A Little Women's Christmas

A much loved story and promising lineup but fell short of expectations. Not enough substance. Scenes were too short and changed too quickly so Jen and Jesse left me wanting more. In my opinion, Laura Osnes should have been Jo. Hers and Trevor's character rang the truest and I'd have loved to have seen her as Jo. I also enjoyed Tanya's character. I've seen some movies with Jillian and I'm sorry to say, the stories change but she's always the same... Some of the other cast members were so stiff I just couldn't believe the story. They were literally performing for the camera. It would be so great to see some of the more seasoned members of the network give this a try, perhaps with a little more of the original story left in it, maybe a series focusing on each separate sister within the family.

Faith based movies are great when the viewer isn't bombarded with stiff smiles and so much teeth and "niceness" that is so far removed from reality it's not believable. I know these types of movies are made to make the viewer feel good but we need believable characters and story lines that grip. It is possible. I'm also disappointed with the Christmas decorations throughout the movie...it was barely noticeable.

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.

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?

After reading some of the other reviews, I didn't know whether to expect the greatest movie ever, or the worst.

Well of course it was neither.

I never read the Alcott books, or any of the other "chick" stories, but I am familiar with some of them. People have been making movies loosely based on them forever.

They put in things they think are clever (Alcott Grove, a waitress named Louisa May) that really just make it irritating.

This movie is a modern retelling, and while not a significant achievement in film, is not as bad as some of the reviews I've read.

I agree there could have been a stronger lead, but I haven't seen Trevor Donovan even mentioned, and he was very good.

The whole four sisters thing was overdone, and they didn't really look or feel like sisters. They basically had four lead actresses jockeying for position. That never works.

I do like the GAC is making a concerted effort to include the Lord in all the movies I've seen this year.

I thought this movie was fine. To me that's good enough.

Seven.

It might just be the fact that there were too many characters involved in this movie to do any of them justice. Somehow, this film seemed to both drag in places and gloss-over important story points, at the same time.

A bit more snappy banter between the leads wouldn't have hurt. They needed a better-developed story, even if that meant sacrificing one or more of the other sisters' stories.

The real standout performance here turned out to be from Trevor Donovan. I've seen him in other movies, but I believe this is the first time I've really noticed him as an actor. He did a great job here. Just wish the movie itself was better.