Little Women - DVD + Digital

Classic movie! Needed to have a dvd and it came in quick and no issues.

My 84 year old mother fell in love with the book Little Women as a young girl and has read everything ever written by Louisa May Alcott. She still has everyone of those books - the original books she read growing up. When the 1949 version of Little Women came out with June Allyson playing Jo; Peter Lawford playing Laurie; Margaret O'Brien playing Beth; Janet Leigh playing Meg; and best of all, Elizabeth Taylor playing Amy, my mother was 13 years old and fell in love with that movie version of Little Women. My mother loved this story so much, she named her first born daughter, Laurie. While that name became more common for a girl's name, it was not at all common back then and it's definitely a good thing that she did not have a son as her first born child. While my mother will watch the updated versions of Little Women, she never feels any of them compare to the 1949 version. When I was 13, I read my mother's book of Little Women, followed by Little Men, and also fell in love with the story and the March family. I also agree with my that the portrayals of the characters in the 1949 version are the best portrayals of each of the book's characters, as written in the books. June Allyson had that tomboy nature of Jo, down pat. Margaret O'Brien portrayed the gentle, fragile nature of Beth so well, that no one could watch the movie without crying when she died. But best of all, was Elizabeth Taylor playing Amy. She had the perfect, little arrogant attitude and coming of age change in her personality that has ever been done or will be done. She was perfect for that role. When I first began watching this current version, I thought they were going to begin at the point they started at and was saddened that they wouldn't tell the entire story. However, after the flashback began, I realized that we would get to see the entire story played out. Being that I know this story so well, it didn't bother me in the least that it was told using flashbacks. I already knew the characters and didn't need to build that connection. I also enjoyed the fact that we saw other parts of the story that are from the book but have never been in the movie versions before. I am glad they did not just repeat the story the same way it has been done over and over again in all of the other versions. I thought all of the characters were played very well by this cast. I thought Saoirse Ronan's portrayal of Jo was not only a good updated version, but also more in keeping with how Louisa May Alcott probably would have been. Louisa May Alcott based this story on her life, but it wasn't a true biography but was instead written with rose colored glasses. I also really enjoyed Emma Watson's portrayal of Meg and thought she added more depth to that character than is usually portrayed in the movie versions. All of the other characters were played very well by the actors and actresses. It's just that sometimes an actress or actor plays a part so well that they become what you envision that character to always be like. Try to imagine anyone else playing Scarlet O'Hara than Vivien Leigh. It can't be done. The same is true for Elizabeth Taylor as Amy and Margaret O'Brien as Beth, in my opinion. I can understand that someone watching Little Women for the first time might feel a bit confused with the way this movie uses flashbacks to tell the story. Maybe even someone who has seen another version or two and maybe even read the book, might be a little put off with the sequence of flashbacks. But as someone who has seen every version and seen many of them multiple times and has reread this book multiple times, I enjoyed the variety this version provided. I began talking about my mother and her love of Little Women and I will end talking about my mother. Both of us were going to go see this movie on Christmas Eve, but she became ill and spent the holidays in the hospital, followed by a period of time in rehab. She is now permanently wheel chair bound and it is hard for her to transfer into a car. So, we missed the chance of watching this together on the big screen, something I really wish we could have done together as a lasting memory of something she loved and passed on to me. I bought the online version of this movie, so I will set it up for her to watch at home, as well. My guess is that she will enjoy this movie, but not as much as the 1949 version.

I know Little Women is a classic, but I never cared for the book nor the 1994 version because I did not like that she ended up with Bhaer. It was an odd choice that turned the book and movie off for me. However, I decided to give the 2019 movie a shot because I Googled 'feminist/girl power movies' and this was one of the movies that showed up. So, I rented the movie and watched it. I was taken back by the movie not going in chronological order. It was definitely different from the original. The major difference from the book and the 1994 version that caused me to dislike it is the ending. The ending starts after Jo March sends her manuscript of 'Little Women' to her publisher, a book she writes about her childhood and her sisters, and he writes back. She crumbles the letter and comes downstairs and Bhaer is there. I felt it was strange and out of place with the rest of the movie. I didn't get why he was there and why her family was acting so strange. Then when he leaves to go to California, Jo's family telling her she loves him is definitely odd. I was starting to not like the movie all over again, then when Jo, Meg and Amy rode to the train station all dramatic, I was about to turn the movie off and say I dislike this version too. However, I'm glad I did not. The scene cuts to Jo being in her publisher's office and them discussing the ending. He asks who does "Jo", her counterpart in her book marry and Jo answers no one, she doesn't marry either of them referring to Bhaer and Laurie. The publisher says no, girls want to see the women married, and no one will buy the book if "Jo" becomes a spinster. After some bickering, Jo concedes and then the scene goes back to the train station where the 1994 ending takes place sort of, Jo tells Bhaer she doesn't want him to leave and he says his hands are empty, they kiss in the rain under an umbrella, it is very unrealistic. The first thing we hear after they kiss is the publisher saying that's nice, it's very romantic and touching. They are still in the office and the publisher says they can call the chapter "Under the Umbrella." They negotiate the royalties and Jo gets her own copyright, she mentions that she sold her heroine into marriage for money and she might as well get some of it. They agree on the royalties and Jo keeps her copyright, the next scene is kind of an over the top fairytale ending with all of the March women at the school with kids, their husbands and children celebrating Marmie's birthday. Between that scene is also a scene of Jo watching her book get put together. When Jo sets the cake before Marmie and the women stand next to their respective spouses, the scene fades and zooms in on the book. The scene goes away the moment the book is completed. Afterwards there is only one scene, Jo gets her book and she hugs it close to her. At first I was confused, did both endings take place? Or is the train station and the fairytale ending just part of the book ending that the publisher wanted so her book could sell? With questions I went to the internet and there was a wide variety of opinions but I found 2 articles that simply explained what happened. I read an article on Oprah Daily and one on Distractify. In Oprah Daily it says that the author, Louisa May Alcott, based Little Women on her own childhood and Jo on herself. She did not want Jo to be married off, she wanted her to be a literary spinster like herself but in the 19th century, women had to be married off in the end otherwise the book would not be published and would not sell. So, the director follows the ending Alcott would have wanted, Jo writes an ending where her counterpart "Jo" in the book goes after Bhaer, they kiss and have that domesticated ending at the school celebrating Marmie's birthday. The real ending is Jo watching her book get printed and gaining the independence she always wanted. That explanation matches well with Distractify's explanation. I am pleased with the ending.

