Much has been made in the publicity material that this is very much a re-telling of the Louisa May Alcott classic. This is nothing less than you’d expect from Greta Gerwig. And a film telling a story that’s been covered so often can best be justified by putting a different spin on it.

Little Women tells of the artistically talented March sisters, living a comfortable life in Concord, Massachusetts. The Civil War, at which their father is away fighting, seems a far distant conflict not in any way impinging upon their lifestyle and artistic dreams.

The film is shot beautifully, its production values superb. The scene on the beach with children flying kites will surely take your imagination to a Paris art gallery where you’re viewing Victorian masterpieces; it’s delightful.

But the film broadly fails to make its characters interesting. Only Saorise Rohan as the headstrong Jo imbues her character with any spirit. Her sisters are all too anodyne and homogeneous, their talents coming too easily. And the lack of any character flaws makes them all rather dull. They come across as prototype Stepford Wives. Amy is allowed, once, to show a lapse in perfection, yet this seems to be merely a contrivance for her to show contrition, and for Jo to display forgiveness. Timothée Chalamet as a foppish Laurie fails to convince he could cause one sister to fall for him, let alone two. Character development is also hampered by Ms Gerwig’s unnecessary non-linear storytelling.

Little Women is always good to look at and should keep your interest throughout, just. But go expecting to see a dramatic re-imagining of an old story and you’ll be disappointed.