Les quatre filles du docteur March

'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

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.

I have read Little Women so many times that I have lost count and was looking forward to seeing this rendition. What a disappointment. As others have mentioned the acting is mediocre at best and the script seems trite. I only watched about half of it and then tuned out.

Truth be told, I usually write reviews when I don't like what I saw, check the ones I entered for I'm not lying and in this opportunity, it is somehow not the case and yet... Honestly, it was a bit weird to watch so many British actors and actresses in a famous well told (and loved) American book but, hey! They carried it through so hats off, Angela Lansbury even got me to love Aunt March, that was a first.

Now, seeing Uma and Ethan's daughter making her debut, that was also OK, she pulled it too, now, I'm not so sure about the rest of the cast. Little Women was, and still is, a favourite of mine from my early childhood. It is a book that is so easy to revisit from time to time and be welcomed by the Marsh family, you can and will fall for at least one of them... and that's, perhaps, what I found most difficult in this adaptation. In spite of my attemps and their good intentions, I couldn't fall for any of the girls; Mrs Marsh, Emily Watson did a perfect job, an almost predictable role got some substance. It is the first time, as the other reviewer points that we get to see something else but the saintly image that is usually portraited in this character.

However, I'm not going to lie, it is almost impossible to dissociate my mind from the 1994 movie for it is a classic, they took 3 books into one movie and it felt right, everything fell into place. Sadly, I cannot say the same here, they had even more time to include a lot of details and yet, felt (again, it's just me, you don't have to agree) a bit rush. They chose to erase some scenes and included them later on to no avail, Beth and Mr March, what happened there!? Nothing for it was not included when it is really important in the whole story!

I won't say I loved it but I havent' disliked it either. In doubt, always, go back to the books and then to the 1994's adaptation. This felt... bland. It lacks... no drama, power, yes, that would be world. It lacks something, which is a pity, for it was a chance to tell again this beautiful story and even go straight forward for they usually stop before the Litlte Men books' start.

One day, maybe, someone would take the time to do it. Watch it, you won't dislike it but I can't promise you'll love it either.

Unlike many classic adaptations the BBC has released in the past, problem after problem weighs down Little Women and stops the series from being a truly enjoyable watch.

The book itself is largely written in a sweet, innocent voice/tone, and it works well within the text. However, when translating or trying to capture that same voice or spirit in actual dialogue for the screen, it comes off as amateurish or overly sentimental when spoken aloud. The text's tone is actually one of the reasons why this book is difficult to adapt. It is not the acting that lets the series down, rather it is the words that are unbelievable. People simply don't/didn't speak in such a way, even in the Victorian period. If this version is trying to modernize the girl's characters/eccentricities and the story's main message, why could it not modernize the language a bit or be a little more age appropriate- of course, still keeping it in line with the book's tone. An adaptation of Little Women should strike a balance between the two parts of the girls' and Laurie's journey into adulthood. First, establishing the way things are and have always been in the March home in a playful tone, and then, as they are forced to change through the circumstances of life and love, the tone becomes more heartwarming and more mature. From the get-go, this version applies a serious and mature tone despite the language used and the children's level of maturity, so, there is never a real transformation in character/perspective for any of the children, only in the circumstances they find themselves in.

Another glaring problem is the editing and structuring of the plot. Simply put, many scenes are too short; the scenes are like snapshots; they tell the basic story from a surface, visual level, but it lacks any depth, detail, or real explanation. This version misses the opportunity, being that it is longer and has more time, to include parts that have been left out of adaptations before it- parts that develop or establish the characters, their relationships, and their motives (examples, Jo visiting Laurie when ill, meeting Mr. Lawrence, Laurie's backstory and mother, the girls engaging in Jo's plays, Laurie joining in). Actually, this version excludes more than it adds, which is a little baffling. How can so much be glossed over?

The last problem is the accompanying score. If I am not mistaken, the music used within the series seems to be lifted from or inspired by the Radio 4 play of Little Women. Which is an odd choice, being that it is not of the period. Adding a modern score can work, but here, it is a miss-match.

Though the 94 film has its faults as well, it remains the best crack at adapting Alcott's work, which is disappointing seeing that the BBC had so much potential.