Bruce Steele: Little Women may be the most anticipated Christmas Day release this year, and it's an A-list production from writer/director Greta Gerwig (Lady Bird) with Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh, Laura Dern, Timothee Chalamet, and other familiar faces. Does the movie live up to that stellar resume?

Edwin Arnaudin: And how! If you’re going to revisit Louisa May Alcott’s beloved novel, especially with Gillian Armstrong’s 1994 star-studded charmer already in the world, you might as well go big. Not only does Gerwig justify her adaptation with this terrific ensemble, she chops up the chronology to craft a bold, fresh vision. What do you think of her non-linear approach?

Bruce: By the end of the movie, I had figured out why Gerwig had dueling timelines going on, and it winds up serving her especially feminist take on the material. But I did find it initially off-putting, both because it gives away the book's pivotal plot point early on and because the transitions from "past" to "present," if you will, are often confusing. It sometimes takes some work to keep track of "when" you are.

Edwin: Gerwig provides clues for viewers to differentiate the twin timelines, from hairstyles to character attitudes to roles of supporting players, so I felt informed — but understand why some folks would feel frustrated while keeping pace. I also find it refreshing that the narrative crux you mention is revealed in the first act. Do we really need another Little Women centered on whether Jo (Ronan) and Laurie (Chalamet) will marry? This twist allows the film to explore other dynamics and themes in greater detail, and turns Prof. Friedrich Bhaer (Louis Garrel, The Dreamers) from convenient final-act romantic solution to a well-rounded character. It’s a lovely remix.

Bruce: Gerwig also makes Friedrich younger and hunkier, which puts makes him more of a contemporary rival to Laurie — an adjustment for modern audiences that may not have pleased Alcott much. But it works here, and it’s consistent with Gerwig’s 21st century filtering of this mostly post-Civil War story set in small-town Massachusetts. I don’t remember previous versions being quite so explicitly feminist, do you?

Edwin: Based solely on the Winona Ryder version, which feels more like a champion of sisterhood than individualism — no. By starting with Jo pitching her “friend’s” latest short story to NYC publisher Mr. Dashwood (Tracy Letts) and generally doing all she can to make her way in the world as an independent woman, this Little Women indeed takes that noble stand. And the theme is furthered by the determinism of youngest sister Amy (Florence Pugh, having one hell of a year) to become a great painter in Paris and not marry simply for money. Did this emphasis work for you?

Bruce: I think Alcott's story supports those themes, even if I did wince a bit every time one of the characters started talking explicitly — almost into the camera — about the restrictions on women's freedoms. The story does address those issues, so there's nothing wrong with underlining them, and the strength of the performances by the four sisters — including Watson, as Meg, and Eliza Scanlen, of HBO's Sharp Objects, playing delicate musician Beth — are strong enough to withstand some speechifying. But what did you think of Chalamet's hippy-dippy Laurie?

Edwin: He’s a lot of fun — probably my favorite Chalamet performance yet! His Laurie is set up as a bit of a Bohemian oddball, and his half-Italian lineage stressed more than I remember for Christian Bale in Armstrong's film, so his laid-back ways feel spot-on. He and Ronan (and later he and Pugh) have such excellent rapport that I was delighted whenever he pops onscreen. Were you?

Bruce: It's such an offbeat take on the romantic trope of rich and handsome Laurie, it took some getting used to, but by the movie's second half, I went with it. Indeed, I think I'll enjoy my second viewing more than my first, since I'll follow the chronology more blithely and understand from the start that the movie is less a literal adaptation than a period parable commenting on how Gerwig sees the present day. Indeed it's partly about how she sees storytelling, since the way she handles Jo's writing career seems like a subtle commentary on how Hollywood pigeonholes women, both in the audience and behind the camera.

Edwin: That attitude unfortunately extends to some male moviegoers, too, who are currently making their stupidity known on social media by expressing their disinterest in this beautiful film. I thought Little Women would be a well-made lark of period escapism, but I should have known better with Gerwig in control. She’s created two extraordinary, intelligent, thought-provoking, and — most importantly — fun films in just over two years and I’m excited to see what she cooks up next. Her latest effort gets a solid A from me.

Bruce: I think you’ve hit the nail on the head twice there: first in Gerwig’s refusal to produce period escapism a la Downton Abbey, and second in the unfortunate disinterest by some men. Moviegoers should definitely put this one on their Christmas list, but should go in expecting to be challenged as well as entertained. It’s most definitely entertaining, but with a kick. I found some rough edges on first viewing, so I’m going with a B-plus, but that may rise with another screening.

Grade: A-minus. Rated PG. Starts Dec. 25 at AMC Classic, Biltmore Grande, Carolina Cinemark, and the Fine Arts Theatre

(Photos: Wilson Webb/Columbia Pictures)