Top 10 Things Little Women (2019) Did Right & Wrong 

NO shade to 2019's Little Women, it was my FAVOURITE movie of the year. Truly phenomenal, a movie that had me in tears the whole time!

"But you're not married Aunt Mar--" "weLL tHat'S bECauSe i'M riCh.

I love that they let Amy actually be *angry* at Laurie. Yes she loves him, but that wasn’t her whole character. I think I just love that there was overall so much anger in this movie. Jo and Laurie quarrelling when he proposes to her, Amy telling Jo she wanted to hurt her by burning her novel, Jo being angry at the professor, etc. Anger isn’t evil, it’s human!

actually Beth's death scene was heart breaking, when jo came down the stairs and the two timelines kinda merged, it was beautiful

This version finally gave Amy justice! And we actually got to see how she got her man... they literally always skim that part in other adaptions!

i've never related to a character more than amy. she is like the embodiment of the youngest child. she always feels like she's in people's shadows or left out. she is not taken seriously and laughed at when she just wants to be as grown up as her sisters. she is trying to become her own person

I think most people think of Beth as "the one who dies" even before they get to the 1st second of any adaptation of this story, so I get why Greta didn't bother dragging it out

Is no one gonna mention Emma Watson's accent and how it constantly shifted

Gerwig missed a pivotal character development for Beth by not including the "I shall be homesick even in heaven" line which shows her strength in facing death.

I dont think beths arc is wrong, i think is beautifull its evolution towards acceptance of HER death

The true wrong of this movie was having Jo and her editor LOOK DIRECTLY INTO OUR SOULS while writing letters to each other. What an awkward choice.

I love this adaptation and have to disagree about Beth's arc in this film being "wrong." Knowing how ill she is at the beginning of the film made the flashbacks even more heart-wrenching, especially the scene where she gets the courage to go over to Mr. Laurence's huge house and plays his grand piano. That scene just tore at me, because it was Beth's "voice" or spirit wafting through the house, and the way Chris Cooper reacted to that moment was heart-breaking. And the scene at the seashore! Yes, the audience knows it's not going to work, and it made me hear Beth even more because she tells Jo, "It's like the tide going out. it can't be stopped."

My favorite quote from the movie was...“Women, they have minds, and they have souls, as well as just hearts. And they’ve got ambition, and they’ve got talent, as well as just beauty. I’m so sick of people saying that love is all a woman is fit for.”
-Jo March

I love that you showed clips from the Winona Ryder, Claire Danes, etc. version. That movie still gives me major feels.

No mention of Chris Cooper's marvelous turn as old Mr. Lawrence? He was sublime!

What! No mention of Jo changing her mind about Laurie and writing the letter? That's definitely new.

I loved the movie but something that kinda bothered me was how Florence was supposed to be a child on the childhood part. It was just so weird tbh

not shade or anything, but in my opinion i feel that they should have had 2 actors for amy or made her younger version seem younger. it appeared that she was older than beth in some scenes and i feel her character is more of a younger character.

Beth’s death scene in the Winona Ryder adaptation breaks my heart. The newer version of Beth was probably the only letdown of the movie. I loved the movie though.

I could write a large essay comparing the 1994 version to the 2019 version to the book.

Well Jane Austen never married so when I study Louisa life I was not surprised it was not weird many female novelist never married

Is anyone going to talk about how the outfits are definitely not historically accurate?

Wow, you totally missed the point... they got Professor Bhaer RIGHT. The whole point of this version of Professor Bhaer is that she DOESN"T fall in love with him, it's a fantasy Jo concocts to add to the book, so it's more marketable, just like Louisa May Alcott added him to the story of her own life. For that to make sense to a modern audience, he needs to be more appealing as a love interest, to the modern eye.

*spoilers* /// i have to agree. beth was always my favourite character and i wish… just once… she was valued equally. everyone cares about jo, and i'm glad gerwig allowed us to know amy (meg too)… but beth? i wish she got more love. idk. at the end of the first book, a part of me always thought she would get better. there was always that hope, that 'maybe…' that made her ending all the more sadder. it hurt so bad because when i was 13 reading it for the first time, i really thought she'd pull through. i don't like thinking of her as 'the one who dies'. that's _not who beth is._ she wasn't always destined to die. she got the scarlet fever by helping that family - and she actually got better first, before it came back later. she helped them when no one else would. she deserves more attention and more love. yeah the movie 'got amy right', i've heard it a lot, cool, good for her. but what about beth? the quiet one, the gentle one, the kind one? her story is always skimmed over like it doesn't matter as much because she didn't make as many mistakes. but beth was human too. /// just my opinion.

