Little Women

Rating:
Summary: A Warm and Loving Recreation of A Classic
Review: This 1994 retelling of the Louisa May Alcott classic glows with a warmth and radiance of a terrific cast. This production was lovingly dedicated to kidnap-murder victim Polly Klass, who had considered the novel to be her favorite, and on whose behalf, as it is well-known, Winona Ryder, a former resident of Klaas' neighborhood, helped in the search.
The flaws of the film are that it occassionally goes out of sequence; those familiar with the book know that Beth does live to become an aunt, and it doesn't go into full detail on the subject of Amy's will, although that topic is beautifully covered in one short sequence.
Susan Sarandon's Marmee has a staid, dignified charisma as a free-thinking woman dealing with many tribulations but who does a superb job of bringing up her four girls alone while their father is at war.
Trini Alvarado is a surprising choice for the part of the older sister, Meg. But she is very much up to the challenge. We see her as a fine, strong, principaled young woman who craves the things girls traditionally crave, but who is tempered by the moral guidance of her mother.
Winona Ryder is perfect as the tomboyish writer, Jo. Her spunk and cheerfulness are sheer delight as she portrays a young woman ahead of her time in so many ways. She is plucky and rescourceful in some pretty unconventional ways at times as she helps the family through its hardships.
Clare Danes' Beth, the quiet, ill-fated sister, is warm and generous as a middle child who honors the strenghth and nobility of her mother and sisters during her short time on Earth.
Effervescent little Kirsten Dunst, gives spark to young Amy March, and Samantha Mathis who has the acting genes of her talented grandmother, Gusti Huber, lends a graceful maturity and radiant beauty to the older Amy.
In one of her final roles, Mary Wilkes, ia a rather crotchety Aunt March, who seems to enjoy the company of her young nieces, but who refuses to overindulge them with her wealth despite their poverty. Florence Patterson is the March's wise and emotional housekeeper, Hannah. Christian Bale's Laurie is impish and understated, John Neville is his reserved, but ultimately generous grandfather. Eric Stolz provides a pleasant presence as John Brook. Matthew Walker isn't given much to do as Mr. March, but somehow, it doesn't seem to matter. Gabriel Byrne is much more handsome than Alcott's description of Professor Bhaer, and his portrayal, like that of the principal characters, is one of effortless warmth.
The sets and colors seem authentic, and the film's appeal is that the cast really brings them alive. We can easily share the laughter and tears of this family and we don't feel that they are some archaic prudes from a very different time. The fact that I can see a bit of myself in each of the sisters makes this story as relevant today as it was a century ago.

Rating:
Summary: A beautiful, touching adaption of a classic
Review: "Little Women" has been in my collection ever since it was released on DVD. It is a timeless tale of the March family, brought closer together by their father off fighting in the Civil War. Jo, Beth, Amy and Meg are unusual for their time: they are liberal. Jo is a writer and an amateur actress and would "kill to go to Havard." Amy is an artist who later studies in Europe. Meg stays close to home, as does Beth, the angelic, sickly saint, always concerned with the welfare of the poor and disadvantaged, thinking of others first and herself last.

The cinematography is beautiful in "Little Women," although only a few scenes were shot in Massachussetts, the majority of the film actually being shot in British Colombia. The costumes, habits of the time (corsets, sleeping with rags in the hair to keep curls in, baked potatoes as pocket warmers) and houses take us back to a distant time when life was simpler in some ways. The story of the "little women" is a timeless classic that teaches love, tolerance, and the importance of following dreams.

The DVD comes packed with a making-of documentary, commentary by director Gillian Armstrong, deleted scenes with director's commentary, isolated music score (the soundtrack to "Little Women" is simply gorgeous and worthy of many listens), a costume and production design gallery, two trivia games and a historical timeline. It is the ultimate DVD packaging of one of my favourite novels from childhood (next to "Anne of Green Gables" of course).

Rating:
Summary: Good Rendition of the Alcott Classic
Review: This is a lovely version of the Alcott book, although I think my most favorite part is the music. I had to go out and buy the soundtrack the moment I finished seeing the film! By and large I like the performances, although I didn't think Christian Bale was as convincing as Laurie grew older. Two things that did bother me: Jo saying "you're dead" to Amy after the burning of her book and Marmee being the one to cure Beth. You didn't say "you're dead" and "I'll kill you" in those days as flippantly as we do now. And Marmee in the book had faults; Gillian Armstrong seems to want to deify the character instead. However, the lush production, the music, and the other characters make up for most of the faults.

One thing that did make me smile were people talking about how Armstrong put "feminist tracts" in everyone's mouths! They evidently have read no Alcott except LITTLE WOMEN, because most of the "feminist" lines come from other Alcott novels. For instance, Marmee's comments about corsets come directly out of EIGHT COUSINS! I believe AN OLD FASHIONED GIRL was also quoted somewhere.

