I’m a long established lover of the “Little Women” books, I’ve read everything L.M. Alcott ever wrote (including those stories full of city low life)and I’ve seen every adaptation going. I was surprised to see a new version of L.W. so soon after the last one but I did think this new one was terrific in pointing out the importance of several underlying issues about the story without “spoiling” its traditional elements. And I did like to see Marmee played as she should be, as a woman we would now consider young, ie barely 40 if that (which did seem old when we were reading the book as kids), with strong feelings to match her strong principles. If this puts you off, don’t let it – go and see and enjoy. Several of my daughters/nieces, who staunchly refused to read past the start of Little Women and barely endured previous films, have loved it and are still talking ?about the issues? arising from it. And I really enjoyed it too.
I hate to admit it, but I dozed (a little) during Little Women, but I also enjoyed it.? They freshened the story without doing violence to it and they rode the line without preaching about women's rights.? Costume and sets were lovely.?
? I had some issues with the casting, not the acting.? 1.? I don't know how any woman, young or old, would fall for Laurie, let alone two women in the same film.? If he's going to get blazing drunk, he's got to have at least a dab of sex appeal to rise above just being a dweeb.??? 2.? Amy, well acted, but Mamma Mia, what a Basso Profondo voice.? These small things distracted me.
Saw 1917 today.? Visually arresting.? Simplistic story, but with this film it wasn't about the story.? It was getting the viewer there.