My favorite part of this movie was that it actually based the on-screen version of Amy March on the version of her in Book 2! It isn't that this movie worked to humanize her - it just followed the character development Louisa May Alcott wrote and the other movies ignored! I was so happy to see what Greta Gerwig did with the script and I loved this movie.

The casting was sublime, Saoirse and Timothee REALLY embody what I felt that Jo and Laurie would be like from when I read the book. This version even made me feel sorry for, and like Amy!💖😅📕

My favorite Little Women is the 1994 version, I felt like it fully fleshed out the characters. In the 2019 version there were things I liked, most of the Amy changes I liked as her character is seen as being bad or spoiled in other versions. I liked the idea that Jo is so head strong, but it seems that she goes through her life with no compromises. I loved the theme that the book Little Women had that as we grow older (male or female) we learn that we change and our ideas shift. This shows with Amy coming to understand the strictures if society of her time and she still chose love. It shows Jo having been a wild tomboy who holds to never conforming to finding peace and love that didn’t bind her. In this 2019 movie I feel short changed as Jo never seems like she’d be happy as a married wealthy woman. I’m left feeling no connection to Meg’s character development, nor Beth who seems to mean little to the entire movie. Marmie doesn’t seem to do anything with control or dealing with her girls’ lives. She doesn’t seem concerned over their futures. Just that they be whatever. It left me feeling as she seemed flighty. Not showing the historical backdrop eliminates much of the story’s depth. And Jo...she seems sad, I just thought she was a sad person by the end. Not feeling sure about her fate, was it real or a fairytale, made her feel less complete. There were squeals to Little Women Books about Jo’s sons. Obviously there was more to Jo’s character than her stubbornness and unwillingness to marry. Plus the hurried pace felt as if the sister relationship was lacking, it never really shines. Overall, I felt like it was missing heart.

I didn't mind the changes made, and I thought the added monologues from Amy and Jo really made a great impact. My only problem.. was that they didn't cast two actors to play Amy. The parts with her as a child made me SO uncomfortable at times, like when she needs money for limes, or when the teacher hits her. I get that it would be difficult with this structure to have two different actors playing the same character, but it really took me out of the movie every time we saw "young Amy." It was just so clearly a grown ass woman playing a child.

Have seen all the "Little Women" movies ever made except this one! Will watch it at some point, but the 1994 one will always remain my very favorite one, beautifully filmed, acted with gorgeous music by Thomas Newman! I'm a modern day Marmee who lives in Liberal MA and has all daughters and lost my middle one to coma and brain injury! My oldest is a mom and artist and my youngest is also an artist like myself and is also a published author as well. "Art reflects life", life reflects art! Orchard House in Concord is open to the public and you can still see the bedroom and desk where Louisa May Alcott wrote the book and still see the piano in the front parlor and still see "Amy's" drawings on the walls of her bedroom! Contrary to what the narrator said, they were all "feminists" back then during the Transcendental era in the 1800s. "Marmee" in real life was the country's first social worker, "Meg" in real life was a teacher as was "Jo" along with being a writer and "Amy" an artist who died after childbirth! Louisa help raise her daughter until she was eight when she went back to Europe to live with her father! Louisa was also a nurse during the Civil War in Washington DC, got very sick and was never the same healthwise again. She was also the first woman to vote in a public school election back then! Louisa and her father a teacher/philosopher who was the first teacher to admit a black child into his school "Fruitlands' back then, died just days apart from each other! They're all buried except for "Amy" on Writer's Hill at Sleepy Hollow Cemetery with writers Nathaniel Hawthorne of "The Scarlet Letter" fame, Henry Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson!, May they all rest in peace~

As far as casting goes,,as much as I like Laura Dern, I don't personally think she embodied Marmee very well. She seemed more frail, modern, and city-like?(for lack of a better word). I loved Susan Sarandon as her in the other version. Absolutely loved casting of Jo and Amy! Wonderful!

In the book Jo inherits Plumfield, MARRIES Professor Bhaer, they have two children and turn Plumfield into a boarding school for difficult boys.

