kate bell

It is almost painful to write this review. As a teenager I read Little Women at least once every summer. I would have read it more often, but I was busy reading Louisa May Alcott's other books. The casting was weak. Jo was fairly convincing, Beth was not as thin and waif like, nor as charitable as the book portrayed. Amy was too practical and matter of fact...in the book she was the most vain. Meg and Aunt March were the only characters that were spot on. Mr Bhaer was far too young, and Laurie too. ( If any Director ever wants to tackle Rose In Bloom, Timothee would make a great "Charlie".) Even though I knew the story very well, the movie was confusing, to put it mildly.. One moment the family was tearfully huddled around Beth's grave, and then Meg is apologizing to her " husband" for buying expensive fabric for a dress...then the entire clan is dancing at Meg's wedding, including Beth, and Jo finds out that she will not be going to Europe with Aunt March....What a jumbled mess. The one part of the story that was believable was when Jo capitulated to the editor and wrote her marriage to Mr Bhaer into the story, though " Under the Umbrella " was far more romantic in the book. Any really great movie should make the viewer want more.....I found myself wishing it was over. I left the theater feeling unsettled, like I had just found out a dear friend had died unexpectedly. I had to resist the urge to catch up with a few of the other women who were leaving the theater and try to figure out what went so horribly wrong with the movie. My advice to writers of scripts based on classic literature...stay more true to the storyline. Your audience will love you for it