'Little Women' Critic Reviews

100%
MovieWeb:   1 reviews
90%
Rotten Tomatoes:   29 reviews
  • Lisa Schwarzbaum Entertainment Weekly (Top Critic)
    92
    Full Review » 3 years ago
  • Entertainment Weekly (Top Critic)
    92
    Full Review » 20 years ago
  • Janet Maslin New York Times (Top Critic)
    80
    Ladies, get out your hand-hemmed handkerchiefs for the loveliest Little Women ever on screen.
    Full Review » 11 years ago
  • Roger Ebert Chicago Sun-Times (Top Critic)
    88
    Little Women grew on me.
    Full Review » 15 years ago
  • Todd McCarthy Variety (Top Critic)
    An outstanding version of Louisa May Alcott's perennial, one that surpasses even the best previous rendition, George Cukor's 1933 outing starring Katharine Hepburn.
    Full Review » 6 years ago
  • John Hartl Film.com (Top Critic)
    This time Winona Ryder plays Jo, and she is radiant.
    Full Review » 15 years ago
  • Lucy Mohl Film.com (Top Critic)
    Ryder has Gillian Armstrong to shape the surrounding story, etching scenes of the March girls into indelibly lovely images while emphasizing the underlying strength of Louisa Mae Allcott's family tale.
    Full Review » 15 years ago
  • James Berardinelli ReelViews (Top Critic)
    75
    It's the performances ... that make this movie special.
    Full Review » 15 years ago
  • Richard Schickel TIME Magazine (Top Critic)
    Director Gillian Armstrong and writer Robin Swicord have fashioned an entrancing film from this distinctly unfashionable classic.
    Full Review » 15 years ago
  • TV Guide's Movie Guide
    88
    Director Gillian Armstrong's feminist spin on classic material retains the moving humanity of Louisa May Alcott's novel while reworking it with welcome freshness.
    Full Review » 8 years ago
  • Geoff Andrew Time Out
    Be prepared, however, for a large beaker of the milk of human kindness.
    Full Review » 8 years ago
  • Jonathan R. Perry Tyler Morning Telegraph (Texas)
    100
    Full Review » 9 years ago
  • Emanuel Levy EmanuelLevy.Com
    60
    Full Review » 9 years ago
  • Philip Martin Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
    40
    Full Review » 10 years ago
  • Kit Bowen Hollywood.com
    60
    Full Review » 10 years ago
  • Alex Sandell Juicy Cerebellum
    40
    A little sappy.
    Full Review » 11 years ago
  • Nell Minow Movie Mom at Yahoo! Movies
    80
    Devoted and lovely retelling of the classic story.
    Full Review » 11 years ago
  • Shellie Iliff Palo Alto Weekly
    88
    Full Review » 11 years ago
  • Jeffrey Westhoff Northwest Herald (Crystal Lake, IL)
    60
    Full Review » 11 years ago
  • Dragan Antulov rec.arts.movies.reviews
    70
    Despite good casting, interesting sets and costumes and Armstrong's good direction, the viewers still might feel somewhat cheated -- instead of an interesting period piece they received ordinary melodrama.
    Full Review » 12 years ago
  • Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat Spirituality and Practice
    Vibrant and appealing screen interpretation of Louis May Alcott's classic story about family as an evolving energy field of love.
    Full Review » 12 years ago
  • Scott Renshaw rec.arts.movies.reviews
    90
    It is a delight for anyone who appreciates genuine emotion, insight, and beautiful filmmaking.
    Full Review » 15 years ago
  • Mark R. Leeper rec.arts.movies.reviews
    0
    The sixth filming may well rank as the most beautiful and compelling version, though certainly some will still prefer George Cukor's classic 1933 version.
    Full Review » 15 years ago
  • David Parkinson Empire Magazine
    While adherents of the original will carp at some anachronistic themes, few will quibble about the quality of the performances.
    Full Review » 15 years ago
  • Edward Guthmann San Francisco Chronicle
    75
    Meticulously crafted, and warmly acted.
    Full Review » 15 years ago