Yeah, if you're going to cast the beautiful Saoirse Ronan as the canonically not-pretty Jo, why not cast someone young and hot as Friedrich. This happens with female characters all the time.

I luv Florence but i think there was something off about having her play both young and older Amy. Imo, 1 of the main reasons why Laurie falls for Amy in the end is because he finally sees her as a grown woman, as opposed to a child, which is what he saw her as before. I feel like the distinction between her childishness in the beginning and her womanliness in the end wasn't clear enough. And the classroom scene was just awkward loll. I also think Beth's character was extremely underused in this version :( Beth is supposed to be GOOD, not just shy and sad and dying, and to me, at least, she's supposed to be the linchpin of the whole March family! Her presence wasn't felt enough throughout the film for her absence to be so poignant and upsetting at the end, idk. I luv u though Greta can't wait for the Barbie movieee

I actually felt the scene with Marmee helping the war effort was particularly strong at showing viewers the Civil War on the home front. In many ways I was more moved by that one scene with the poor man whose son fighting than the other five adaptations I’ve watched.

The wrongs in this are themselves. Wrong. Maybe the worst is about talking about the Marches' wealth. The book, as Gerwig has stated in interviews, even opens with a line not being able to afford things for Christmas. And money is a central element to the story and theme to this adaptation, to the sister's chances for independence and living lives their own way. The film *does* mention that the family lost their wealth, did you not watch the scenes with Streep? The movie tells us so much about their economic situation and how that weighs on them I don't know how you can have such a bad take on this. And Gerwig addresses the Civil War and period in multiple scenes, like Amy at school, Marmie contributing to the war effort, about anything that has to do with their father. The film doesn't need a monologue about the subject to tell us these things like we're having a history lesson because it does it organically. And Bhaer might be one the best aspects of the adaptation. Gerwig takes an element of the book that wasn't desired in the first place (Alcott was pressured into Jo being with him by her publisher), and greatly improves it. To say that the book meant to say that he was what Jo wanted all along completely misses the point considering Alcott didn't want that to happen at all. Just because it's different than the novel, doesn't mean it's "wrong." Gerwig's version of Bhaer isn't a creepy mentor to Jo, isn't the instrument for her inspiration, and is at most an equal to her who readily acknowledges her talent she already has, and the metacontextual affirmation that she (Gerwig) uses to justify the two getting together by intercutting it with Jo's book negotiation (which is basically Alcott's book deal negotiation) is brilliant and not only one of the elements this version has over other film adaptations, it takes even a weakness of the novel itself and makes it a little bit better.

Everyone is talking about this newest version and the 1994 version, and here I am, still loving the 1949 version the most……

The whole cast was very competent, but the complete mastery and intuitive genius of Saoirse Ronan is unmatched. I saw the movie 7 times and was moved the same way each time. There was no "law of diminishing returns "here. Saoirse is the "BEST ACTRESS OF THIS GENERATION" elevating everything and everyone around her.

I enjoyed the movie, and some of the things she changed and twisted I liked, others I didn't. Best part: How fleshed out Amy was. I loved Amy more than Jo in this version, and Jo has always been my favorite. Amy ended up being the best of both words (good and evil, egocentric and humble, intelligent and oh-so-dumb) and her speech to Laurie was *chef kiss*. Worst: How dirty she did Behr. Poor Behr. Even if he never ended up with Jo, I feel like the director was just making fun of him the whole time. She made him a young, hot guy (he was neither). She made his last line and the lead up seem like a big joke (it felt really sweet in the book, even if that wasn't how the author wanted it to end). He was deep and thoughtful, kind and humble. In my mind he is Prince Charming, because he respects Jo as much as he loves her. He's not afraid to be honest with her and he treats her as equal, he values her talent and knows she is better than the stories she sells to the paper. How she had him portrayed almost ruined the movie for me (no disrespect to the actor, I'm sure he's lovely). EDIT: For grammar! And spelling!

But most important, where are the bonnets.

Not casting a child actress to play the younger Amy: WRONG As great as Florence Pugh is when Amy is an adult, there's only so much a woman in her mid-20's with a deep voice can do to convince she's 12 years old, and bless Florence for giving it her best shot, but it comes off silly in a film that doesn't support that tone. This was Greta Gerwig's mistake, she needed a child version of Amy for the scenes in the past (which would have also helped with viewers who had trouble keeping track of the timelines, having a child Amy would have helped ground them)...