Rating:
Summary: A beautiful film...
Review: ...I almost have to say I liked it more than the book, which is heresy for me. This is the only movie that makes me cry every time I see it. Granted, they took some liberties like making Marmie a feminist, but I can't oppose that, even if it isn't perfectly accurate. A marvelous movie.

Rating:
Summary: I'll admit the photography was lovely...
Review: ...but I barely recognised the story. Many of the traits that gave Louisa May Alcott's characters their charm were either played down or eliminated entirely.

Several other reviewers have amply treated the artificial, excessive feminism, and I agree with their viewpoints - in fact, it would have been annoying even in a film set in the year 2001. As well, it seemed that the vaguely bitter, obligatory feminism ruined the depiction of the girls themselves.

One of Louisa's most clever, concise parts of her book was the opening, wherein the conversations between the four sisters give the reader an excellent introduction to each of their characters. This scene, for reasons unknown, was eliminated - and, as later action would show, the girls, from tomboy Jo to forgivably vain Meg, are not to be permitted any traits that detract from a perfectly politically correct image.

For example, as a child reading the Alcott book, I most identified with Meg without having her prettiness - enjoying fine things, rather vain, envious of wealthier friends. When we first "meet" her in the book, she is pining for a silk dress (which her mother will not allow her until she is 18), and, in the later "party" sequence, Meg greatly enjoys being prettied until she overhears an elder acquaintance saying she'd been made a fool of. The film's Meg is an odd combination of Puritan and political activist - wanting to be pretty or well-dressed must be passé, she feels dreadful guilt about the (innocent) party, and she cannot wear silk because of the treatment of workers in China!

Though I myself am far from puritanical, and found some of the book's depictions of sacrifice to be puzzling (for example, how does denying one's self a small Christmas gift do anything for the soldiers?), one of the book's strongest themes is religious - witness the constant references to Pilgrim's Progress. One wonders, with this film, just why the sisters are so apparently deprived.

The photography is excellent, and sometimes stunning, and I imagine that those unfamiliar with the book will want this video on their shelves because it is "for the whole family." But don't obtain this one for anyone who has ever loved the original Little Women.

Rating:
Summary: This wasn't the time or place
Review: It's a sad commentary on the state of political correctness when a book written in the 19th century has to be "updated" instead of being preserved as a precious reminder of times gone by. Are filmmakers so concerned with the bottom line that they don't think viewers are capable of recognizing a historical setting for what it is? The virtue of the novel is in its message - that love is eternal, surpassing youth, beauty, and riches. What part of that message can't be understood by a modern audience without "sanitizing it for our protection" against mores of bygone days? Why must we be hit on the head with the Anvil of Political Consciousness in a story where those notions had yet to be brought to the fore?

If the people making this movie had been truly interested in finding feminism in Louisa May Alcott's text, then they missed the boat in three enormous ways:

1. They made Jo the prettiest girl. That casting move left all of her lines about being an awkward tomboy sound as if she were fishing for compliments. What would have been so terrible about having someone less model-waif-starlet take the role? Go back and watch June Allyson and Katherine Hepburn in their turns as Jo - they weren't prettied up by the makeup artists and photographers, and it makes them all the stronger. By making Jo so lovely, the film accidentally moves against feminism by falling into the stereotype that even "little" women have to be beautiful. (To be fair, they also make Professor Bhaer unrecognizably handsome, missing the point for the male as well as female characters.)

2. They ignored the subtle textual references about Marmee having as severe a temper as Jo. Instead of showing Marmee shouting out a window about not wearing corsets, why not show her working to control her emotions for the good of her family? Why not show her desire to work for the betterment of the poor as an outlet for her frustration over being left at home? Can you imagine what Susan Sarandon could have done with material like that?

3. I'll grant that it would be hard to portray the changes in Amy, because in the novel most of them are happening in description rather than in her actions. Simply changing actresses in mid-stream isn't enough - we should have seen her growth from inside, her desire to become a good person rather than a rich one. Instead of seeing Laurie as her just reward for having made such a difficult journey, as we do in the book, it comes across as irony that someone so selfish should wind up with the rich boy next door.

Thanks, but no thanks - I'll go back to Katherine Hepburn or June Allyson (even though in the latter version it's obvious Joan Bennett was pregnant when she portrayed Amy), and take my message undiluted.

Rating:
Summary: Truely what Louisa May Alcott would have wanted it to be!
Review: A beautiful movie that comes from a beautiful book. Rarely do I find a movie that is better than the book. This is one of those movies.
The casting was excellent, the music was inspiring. The story was as touching and moving as the first time I read the book. I love the version of the movie starring Kathrine Hepburn, but this one surpasses even that in all its creativity and imagination. Small detours from the book are hardly noticible, and are forgotten in the splendor of this already enchanting movie. Truely worth all five stars.

