Strong and Moving!

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Louisa May Alcott's autobiographical account of her life with her three sisters in Concord, Massachusetts in the 1860s. With their father fighting in the American Civil War, sisters Jo, Meg, Amy and Beth are at home with their mother, a very outspoken women for her time. The story tells of how the sisters grow up, find love and find their place in the world. Little Women has a simple premise and thanks to some great actors that are really good in it it does entertain to a point. There was also a scene with Claire Danes that i found it very touching and for that i'm gonna give it a 9 out of 0 it's a simple good film nothing more.

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!

"Little Women" is one of those stories that movie makers are drawn to film anew after some time with a cast of modern actors. It probably has been done as many times as any other classic novel. The challenge always seems to be to make as good or better film with better technology for production values; and with a cast that is able to portray the film as believable for the time it takes place. Three TV movies gave the story short shrift, and a fourth was a mini- series with nine episodes of 25 minutes each. But all three of the full length movies for the silver screen in the 20th century are well done. They all have very good production qualities and sets. Each, by itself, is worthy of the novel by Louisa May Alcott. Yet, there are differences. I compared the 1933 and 1949 films in my reviews on them. So, now I match the 1994 version up against the other two films. My review focuses on the story as presented with the cast in the film. How well does this film overall reflect the mannerisms, customs and idiosyncrasies of the time the story takes place – as opposed to the time in which the actors are living? I thought the 1933 and 1949 films were well situated in the time of the novel – the 1860s. But this 1994 film has a modern feel to it. For instance, the pouting and very marked mood and expression changes by Winona Ryder as Jo are how we see people acting, and behaving in real life, at the end of the 20th century. She seems to overact. But people weren't that given to such expressiveness in the mid-19th century. At least not by any means we can tell from novels, studies, family stories and other accounts. In the 1933 film, Katherine Hepburn's Jo seemed forced in her feigning a tomboy by male mannerisms in her play and dialog within the film. But in the 1949 film – without words, we see the tomboy in Jo quite clearly when June Alyson jumps the fence, falls on her face in the snow, and then gets up to go around and jump the fence again – this time without falling. At the same time, Louisa May Alcott wrote her different characters with particular traits. In this 1994 film, we see more of Marmee – here played very well by Susan Sarandon, than in the earlier versions. She seems to be more of a doting mother here. But that is a considerable change from the earlier films. They seem more true to the book and the times. Marmee is gone quite often to care for other needy people – especially Mrs. Hummel and her family. So, the girls are alone more and have somewhat of a responsible nature in being able to do things by themselves in Marmee's absence. The roles of Beth, Laurie, John Brooke, Aunt March and Mr. Laurence especially were all better portrayed by the respective cast members in the 1949 film. So, in general then, this 1994 version of "Little Women" is very good, but is not the best. It comes close to the 1933 film with Katherine Hepburn, Joan Bennett, Henry Stephenson, and Douglas Montgomery . But neither this nor the 1933 film can match the 1949 version with June Allyson, Mary Astor, Margaret O'Brien, Janet Leigh, and C. Aubrey Smith. In my review of the 1949 film, I noted all the roles that I found to be better over the 1933 film. Those differences all stand in comparison to this film as well – although for different reasons in some cases.

"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.