You didn't even mention how Laurie told Jo he was married. It was a surprise in the book, yes, but she already knew about their engagement. It wasn't sprung on her completely unexpectedly like in this movie.

The non-linear narrative was dynamic and kept me engaged, but it made things confusing. It also failed in strongly buiding up the characters' personalities so the emotional payoffs are diminished. That being said, it's a glorious film. I had so much fun, I cried, and the casting is superb. Literally not one issue with the actors. Lovely film!

I thought the energy of the characters was too manic, the girls' interactions almost hyperactive at times. And Jo's manner of speech and movement way too 2020 (not the words, they were great, but the presentation)... I thought it was a mistake that her personality was so intensely modern, not even trying to match her slightly to how women would have spoken and acted in the 1800s. I loved the version with Winona Ryder.

Any of the filmed versions of "Little Women" ASSUMED that the viewer had read the novels, since the book is actually TWO books (Little Women and Good Wives). So, I recommend reading Little Women before watching ALL of the filmed versions. Do watch all of them, preferably in the order of release. Each one is geared to the time it was released. Then read the sequels Little Men and Jo's Boys. Then read Eight Cousins and Rose in Bloom. Then read Under the Lilacs, Jack and Jill, a Garland for Girls, and An Old Fashioned Girl. After those, read Hospital Sketches, Work, The Inheritance, and A Long, Fatal Love Chase. Save A Long, Fatal Love Chase for last--then find the "forgotten thrillers" by Alcott if you can.

The only thing that I didn't like about this version is that I felt that Laurie's and Jo's relationship was not shown as beautiful as in the book. I guess it was better for the audience because it's hard to see how Jo and Laurie were as one and then they split, but still I was hoping to see more of their friendship before he proposed

Claire Danes was such a perfect Beth. Her scenes break my heart every time I watch them.

My fav one is with Winona Ryder haven’t seen the new one yet. But will always love that version better.

The 1994 movie blows away the 2019 version. Both actresses are good, but Winona Ryder was luckier to get the better movie.

Just my opinion, it I didn’t like Chalamet as Laurie. He was fine as Laurie as a boy, but he was too immature to be the adult Laurie. Saiorse has such a fierce maturity that it was just a lop-sided relationship, TO ME. I’m a fan of the book, however I’ve never been a Jo/Laurie shipper, they were too ‘brother and sister’ for me. Jo has a big heart despite her toughness, and I always wanted someone worthy of her. At least in the 1994 version, Jo and Bhear have a relationship, where you could maybe see her love is justified. If Gerwig really wanted to keep Jo single, why change Bhear at all? I wasn’t a fan of the ambiguous end. I did like the movie, those were just the few things that bugged me.

I could tell that they used to be rich I found it clear especially with aunt march and I have never read the book. But also I was paying a lot of attention as I love period dramas while the friend I saw it with just got confused but mainly with the unchronological order.

2019 version to 1994 is like Marry Poppins Returns to Mary Poppins.

Though Saoirse Ronan did a very good Jo, I think Winona Ryder is the best Jo, not just in the acting, but also in the physical description set in the novel (Jo was a brunette, with gray-brown eyes, not a strawberry-blonde girl with blue eyes). I didn't consider appropriate to cast Florence Pugh as both younger and older Amy, so I disagree with Ms Mojo when she says "Amy's characterization was right". Florence was great as older Amy, but younger Amy is supposed to be a 12-year-old in the novel, yet they have a very deep-voiced Pugh playing such 12-year-old. They should have casted a younger actress to play young Amy. Louis Garrel was a miscast for Bhaer, not just because he was young and handsome, but because his characterization of Bhaer is that of a cold, and distant man. Bhaer is described in the book as "kind and warm", who criticized Jo's writing with kindness and showing her his love for her.

Ironically the one time I actually liked Professor Bhaer, Jo doesn't end up with him

In Louisa May Alcott's letters to her publisher, there's no evidence that she was convinced to make Jo end up married. She has a letter to a friend of hers saying that Jo should've ended up a spinster and marriage sells, but a lot of people believe that she was just trying to impress her friend as she was extremely feminist. Louis May Alcott did have a few major crushes, so I think it likely that she wrote Jo an ending that would be her own ideal. It also completes Jo's character arc from pushing against womanhood to seeing its value.