Rating:
Summary: The Best
Review: This movie is abousluty the best i first saw it when i was little a loved it its best i mad my mom reanted about 5 times then she finally brought it for me it is the best gret for ppl ages 1-100

Rating:
Summary: Heartwarming Story of Four Sisters
Review: Deep down inside many women, there is a person who wishes she lived in a simpler time. When people tied letters in ribbons, took cooking, sewing, knitting and quilting seriously and men brought women flowers. Yes, that still all happens today, but somehow some of us dream of the romance of the era. A time, long gone, as we rush towards the future.

No time for a tea party, dressing up in lace, wearing gloves. How about finding time to sit on a park bench and steal a kiss? Then there are those wonderful attics, filled with mementos and treasures, just waiting to be discovered. Well, at least we can find time to escape into a movie and live the daydream through the characters. I have never had a sister, but when watching this movie, I always think how wonderful it would have been to have had a sister.

To provide some background for this movie: Little Women was written in 1868 and the story takes place during the early 1860's. Many Americans were moving Westward and women like Jo March in this story, embraced the changes as they rode the wave into the new future. Because men had to go off to war (Civil War 1861-1865), women became more self-reliant and Marmee (Jo's Mother) represents a woman who faces the challenge with dignity and resolve. She is determined to make life wonderful for her family.

Louisa May Alcott (1832-1888) was ahead of her time. Her main ambition in life was to relieve her family of financial heartache and Jo also strives for this in Little Women. Her writing talents eventually did help to support her family. When her Boston publisher suggested she should write a story for girls, she decided to try the experiment. The girls she knew best were herself and her three sisters, so she based her book on her family and created Jo March as her own fictional counterpart.

Like Louisa, Jo struggles to conceal her strong-willed nature in a time when women were much more docile. She is the real Jo march. Anna (Meg) is Louisa's older sister. Elizabeth (Beth) was ill for two years before she died in 1858. May (Amy) became a painter in Paris and actually illustrated the first edition of Little Women in 1868. Abba (Marmee) is Louisa's mother who understood her daughter and encouraged her to be all she could be.

Bronson Alcott, Louisa's father had a vision for an ideal world, but often he tended to ignore the realities of life. In this movie, he goes off to war and is injured.

In Concord, Massachusetts, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau and Nathaniel Hawthorne helped to kindle Louisa's ambitious nature. She was the first woman registered to vote in Concord, Massachusetts. The March family home in the story is actually the Alcotts Orchard House in Concord, Massachusetts where the family lived for 20 years.

There are two versions of this story that have been brought to the screen most wonderfully, in my own opinion. I have not seen all the movies made, but think perhaps if they were all combined into one, the perfect movie will have been created. There are quite a few details left out of this one that I really missed. Some should be in this movie to give it more depth and were included in the 1949 movie.

This version of 1994 and the 1949 movie are my absolute favorites. To know the full story, you must watch both. If you also read the book, you can fill in the tidbits that are not included.

The story begins in winter when there are to be no presents for Christmas and a family in need is blessed by the March family giving them their entire breakfast. The women in this story are like angels, they strive to be good and have such great character.

This movie is delightfully filled with kittens, fall leaves, books, lace gloves, romantic letters, snow, opera, art and tea parties. It is truly the most beautiful adaptation of the classic story. The New England countryside around Concord is incredible in the Autumn. The seasons change as the characters lives evolve and as life moves on.

Jo is the main character and has a mind of her own, we follow her story as she finds out who she really is and what she wants from life. She occasionally seems to burst from her quietness with such exuberance for life. She would have been quite happy running off to war and is a bit of a tomboy, but seems just quite modern to women today. She is so unaware of her own deep desires (except wanting to be published) until she experiences losses that bring her to a new understanding of her own need for love.

The four sisters have such fun at home acting out the stories Jo writes, that their neighbor Laurie wants to join their society. He is infatuated with Jo, but she only feels a love of friendship for him.

When Jo leaves to go to N.Y. she meets a more mature man who intrigues her. She shares her love of writing with him until one day he slightly criticizes her work and deeply hurts her when he says: "There is more to you than this, if you have the courage to write it." We think that perhaps Jo will never grow up and find love.

Will Jo ever find what she is looking for and will she be a successful writer? If you are looking for a movie that is perfect for winter viewing, this will warm your heart! If you love this movie, you must also see Gone with the Wind.

Watch this movie at night with candles. Oh, and have some oranges close by. ;>

Rating:
Summary: They shouldn't have named this movie "Little Women"...
Review: since no one connected with it could have possibly read the book. Where was boyish, clumsy, unwilling to grow up Jo? I HATED Winona Ryder's portrayal, more like a betrayal to the character. Let alone the ridiculous social commentary: Meg won't wear silk because of child laborers in China!!!! Everyone who read the book knows Meg LONGS for a silk gown. (...) It may have been an attractive film, although I was too busy seething to notice, but "Little Women" it was not. Don't let your kids see it, they'll never know what the heart of the book is. Terrible! If I could give it negative 5 stars, I would.