A Little Women's Christmas

The elements that make this a "retelling" are the girls' names. The Lorrie romance, and the sisters' creativity. But that's a low bar; a true retelling would capture the essence of the original, including themes of sacrifice, giving when you have little to give (the modern family is insanely well-off by almost all Americans' standards), and a sense of responsibility to community that pulls people together through shared hardship. Attending a church service hardly does that.

Did the creators of the movie think an Army captain fits that bill? Instead of learning an actual truth (the Army doesn't care if you miss your family), Daisy learns a fantasy that if a soldier tells God he wants to go home, God will grant his wish. What about the enlisted guys Captain Daddy left behind? As a former Army Officer's wife, I can recall being pre-empted on Christmas for lonely soldiers my ex-husband had to inspire morale into.

This channel needs to get its writers and producers out of Beverly Hills and talk to some regular people. L. M. Alcott's original is so much more relatable than this misguided production.

Still, it filled some of a night for us.

This movie had so many things that promised that it could be outstanding. Look at the stars. If this was Hallmark, this gathering of top names would indicate it to be a Hall of Fame entry.

I don't remember ever reading Little Women. Maybe but I doubt it. I'm sure the homages to that classic would have added immensely to a fan's enjoyment. I caught a bunch of name drops that even a non-fan would recognize. There are several good scenes with sisters being typical sisters. (I do love sister stories.)

I say too ambitious for two reasons. First so much in the story is derivative. I won't list them all, but the main romance is between a book editor hiding his identity sent to mentor and encourage a struggling writer while "the boss" repeatedly pressures him and eventually drops a bomb on them. At least one artistic character has lost her job. Another faces a career vs. Personal choice. And there is a husband and father saying he can't get home on leave. As I list these, is there any viewer who can't predict what will happen in each and every case?

The other reason is related to limits of a two-hour commercial broadcast which usually means just under 90 minutes of screen time. Squeeze that in with what would be an artful introduction, another artful parting scene, and then an epilogue, four main female characters, and literally 5 minutes of musical performances by blockbuster performers. (At least blockbuster for TV Christmas movies. I was disappointed that Laura Osnes got not just second place, but third being only a harmony part.) The relationship between Jo and Fritz got barely enough screentime to make a good story. That left three other sisters with stories begging for more time. I think that's part of why the endings were so predictable. Early in the movie, it felt like scenes and lines were being rushed.

Despite the rush, there were a few good Ahh moments and maybe a couple of tears.

This is a faith-based movie. The message there is not one that will offend many who are not enthusiastic about such. Who can argue with - Christmas brings joy and love?

I honestly thought I was watching a high school play. It looked and felt low budget. Jen Lilley as Meg and Laura Osnes as Beth were great but should never be in minor support roles. Jillian Murray was not strong enough to play the lead as Jo. The characters of Amy and Laurie were just space fillers and poorly cast. The casting choices and writing, both dialog and plot lines, were subpar. The entire movie was uncomfortably bad. The one minute of decent airtime was Gladys Knight singing. That was it.

Within the first fifteen minutes it was obvious that the movie was not going to be worthy of a second watch. I stuck it out hoping it would improve. Sadly, it did not.

It's been a mixed bag for GAC Family Christmas movies in 2024 and the much-hyped and rather ambitious "A Little Women's Christmas" (a modern day retelling of the Louisa May Alcott novel) was, for me, underwhelming.

It was a weak and clunky script, lacking humour and featuring too many cliched lines.

The script error was compounded by casting Jillian Murray in the lead role, rather than the more accomplished Jen Lilley or Laura Osnes. Seemed like a waste, having someone like Lilley in the movie but relegated almost to a supporting role. Trevor Donovan was well cast, though. He always seems to do a very good job,

Whilst they appear to have a lot of the big ex-Hallmark stars, movies made for and by GAC Family need better production values. They trail Hallmark by a long way in this very important area. The sets all screamed "low budget", an area that needs to be tidied up quick smart. It's a waste of their acting talent, otherwise.

If you saw the disaster of a romance movie called 'Prescription for Love' starring these two leads, you at least have to admit the script for this one is far more suitable...especially for Trevor Donovan. This actor does best when the romance blossoms early on and the screenplay doesn't call for him to be bumbling and tongue-tied/shy at the onset. This movie isn't perfect in that regard (in that he can't come clean right away about working for her employer) but that cringe-quotient is far less than being a clueless doctor in 'Prescription'. Here, the romance progresses credibly and the 'conflict' is also real-world credible. Marsh is attractive and sweet and her only problem....if such a thing is actually a problem in real life....is the she looks far younger than her age. She looked like a teenage nurse in 'Prescription' and here a bit young to already have achieved a list of best-sellers.