I loved Amy and Laurie this adaption. They were finally done right

I love the ending being up for interpretation in the way it was shown was a stroke of genuis. Everyone ended up happy with what they chose to see.

I had trouble telling childhood from adulthood - I didn't notice the difference in light at first, and then I thought it was meant to be pre and post Beth's death.

I HATED the achronological way the movie was filmed. It really put me off. I don’t think I would’ve minded as much if they’d had a younger actress play Amy (like in the 1994 version that I grew up with). The casting was amazing and Florence Pugh was brilliant but I think it was quite hard to distinguish between the time periods because she doesn’t look 13 or like a young teenager and there’s literally no difference between Amy 10 years ago and Amy in the present time. If I hadn’t seen the previous movie and read the book, I would’ve been very confused and in fact my friend and I were quite confused and thought we’d walked into the wrong screen for a few minutes at the start... I love everything else but I feel like that was something that made me not love this movie and only like it.

Little Women 2019 was beyond fabulous! Saiorse Ronan and the other actors nailed their parts. Greta Gerwig directed an amazing film!

The 2019 version was very good and I enjoyed it very much, but the 1994 version is perfection.

Loved the cast. My only issue is Amy. Young Amy doesn't look young at all, which makes her childlike actions annoying af. Her face even looks more mature than ALL her sisters'. Oo They should at least have put more efforts into making her appear like the youngest sister, pigtails all the time etc.

To me the Professor in the 1994 version is handsome.

Can't thank Greta enough for this version. Strikes right in your heart💕

You can’t have both the achronological timeline and not knowing Beth was sick.

I thought the 90’s Professor Bhaer was way, way hotter🤷🏽‍♂️

You know I never thought amie was bad...that was like selling point for the film...but I always that she just saw things differently...

I remember reading Little Women when I was younger, but only the first part as I didn’t know that there was a second. The first part ends at the Marches celebrating Christmas and Beth alive and well. So, I naturally thought that Beth survived. Later I read Little Men and I kept waiting for Beth to show up or be mentioned. It wasn’t until the end of the book that I realised that Beth was dead and I spent the next hour sobbing.

I really liked the film overall but I don't really see what others do in the Amy/Laurie relationship. Maybe partially because Chalamat can't replace Christian Bale as my mental Laurie? But I also just didn't feel much chemistry. Kind of similarly for the Friedrich/Jo relationship, tbh. I didn't really feel a spark. I really appreciate the family dynamics in the 2019 version, but I think 1994 nailed down the romance a lot better.

I read the book as a child. It wasn't my all-time favorite, but it was a good read. I never thought of Amy as a villain, just a child who grew up over the course of the book.

Liked it but liked the one from the 90's better.

I’m sorry, but there have been so many adaptations of Little Women, that I just didn’t see the big deal about the 2019 version. Don’t get me wrong, it was good, but to me, the 1994 version was the best

I honestly didn’t like that the end made the audience question what was real and what wasn’t. It was just confusing and I had no idea what was going on.

Are these people American or British. I'm hearing accents every now and then.

Did anyone notice? In the 1997 version when Marmee gives out her candle's flames to the march sisters, Beth March had the shortest candle. This symbolizes her life being so short. Please don't take my original idea!

This version was okay. I do think you lose a lot of Beth’s character development and I don’t think it’s nearly got the same amount of emotion as earlier adaptations. But it’s not bad. The ‘90s version is definitely preferable for me

Despite differences I love every single version of this book because each one reflects its own historical contest. But I will always remember the 1949 version ( with the strongest Jo/ June Allyson as ever) with both joy and melancholy... I used to see it when I was a child, before 1994 version.

personally, I love the relationship between Jo and Friedrich, but the 1994 version handles it the best. Despite the age gap, we can see that they are two people of the same mind and it's through books that they fall in love. If Jo did ever marry, it would have to be a man whose intellect rivaled/complimented her own to win her. This is why I never was on the Jo/Laurie ship. The 2019 version is the only version that I feel does the Laurie/Amy relationship justice

