Little Women

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.

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.

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

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.

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.