A Little Women's Christmas

It might just be the fact that there were too many characters involved in this movie to do any of them justice. Somehow, this film seemed to both drag in places and gloss-over important story points, at the same time.

A bit more snappy banter between the leads wouldn't have hurt. They needed a better-developed story, even if that meant sacrificing one or more of the other sisters' stories.

The real standout performance here turned out to be from Trevor Donovan. I've seen him in other movies, but I believe this is the first time I've really noticed him as an actor. He did a great job here. Just wish the movie itself was better.

The elements that make this a "retelling" are the girls' names. The Lorrie romance, and the sisters' creativity. But that's a low bar; a true retelling would capture the essence of the original, including themes of sacrifice, giving when you have little to give (the modern family is insanely well-off by almost all Americans' standards), and a sense of responsibility to community that pulls people together through shared hardship. Attending a church service hardly does that.

Did the creators of the movie think an Army captain fits that bill? Instead of learning an actual truth (the Army doesn't care if you miss your family), Daisy learns a fantasy that if a soldier tells God he wants to go home, God will grant his wish. What about the enlisted guys Captain Daddy left behind? As a former Army Officer's wife, I can recall being pre-empted on Christmas for lonely soldiers my ex-husband had to inspire morale into.

This channel needs to get its writers and producers out of Beverly Hills and talk to some regular people. L. M. Alcott's original is so much more relatable than this misguided production.

Still, it filled some of a night for us.

After reading some of the other reviews, I didn't know whether to expect the greatest movie ever, or the worst.

Well of course it was neither.

I never read the Alcott books, or any of the other "chick" stories, but I am familiar with some of them. People have been making movies loosely based on them forever.

They put in things they think are clever (Alcott Grove, a waitress named Louisa May) that really just make it irritating.

This movie is a modern retelling, and while not a significant achievement in film, is not as bad as some of the reviews I've read.

I agree there could have been a stronger lead, but I haven't seen Trevor Donovan even mentioned, and he was very good.

The whole four sisters thing was overdone, and they didn't really look or feel like sisters. They basically had four lead actresses jockeying for position. That never works.

I do like the GAC is making a concerted effort to include the Lord in all the movies I've seen this year.

I thought this movie was fine. To me that's good enough.

Seven.

If you saw the disaster of a romance movie called 'Prescription for Love' starring these two leads, you at least have to admit the script for this one is far more suitable...especially for Trevor Donovan. This actor does best when the romance blossoms early on and the screenplay doesn't call for him to be bumbling and tongue-tied/shy at the onset. This movie isn't perfect in that regard (in that he can't come clean right away about working for her employer) but that cringe-quotient is far less than being a clueless doctor in 'Prescription'. Here, the romance progresses credibly and the 'conflict' is also real-world credible. Marsh is attractive and sweet and her only problem....if such a thing is actually a problem in real life....is the she looks far younger than her age. She looked like a teenage nurse in 'Prescription' and here a bit young to already have achieved a list of best-sellers.

I honestly thought I was watching a high school play. It looked and felt low budget. Jen Lilley as Meg and Laura Osnes as Beth were great but should never be in minor support roles. Jillian Murray was not strong enough to play the lead as Jo. The characters of Amy and Laurie were just space fillers and poorly cast. The casting choices and writing, both dialog and plot lines, were subpar. The entire movie was uncomfortably bad. The one minute of decent airtime was Gladys Knight singing. That was it.

Within the first fifteen minutes it was obvious that the movie was not going to be worthy of a second watch. I stuck it out hoping it would improve. Sadly, it did not.