I truly loved this version of the story. Casting couldn't have been better...although I was surprised at the end to see "Saul Goodman" as the father...lol. It's a beautiful film, superb acting. Yes, the back and forth in the plot was slightly confusing but for a fan...you can tell the subtle nuances that differentiated the timeline and you got a bit used to it. Definitely was a bold choice and I do think they could have done a better job aging the cast so that the timeline could have been more distinct. However....how many versions of Little Women can be done the exact same linear way? It makes me kind of respect that at least the writer and director were trying to change it up a bit. Im fine with that personally. Not everything has to come from the "purist" perspective of the book. Highly enjoyable film in my humble opinion...and I'm not one to buy movies. But this I added to my collection.

This is an adaptation of the book(s) of the same name by Louisa Marie Alcott, written shortly after the American Civil War. It was a semi-autobiographical novel about her experiences growing up with her sisters and becoming a writer at a time when it was taboo for a woman to write anything but letters. There was, of course, a film adaptation done in 1994 starring Wynona Ryder, but this is a modern, alternative adaptation of the story with new actresses in the starring roles, including Saoirse Ronan (playing Jo, who was the character analog of Louisa), Emma Watson, Florence Pugh, Eliza Scanlen, Laura Dern (playing the matriarch of the family). The movie was written and directed by Greta Gerwig. She made the decision to start the movie with the women as adults, and then use parts from the first novel when they were girls growing up in New England as flashbacks. For those who are not familiar with the story, this method of telling it can make the movie hard to follow. That said, I do not think the movie deserves one star like some of the reviewers have given it, because the acting, the cinematography, and the overall story are all extremely good. For those who get the Blu-Ray, the movie looks and sounds great in high-definition. There are about an hour's worth of extras, give or take, including several behind-the-scenes featurettes and a feature on the Alcott house, which has been preserved and saved multiple times from being torn down. A decent amount of material for those who like going through the bonus features. While I think it would have been better to tell the story in a linear fashion, it is still a very good, and extremely well acted adaptation of the story. Definitely worth checking out.

Nice movie.

My rating is more of a 4.5 Thank you for reading Little Women is a 2019 American coming-of-age period drama film written and directed by Greta Gerwig. It is the seventh film adaptation of the 1868 novel of the same name by Louisa May Alcott. It chronicles the lives of the March sisters—Jo, Meg, Amy, and Beth—in Concord, Massachusetts, during the 19th century. It stars an ensemble cast composed of Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh, Eliza Scanlen, Laura Dern, Timothée Chalamet, Meryl Streep, Tracy Letts, Bob Odenkirk, James Norton, Louis Garrel, and Chris Cooper. Fans of the classic novel this film is based off of will be happy to know that much of this film's screenwriting is directly influenced by Louisa May Alcott herself; specifically, much of a dialogue comes straight from the novel, and it is delivered in a way that is natural over the course of a conversation. In addition to this, there is some dialogue borrowed from Other words published by Alcott, and it speaks to the amount of effort that was put into creating this movie particularly. As others have said before me, the set design and choices of costume were absolutely perfect; everything appears so authentically, and these artistic choices in particular genuinely immerse audience members in the story that develops and is being narrated over time. I am struggling with the criticism people have towards the nonlinear fashion of this film; while I can understand how this can be confusing, unfortunately I can only comment on this as someone already familiar with the storyline. First of all, this technique captures the essence of a coming-of-age movie more appropriately than this film’s predecessors: the results of decisions characters make in the present are followed with events happening in the past that give an explanation for the behavior having occurred in the first place. This is a classic case of cause and effect, and this grants the audience a better understanding of the bigger picture in regards to its context and naturally complicated nature. My intention was not to compare this film to the version of it that was released in 1992(Which, I do love), but it would be a great disservice if I did not honor the direction this film goes in honoring its characters; Gerwig puts a substantial amount of effort in telling a comprehensive story that treats all of its characters fairly as opposed to centering it only on Jo's growth and development. In addition to this, this version of ‘Little Women’ is much more blunt in explaining how sexism and other forms of related bias restrict women in both overt and insidious ways; audience members are not expected to “read between the lines” and project their experiences with the world on to a story that is set in the 1800s. Moreover, Jo’s contrary nature and how it relates to her lonely disposition is meaningfully explored without forcing her story to be centered on some amount of otherwise flippant and artificial romance. Mark my words: The only thing sharper than Gerwig’s direction in this film is Timothee Chalamet’s jawline. Delightfully charming and simultaneously empowering; I would recommend!

I love this version of Little Women. It's the only version I would recommend. It's very artistic.