Marmee here is Laura Dern, to her right is Jo, Saoirsce (or something) Ronan
Most women born before 1950 have read "Little Women," and seen at least one movie version. Now out comes a new one, and a bunch of guys write reviews saying it's wonderful. I should have been more suspicious. (Saw one review by a woman, but its first sentence was so long that quoting it here might lead to plagiarism charges. Maybe if they fired the copy editor...)
It's a wonderful, heartening story that doesn't have to be retold here to any woman. And when you think of when it was written, and how extraordinary that feat would be for a female, who had to beat back a culture we're still pushing at. The guys, who are just finding it, have nothing to compare it to, and don't relate to the norms ("a woman in fiction must end up married or dead") so they score it high.
And it does deserve high marks for color, costumes, decor, sweet acting, lovely scenery, and making it again. I hope it gets nominated for some of these.
But, boys and girls: what they did to the plot was, they threw the book at the ceiling, it fell down splat, and they picked up the pages and put them in any old order. Oh, you can figure it out, ladies, because you know the story, but you have this extra job of identifying whether it's the middle (where it begins) or the ending, or the early days. Or for heaven's sake, book two, which Alcott didn't even want to write.
It switches around ceaselessly, doesn't make enough of Meryl Streep as the fearsome Aunt March, turns the Professor into some kind of youthful attractive Arab, and instead of the love scene with Jo that the publisher wanted, under the umbrella, all the sisters tell Jo that they've noticed she loves him, so they all chase him down to the train station.
And the end is somewhere in "Jo's Boys," where the school is already under way, and in the middle of joyous chaos, Jo cooks a birthday cake for Marmee.
OK, I did this, now I feel somewhat better. Managed to get the photo up, now will try to get link online.