Hitchcoc
When I bought my first VCR in the 1980's, the first movie I recorded off TV was the Katherine Hepburn version of of "Little Women." I recorded it to see if I could get the machine to work. It did and I found that the movie was excellent (I was stunned that I could fast forward through the commercials). So I have a warm place in my heart (I'm sure I saw the old one some other time as well) for this film. There have been some pretty good remakes before, but I find this contemporary one to be really good. With an all-star cast, an excellent screenplay, and a beautiful setting, this timeless book is brought to life. I know some people find it sentimental and maudlin, but it's a really fine portrayal of a time. Also, the characters are often talked about as goody-two-shoes. This is far from the truth. The girls have their own personalities and frequently clash in harsh and mean ways. The movie is unpredictable and true to the author. It doesn't follow a formula that it could have. See this if you have not.
Stephan Quinland
Many flaws and not enough true romance. First and biggest problem is the film spends well over half of entire 123 minutes in the Concord House Where nobody had grown, or changed or learned. Then suddenly before the end, main character Josephine left for New York and young Amy went to France to "paint"?. Much of the Concord house is old and full of dark wood and did reflect the reduced circumstance of the family, where upon their neighbors were healthy and worldly. How does that happened ? The oldest sister Meg is married off and basically had no lines for the rest of the film. That left high-spirited,tempestuous Jo to fill much of rest of the movie. Susan Sarandon, normally a high-powered actress, had nothing much to do except appeared matronly. The long-returned father was much older than everyone else and strangely had no war stories to tell, or any gifts for his daughters. Young suitor Christian Bale and Jo seemed a natural couple but inexplicably Jo rebuffed his proposal, only to meet up later with a generation-apart German professor in NYC. When Jo went to the boarding house, the book has her taking the duty of governess to the proprietress's children. There wasn't a moment's footage suggesting anything of the kind. Wynona Ryder did fine work here and some argues the 1940's version with Kate Hepburn as Jo was more spirited. It is easy to imagined that but Ryder is more attractive and therefore easier to accept, while the most memorable performance belongs really to Kirsten Dunst's young Amy, the little sis. She was perfectly puckish and adorable.
Melanie Campbell
"Little Women" has always been a favorite book of mine. I think I've seen every film adaptation at least once. I can't resist costume dramas. All that having been said, is it any surprise that I love this movie? I enjoyed this movie more than all the other adaptations. It has depth that the others lack. It does not play the novel out scene by scene or have the cast reciting big chunks of the book itself. You are drawn into the very lively world of young women as the grow up. You cheer for them, and cry with them.All the characters are very well played. Here, the biggest, and best surprise is how fully realized male characters are. Laurie gets his due as a fifth lead, and John Brook steps out of the background to become someone the audience really likes.This film works as well as a film as it does as a story. Everything looks beautiful, and the music is great.
Neil Welch
I suspect that the average Brit isn't half as exposed to Little Women as the average Yank. It has existed on the outside edge of my awareness since I was a kid, and I have caught odd tasters of various versions over the year without ever encountering the full works. So this 1994 movie version is the first version I have ever experienced all the way through, and I am considering it on a stand alone basis.This is an historical piece, telling of four sisters growing up in fairly cushioned circumstances in Concord Massachusetts. Father is away in the Civil War and money is tight. Each of the sisters is strongly drawn, but the story belongs to Jo, strong-willed, independent, and rather progressive (and, I suspect, also author Louisa M Alcott's alter ego).It is also rather soapy, much of what happens being fairly ordinary - money problems, boyfriend problems, births, deaths, marriages and so on. It's all fairly comforting and mildly entertaining.It comes alive when it hits moments of high emotion, and also when it follows Jo into an adult life in which she chooses to quietly challenge convention. She is also the sister who has the least obvious love life, falling in love (though neither of them are minded to face it) with German Professor Baer.This film is beautiful to look at and presents attractive performances from all the principals. The story is, frankly, a bit drippy for your average ageing British bloke, but it passes the time reasonably well. I think women will enjoy this a lot: I enjoyed it well enough.
AD
