Little Women movie

I enjoyed it but found the jumping around in time confusing.

Haven't see it but for me the best version was made years ago with Elizabeth Taylor.

Saw this today and loved it. Was a bit worried about the length of the film but the time passed very quickly and I got totally absorbed in this lovely story.I was prepared for the flashbacks so they did not worry me.

Saw it today with my sister. We loved it!

Went to see it at our brand new, long awaited cinema and loved it. I have read the book over and over since I was about 10 until I actually feel part of the March family. Yes Jo has always been my role model. I didn't mind about the time slips though I agree Professor Bhaer should have been much older. Amy too seemed wiser than I remember her. I love this story.

Just back from the cinema. I really enjoyed the film and didn't mind the time slip at all.
I agree Laurie and Friedrich were not as expected but that didn't really detract from the film.

Very mediocre in my view. Also couldn't catch all the dialogue. The two English actresses were easier to understand funnily enough. Beth wouldn't have been playing with dolls at her age which seemed weird. Lots of laughter in parts looked so hammy. Didn't like the flashing backwards and forwards. Glad I only paid £2.50.

Enjoyable, easy to watch film, but think it would have been much better if the girls had been protrayed by actors nearer their supposed ages, rather than by big named actors, all far too old. Of course, Professor Bhaer was German and should have been at least 20 years older!!
The film actually covered not just Little Women but much of Good Wives. Wonder if there is any intention of a sequel planned to cover Little Men and Jo's Boys.

I thought this film version was lovely. I 'lived' Little Women when I was young, the book meant so much to me and I wanted to be part of that family.
Saoirse Ronan is wonderful as Jo, I thought. (I loved her in Brooklyn too). But I was amused when Daddy came back from the war and saw it was Bob Odenkirk; - I loved him in Breaking Bad and these days in the prequel, Better Call Saul; - it was strange to see him in such a different role.

I went Tuesday evening with both daughters. We all really enjoyed it. I did think the professor was too young and I thought from the book he was German not French. It did jump about but I remember the books well and kept up. It was quite long . DD1 cried all the way through!

I thought it was far less sentimental than other versions. Jo is a clear-headed woman trying to mark her way in a man’s world, aunt March knows exactly what’s what, Meg understands how her life will be but decides she’ll do it anyway and Amy is told it’s incumbent on her to ‘save’ the family by marrying money. That’s far from sentimental.

I always hope for a better ending for poor Beth, though!

Given all the good reviews, I was surprised that I was disappointed. Too sentimental as GagaJo says.

I saw it with my sister and loved it.

I hated it. Overly sentimental.

I went to see this today. I was very confused by the beginning and it took me a while to figure out which time frame I was in. The film was beautifully shot and I absolutely loved the costumes. I do agree with others here re the casting of Laurie and the professor. On the whole the film was a very pleasant watch and a nice way to spend a very cold afternoon. Interestingly a male relative of mine did not like the film. I must ask why when next I see him.

Saw it last night and was very disappointed. As others have said, the constant switching backwards and forwards in timeline was confusing and it was sometimes difficult to distinguish what was supposed to be a dream sequence and what was "real time". The characters never seemed to age from childhood to adult and Timothee Chalamet was just not right as Laurie imo!

Nice scenery though.

Saw this film last week and was confused to start with. Once i had sorted out what was happening with the flashbacks i enjoyed it. Pretty much true to the original story. Loved the portrayal of publisher of the book. After all, we have him to thank for this enjoyable story.

On looks I thought Meg and Jo could have swopped over!!

I really enjoyed it, but agree that it did bounce about too much, without indicating dates/locations, which was confusing. Really liked Jo, Amy and Laurie, although thought Beth looked too healthy . My sister didn't enjoy it and thought it was too long. However, she did like 'Cats'.

Just been to see it, and really enjoyed it. I read the books 50+ years ago, and never ever felt tempted to re-read them. I thought the female casting was excellent but agree that Laurie and the Professor were not spot on. The time jumps worked for me, I think it might have been boring otherwise. The cinematography was superb. And yes, I did need tissues, more than once.

It was beautifully filmed but I was disappointed. Why change things that were perfect in the books? For me the casting was off; Timothee Chalamet was not right as Laurie and why did Professor Bhaer acquire a French accent and lose about 20 years? The jumping backwards and forwards was confusing partly because all the girls looked the same age whether in the present or 7 years previously! So - sadly - it really wasn't for me. But it was sumptuous to look at and I think if you didn't love the books you would enjoy it.

I liked the BBC adaption the Christmas before last, I bought the DVD of that and watched it over three nights with one of my granddaughters, I may dig it out and watch it again.

Just seen the film tonight. Did enjoy it but would have preferred chronological order of book. It has inspired DGD to read book-when her finals are over!

Loved the film. Very different from the book as I remember and I was confused near the beginning when it jumped about a lot. However, well worth going to see.

Glad you enjoyed it MawB. I thought it far and away the best version I have ever seen. Did you need the tissues? Were you at the Errol Flynn?