The 1994 version of ‘Little Women’ was aligned to the book and made the character ‘Jo’ (Josephine) shine to her splendour, creativity and free spirit. Jo was a fighter for what she wanted, ‘despite’ being a girl in those years. Everyone could feel it in her acts, her words, her gestures, her love to live, her sacrifices. In the book, Amy did not have so much presence because the writer’s intention was to make Jo (Josephine) shine. Her intention was to show the power of a girl to fight for her ideals, her passion, fight for her values, family, for the truth! The version of 1994 could perfectly transmit that passion to the audience without the need of dialogue modifications. The performance of Winona Ryder, Susan Sarandon, Christian Bale, Gabriel Byrne, and the rest of the cast did the trick. They played natural, the tone of their voices matched with the intensity and meaning of their words, the body gestures and movements, their eyes! It was all presented and perceived by the audience without the necessity of modifying dialogues In this version, dialogues or thoughts shout out ‘forced’, ‘fake.’ The 2019 version’s actresses add extra drama and that is when the whole story falls into pieces. To make it worse, the director added a line with reference to Prof Bhaer, ‘No, you are not an immigrant, no need to leave’ That was totally out of place. Laurie (Timothée Chalamet) does not have the same charisma as Christian Bale (1994). The same happens with Prof Bhaer, Louis Garrel is not engaging at all, no way to compare this one to Gabriel Byrne (1994). Jo played by Winona Ryder in 1995 and Marmee, Susan Sarandon, were outstanding!!! Here, the current version’s director made the characters say long dialogues and it is boring to the point that it seems like if the personages were reading the script they memorised. We all know how hard it was for women during that time in history, how invisible and useless a woman could have been seen; limiting their roles to mothers and wives. When you read the book, everyone notices it; and we all know it from history. In this version, we feel like if the actresses would be reading from the Wikipedia what the role of a woman was and why her only hope was to marry well. It feels that way when Amy says it. I was very disappointed to the point that I think, Greta Gerwig (director) modified the dialogues to her convenience; with the confidence that she would get an Oscar nomination because she is a woman and this statement is so fashionable!

Nice list of both pros and cons!

I agree about what the timeline does to the Beth thing. This bugged me. But I still liked the film overall. The big issue I had was how they handled the Professor because he and Jo didn't get any time to develop a relationship. That and 20-something Florence Pugh trying to play 12-yo Amy. So wrong. For those reasons, the 1994 movie remains my favorite.

The one thing I don’t agree with is the achronological timeline being right. I really think that while the different lighting was a very clever choice for differentiating the timelines, I do think that it was poorly done in terms of establishing strong emotional connections to the characters. I didn’t get the same feeling of sadness or attachment to the characters as I did in the book. While I know it would take three or four hours to put in every single scene from the book chronologically, I think it compromised the characters’ arcs from fully attaching to the audience.

Using more clips from the 1994 version to explain the story, just proves it is the superior version. Not to mention, no one can top Winona Ryder’s Jo.

I get what you mean with Beth's death. In the 1994 version I continue to sob when Jo turns around to find Beth has passed. However, in the new one I was upset more for the pain and grief the sisters felt. I still think it was great though!

I loved this version so much that I went by myself on New Year’s Eve just time watch it again.

I've read the book. I've seen other movie adaptations. This version was just ok for me. The "jumping back and forth" from their present day to whatever happened in their past was a bit confusing until after 40 minutes in, I got used to it. The actor who played Laurie was woefully miscast...he was just too young/young looking in relation to the rest of the cast. Still, this version, I would hope, would open up this book for new generations to actually read (I have great doubts here, but one can hope...) this book and decide for themselves about the richness of this story and what the original author really had to say.

I ❤️ heart this version! Everyone the actresses, actors, Director, producers, designers, etc. did a phenomenal job with this movie!

I like the whole “Beth dies” thing because as a book fan, I DIE every time a character I love dies. So, i made it easier to let her go when she died because I had the idea in my head she probably won’t get better. I still love her and feel very connected to her, and maybe I did still cry when she died, but it did help from my perspective.

Here’s my thing: they like the time change but hate beths story arc. Stay with the original timeline and this wouldn’t happen.

I did not liked this version at all, Laurie looks like a 16y old when Jo and Amy looked way more matured and older than him there was no chemistry between them. I hated the going back and forth, so confusing and their hairs didn’t matched how they wore it at that time. Just off. I loved the Wyona rider version so much

I adore this version, I have seen it twice and it made me cry multiple times on both viewings.

