Little Women (1994)

So this is another adaptation of the popular novel "Little Women" for Book Month. I admit that the first version I saw (the 1949 one) was good, but it was a little hard to follow. There was a lot going on and the plot wasn't that focused. I think this movie was better because I understood it more. Then again, I had already seen one version so I was already more familiar with the story. The main story is that Jo is trying to have her novel published.It's funny how the novel she's working on herself is actually called "Little Women", although I assume it's not the same as the actual story happening. I would think a writer would know what it's like to be a writer. The story is mostly slice of life and focuses on various other smaller aspects of the character's lives. I didn't know this had anything to do with Christmas. I should have seen this back in December! At least I'm seeing it now for Book Month. This is a very well acted film with a great cast and feel. ***1/2

Little Women (1994) was directed by Gillian Armstrong. I've reviewed five or six film versions of the novel. Each movie had its strong and weak points. All in all, I think this version was the best. Trini Alvarado portrays Meg. She's the oldest sister, and the most conformist one. Winona Ryder plays Jo, the least conformist, most active sister. (Jo is a proxy for Louisa May Alcott, the author of the novel.) Claire Danes--in the pre-Juliet stage of her career--portrays Beth, the angelic sister. Kirsten Dunst, at age 12, played the youngest sister, Amy, as a pre-teen. (Another actor played Amy as an adolescent.)Susan Sarandon did as well as she could in the complex role of Marmee. Director Armstrong give her some 20th Century feminist dialog, but that's not Sarandon's fault.I think the strongest acting came from Gabriel Byrne as Professor Bhaer. This is another tough role. Byrne is sophisticated, poor, and much older than Jo. (When he played the role, he was 21 years older than Ryder.). However, he carries it off. Most of the other actors portraying Bhaer look too much like Santa Claus. He doesn't.I was surprised by director Armstrong's choice of Ryder for Jo. Jo is supposed to be boisterous and energetic, and Ryder doesn't strike me as having that temperament. However, she carried it off so well that she was nominated for an Oscar.Claire Danes was cast against type. Poor Beth is good, kind, and gentle. Does that sound like Claire Danes, even at age 15?Despite these problems, this movie works very well. The production values are high, the actors are skilled professionals, and Director Armstrong brings the novel to life.We saw Little Women on the small screen, where it worked very well. Seek it out and see it!

I haven't read the original book, but based on the movie it is hard for me to understand why it was so famous. Not having read it though, I will give it the benefit of the doubt. Regarding the movie now, the cast is amazing, I like 90's movies feel and directing and it was interesting to see young Christian Bale, Wynona Ryder and Kirsten Dust. I certainly liked the "warmth" this movie emits, as well the leading performances. However, the plot seemed a little bit boring and disconnected to me. With the exception of one or two scenes it failed to provoke either my thoughts or feelings. Finally, something that I always seek in movies is good inspiring soundtracks and in this movie were mediocre at best.

Let me just say that i have never read the book nor seen another adaptation, so this is my first "Little Women" experience... I am a huge fan of period dramas and usually figure that they are going to be soppy and romantic and usually i am correct. Usually.I thought the acting in this movie was great, it was just some of the plot that made this film impossible to enjoy. I am sure in the book things flow a lot nicer than they do in this film..Basically i thought that Laurie and Jo were meant to end up together, and for some reason when he proposes she says no! She says they would fight too much but they didn't fight at all in the movie.. I couldn't understand when they seemed to have such good chemistry. I've come to an understanding that in the book she considers him more as a brother but i only found this out AFTER watching the film and getting mad at her rejection of him.When Jo's love interest is introduced all I could do was shake my head and say "no no no no" There seemed to be no chemistry there compared to what Jo and Laurie had previously.So when they kiss at the end, It all feels wrong.Then finally, when Laurie sees the older Amy and suddenly likes her? how long has actually past since Jo's rejection of him? To me it seemed as though he was on the rebound. Their marriage wasn't romantic at all.. I just didn't feel the romance in this film they way other period films show it. It was disappointing. The rest of the story was fine.But if you're looking for romance watch something like Wives and Daughters or North and South (Gaskell) or something Austen. They are all better than this.