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

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.

I've enjoyed every adaptation of Little Women that I've seen, and this was no exception. As someone who enjoys comparing adaptations across time, I find the story told in this newer style of acting, directing, music etc. a valuable addition to the collection. Some people may not like aspects such as scenes of the Civil War where Father is, and this is the first time we see any of Meg's labour, but for me neither is excessive and both are worth including.

This adaptation isn't perfect, any more than its predecessors are perfect, but let me not list my small gripes here. I found it overall well written, well acted and well cast. The descriptions of the characters were clearly considered when casting (if not 100% adhered to), which is a nice touch and the cherry on top of the actors' generally fine performances. In particular I found Meg engaging, Aunt March very satisfying and Laurie almost straight from the pages of the book, while Father is (I feel) a loyal interpretation yet unlike any I have seen before.

I was a bit dubious coming in, but I should have known with BBC and Heidi Thomas attached to it that it would be good. Mostly in my review I will address some of the complaints I have seen regarding the series, and how I believe they were minor, hopefully to encourage you to watch it! I don't believe you'll be disappointed.

Some of the other reviews have complained that it is very fast-paced and takes out many of the unique, quirky aspects of the March sisters and their lives. But omitting the charm and beauty of nature around them? it does not. The sets and shots of nature are beautiful and draw you into their world. Yes, we may feel that we don't get to know the sisters as well as in the book or in some other movie versions, but I believe the miniseries gives us a lovely glimpse into their lives for its length.

I worried about the acting, but everyone did a very fine job. I especially appreciate Jo, a perfect balance of boyishness and independence without being inappropriate to the time period. Amy, as many viewers has complained, was too old for the part in the beginning, and annoyingly had obviously dyed hair, but I was able to overlook these because I was enjoying the show so much, and believe me, I'm usually pretty picky and distracted by such things. Meg and Beth are my favourite people to play their respective roles.

The story does have a bit more of a modern feel, and as some have complained that carries into their speech, but it doesn't stand out too horribly. I didn't care for how some of the little happenings of their lives were switched around seemingly for no reason, especially how soon Marmee is called away to Father.

So, not perfect, but I enjoyed the 3 episodes very much. I cried several times at the very sad and sweet moments between the family, because, after all, I've read and watched the story ever since I was very small, and have 3 sisters of my own, and have gladly welcomed this new series into my heart. Hope you enjoy it too!

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.