Omg thanks for the FRIENDS reference

In my opinion, this version of Little Women missed the mark in so many ways... 1. Casting of all non-Americans in the lead sister roles was a poor choice. I believe that "America" itself is a background character to the Little Women story; American women, coming of age, at a particular time of America finding its core identity. I believe that the casting of non-Americans was slightly distracting to the spirit of the character of America, and made me less invested in the characters. 2. Casting of Amy with a mid-20s actress, playing a 13-year old was too much a stretch. 3. No shade to the actor who played Laurie in this version.... but he seemed much too young to be a believable love interest. 1994 Little Women with Christian Bale was perfection! 4. I believe the a-synchronistic timeline only was confusing and gave no helpful new or interesting angle t to the story. 5. Jo's ending where she herself negotiated with the editor about selling her book, and agreed to add in a husband for herself was an interesting nod to Lousia May Alcott's true story -- but Jo was not Lousia May Alcott. Little Women was not an autobiography of Louisa May Alcott's life, but rather, was inspired by her life. This book was fiction, as were its subsequent sequels. I think it was a poor choice to rip back the veil of the story and show its fabrication of Professor Baehr as part of reality. If they wanted reality, a "true story" of Louisa May Alcott would have been a better movie and more honest in its purpose. 6. The pacing. Lines were shouted on top of each other, and the level of hysterial joviality felt forced. So many of the very best lines from the book were lost by the actors rushing over each other to speak. ("Jo, your hair! Your one beauty." Best line ever, almost entirely lost!) 7. I was so disinterested in this version of Beth that I didn't even cry when she died. What did they do to ruin BETH?? 8. As a lifelong fan of the Little Women books, movie adaptations, and as a person who has taken a pilgrimage to the Alcott family home in Concord, Massachusetts, I must say.... I thought this movie was the worst of the adaptations of the book. I know some people loved this movie, but to me, the director seemed more dedicated to playing with the story from a new angle, rather than celebrating the magic, and deeply touching relationships and growth of the characters in this book. Phew! Glad I got all of that off my chest!

Florence Pugh needs to win for best supporting actress.

Jo will always be the best among the March sisters for me. She's strong-willed, independent, fierce and beautiful.

The great thing about Gerwig’s Little Women adaptation is that it really is for the fans of the story already! I can see how it’d still be enjoyable to watch as an introduction to it, but seeing how the plot and the characters and little details are played with in this movie is so masterful. Everytime I rewatch it, I can find another clever and thoughtful detail Gerwig put in. Then I can go back and reread the books, and even see that in a whole new light because of what Gerwig chose to highlight in her movie. This movie deserved so many more wins and hype, in my opinion.

Although I absolutely love the 1994 version, Greta breathed new life into this storyline. I think the reason it was different to all the previous adaptations is that, all four sisters get the amount of attention and love they deserve, and we get to observe their character development and insights just as much as Jo's. They're all protagonists, and that is what Greta made sure to note while directing. There were many scenes focusing on the life of each sister instead of just Jo's (although she gets the most scenes, that's expected and not bothersome). I was taken aback by Amy's portrayal and development, Meg's expression of her point of view and how women might have a dream of marrying and raising a family (and that this is definitely ok), Beth's feelings and pure heart being highlighted and supported & of course by the magical Jo this version also brought to life, digging deeper into the loneliness of her passion for staying alone and free. Every version is made to fit its time's purposes and seeing girls be able to relate to all the sisters is beautiful. Love all the other versions as well :)

While I liked this version, I didn’t love it. Friedrich was wrong, and the jumps in the timeline made my husband want to leave the theater.

It always annoyed me that Jo ditched Laurie for that old dude. Especially when it was Christian Bale!! Omg what a hottie

I loved Gerwig's adaptation but I agree with the "wrongs" in the video. I also believe that the 1994 version did better some aspects like Beth's passing, Amy burning Jo's scriptures and Meg's struggle between virtue and vanity. But my personal qualm it's that it didn't have one of my favorite scenes in the book, when Meg faces off Aunt March, standing up for her love for John Brooke. I think it's a great moment for Meg's story arc but for some bizarre reason, neither the 1994 or the 2019 version have that scene (although some of that dialogue is used on Meg's wedding in the 2019), but the 1949 with Janet Leigh as Meg does.

None of the "wrongs" make sense! Great video by the way!