Little Women Movie Review
Greta Gerwig’s version of Little Women had a lot of buzz surrounding it even before it was released. Not only was it Gerwig’s follow up to the critically acclaimed Lady Bird, but it was also an adaptation of a classic piece of literature. Not to mention there have already been several film and television adaptations of Little Women over the years.
I like Gerwig and I was excited to see this, albeit a tad hesitant. The 1994 version with Susan Sarandon and Winona Ryder is my all time favorite version of Little Women. I just didn’t think that Gerwig could possibly compete with the ‘94 version or have anything to add to make her adaptation stand out. After seeing the movie, I had to eat my words.
The March sisters, Meg (Emma Watson), Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Beth (Eliza Scanlen), and Amy (Florence Pugh) are navigating being a woman in 19th century America during the Civil War. With their father off fighting in the war, the four sisters and their mother must fend for themselves and earn enough money to keep the house running.
Each sister has a distinct personality. Meg is the most motherly, wishing to start a family. Jo is a bit wild with ambitions to become a writer. Beth is a homebody who has a talent for playing the piano. Amy is the youngest and flourishes in artistic endeavors while constantly striving to compete with her three older sisters. Watson and Scanlen give steady performances but Ronan and Pugh steal the show.
That could be because Gerwig’s version chooses to focus heavily on Jo and Amy. Admittedly her version of Amy made me like her more as a character while also empathizing with her on a deeper level. The decision to have Pugh play both young Amy and older Amy was an interesting choice and luckily Pugh was up to the task. It wasn’t my favorite choice stylistically but Pugh does her best to denote the age difference. Ronan plays Jo just as fiercely as required and she put forth an amazing performance, which has become the norm for her.
There were two things I did not absolutely love in this movie. The first is Timothée Chalamat as Laurie. While I am a massive fan of Chalamat and think he is a phenomenal actor, I did not think he was the right fit to play Laurie. There was something not quite believable that kept irritating me each time he was on screen. I think his physique and overall brooding look were not right for Laurie. Laurie is supposed to be a fun and brother-like figure for the March sisters and I didn’t feel that connection.
The second issue I took with this movie was the time jumps. If you can’t keep up with the time jumps and keep the two timelines straight then I can’t help you because it was very clear cut and not confusing in the slightest. However, I thought it lessened the impact of the story. With this particular plot, I like to see the buildup, where you don’t know what happens in the future. I think it makes things hit a bit harder when you are surprised. I’m fully aware that this could be my bias and love of the ‘94 version talking but I wasn’t a huge fan of the time jumping.
Other than that, I was a big fan of Little Women. Gerwig’s rendition offered a new take on an old story and made me identify with the characters in a new way. Stellar performances from the cast made the characters stand out from other versions. I was thrilled to see Gerwig put her distinctive mark on a classic tale and create a memorable film.
Film or Movie: Film
You’ll like this film if:
1. You like Little Women
2. You want to see a heartwarming tale of sisterhood
3. You like coming of age stories
