Mujercitas

The performances of the young performers are so wooden. It lacks spirit. Disappointing.

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.

'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

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.

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.