow the "rules" of being a woman in the XIX century. She wants to do what she loves for a living and be independent without having to be this housewife that simply married a rich man. She wants to be remembered. Saoirse incorporates this personality like it's her own, and adds another brilliant display to her acting career.

However, Florence Pugh gives the standout performance as Amy. Undoubtedly, Pugh is the breakthrough actress of this last year. Fantastic physical display in Fighting with my Family, one of the best performances of 2019 in Midsommar, and the most complex role of her career in Little Women. Since the story is continuously going back and forward in time, everyone has to portray two versions of the same character, but Amy is the one that changes the most. As a childish, immature, silly, young Amy, Pugh delivers some of the funniest moments of the film. Truly hilarious at some points. Then, as an adult Amy, she's more grounded, responsible, and about to follow one of the "rules" of society regarding women: marrying a rich man.

Eliza Scanlen carries an emotional arc as Beth, and the best past-present sequence is due to her. Emma Watson is Meg, the older sister who everyone looks up to since she seems to be perfect, so her arc goes through some demonstrations of how her imperfections make her a role model to her sisters. Timothée Chalamet is also one of the standouts as Laurie, a neighbor who gets close to the March family, but I won't delve into too many details regarding his story. Laura Dern (Marmee March) and Meryl Streep (Aunt March) are perfect as always. Every character arc is exceptionally developed. With a runtime slightly over two hours, it's remarkable the level of detail, complexity, and depth that the characters possess.

I can't address every single one in detail since there are so many, but I tried my best to give an overview of each of the main ones. Clearly, Jo, Laurie, and Amy's arcs are the absolute best. However, Emma Watson's character story is the one that feels too superficial and too simple compared with her sisters'. It doesn't really feel like she went through any change throughout the years, and part of her story feels a bit forced. Beth's arc might also be straightforward, but since it's associated with an emotionally powerful plot point, one can understand her little screentime.

The past-present storytelling method works for the most part. There are a couple of moments beautifully and seamlessly "stitched" together, giving the viewer a sense of fulfillment by witnessing the start and end of a little story that happened in the past and later in the present under other circumstances. Nevertheless, some sequences either drag too much or lack emotional investment. Since the movie crosses the two-hour mark, I found myself bored during certain storylines that failed to captivate me.

In a film with so many characters, it's very common to give more focus to only a few of them. It's impossible to call someone a protagonist if half a dozen characters have the same or more screentime or plot relevance. However, this always brings the issue of not being able to fascinate the audience with every character arc. Also, some past-present transitions are so abrupt that they disrupt the overall pacing by being a bit confusing. Nevertheless, Greta Gerwig does an excellent job in balancing these timelines, and an even better one by opposing the contrasting tones of each period and still make them consistent.

Technically, Yorick Le Saux offers gorgeous cinematography, Alexandre Desplat provides a subtle yet efficient score, but the costume design steals the show by being extremely period-accurate. The colors of the whole movie tell a story on their own, as well as the set design, so be sure to look around on each wide shot because there is much to see behind the actors.

In the end, Little Women doesn't do enough to warrant a spot in my 2019's Top10, but Greta Gerwig's adaptation of the classic graphic novel deserves all of the screenplay awards it has been receiving so far. As expected, the whole cast is phenomenal, but Saoirse Ronan, Florence Pugh, and Timothée Chalamet not only deliver the best performances of the film, but their characters carry the most compelling arcs. With so many people, it's remarkable the level of detail, complexity, and depth that each character has. However, some storylines are not as captivating as others, and the pacing suffers from these less exciting stories, which bring the movie down for some moments. The past-present transitions are mostly well-handled but a few are too confusing and abrupt. The contrasting tones of each timeline are consistent throughout the runtime, and the costume design steals the "technical spotlight". Overall, it's a pretty good romance, so if you enjoy the genre, I can't see why you shouldn't enjoy this one.

Rating: B+

I’m not discounting the new approached Greta has taken here. I personally think it’s great and, in 2019, definitely poignant but it also shows too much respect for only one on-screen woman. I can’t help but feel that, while serving one grand idea, Greta has caused a disservice to those other women in its wake.
- Jess Fenton

Read Jess' full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-little-women-a-21st-century-remake-but-does-it-cause-more-harm-than-good