Rating: 
Summary: The Ultimate Movie for Chilly Days
Review: This is my favorite movie to watch when I am feeling ill or the weather outside is a little too cold to bear. Winona Ryder's portrayal of Jo March is stunningly perfect. A great movie to snuggle up on the couch and watch.
Rating: 
Summary: Gillian Armstrong's Career Tarnishes
Review: One star for Winona Ryder, one star for Susan Sarandon, one star for Claire Danes; subtract one for Gillian Armstrong.Gillian Armstrong has directed brilliant films before, and not just by title, so my expectations for this film were quite high, and I was sorely disappointed. What was this film about? These women love each other? Well, we knew that after the first four minutes, and left after was pretty sets, period costumes, and an oscar quality score. It's all very nice and wrapped in a pretty bow, but Jo's speeches about feminism and women's place in the world seem like frayed edges someone forget to trim. I can't help wondering whether in the early production stage, an associate remembered the cheering crowd at Cannes in 1979, after the unexpected film My Brilliant Career, and thought "Jo March is an American Sybylla Melvyn," then convinced the team to hire the director of My Brilliant Career to come to America and make Jo March's Brilliant Career. The parallels are really there; they are not imagined: the seemingly obvious and perfect marriage turned down. The autobiographical manuscript bundled and mailed with those small feminine hands. To defy or not to defy; to be born homely and clever... the actress who seems striking by our standards, but homely by the standards of the time of the film. And the undeniable talent of the starring actress. Winona Ryder has more than proved herself in the market, and among the critics. I have no idea why it didn't work. I can't help thinking that most of the blame rests squarely on the head of Gillian Armstrong, who seems to sleepwalk her way through the film. This picture has no stamp of art on it. The actresses are all working very hard, and in many cases rise so high above a merely adequate script, that it is too bad there is not a special Academy Award for this. It is unfortunate, but with so much potential, so much material to work with, the binding thread in this picture ends up being the pretty sets, and the well-designed period costumes. It is as though there is no director at all, but the actors memorized their lines at home in their bedrooms, came to the set, dressed, and made up the rest as the cameras rolled. Read the book instead.
Rating:
Summary: A decided opinion
Review: First of all, Winona Ryder is no Jo March. She ruins the whole movie. Very bad casting indeed. If it wasn't for that, the movie would of been excellent.
Rating: 
Summary: quite affecting and moving
Review: The third big-screen version of Louisa May Alcott's LITTLE WOMEN is given a good treatment by director Gillian Armstrong and a strong cast headed by Winona Ryder and Susan Sarandon. The story of the four March sisters; headstrong Jo (Winona Ryder), shy Beth (Claire Danes), spoilt Amy (Kirsten Dunst and Samantha Mathis) and reserved Meg (Trini Alvarado) is told with humour and heart. Faithful art and set direction and lavish costumes only add to the magic. The intelligent if a little overly-sentimental screenplay is handled with aplomb by Robin Swicord. Probably the best version aside from the original Katharine Hepburn version and certainly the best at capturing the feeling of the novel. With Christian Bale, Eric Stoltz, Mary Wickes and Gabriel Byrne.
Rating:
Summary: Orchard House
Review: Deep in the heart of Women lie secrets that we men will no more discover than a treasure chest in our back yard, yet despite that fact after seeing this film, I had a new understanding about the jewels women possess internally. Wynona Ryder, Claire Danes, Trini Alvarado, and Kirsten Dunst, play four sisters(Joe, Beth, Meg, and Amy) that live the role's of fantasy within a hardened reality. Due to the tumultuous force of the Civil War, their family has fallen from a pedistol in society to the grand standing heights of togetherness and warmth within the means of their own spirits. Their father rages on the battle-front while Marmee (Susan Sarandon) keeps tight her little women from the casualties of daily life. Little Women inspired me in all ways that my emotions would allow, while all the while Thomas Newman's soundtracks gently guides you through the steps of their failures, triumphs, and hysteric's. After countless viewings (35-55) it has stood against the test of time that sometimes fades the impact a movie creates. After 7 years Little Women still fascinates me as much as it did on my first viewing. Love, distrust, death, and creativity, within these, their bond's of family strength hold them. There are lesson's to be learned if we are willing to open our own hearts to them. To our friends, Loves, and families, there is something to be gathered from these little women. That lesson is the importance of togetherness. ~S.A.O.S.~
Rating:
Summary: best feal good movie
Review: This is one of my all time favorite movies. It's one of those movies that I just haven't bought yet because it's so special and I don't want to over watch it. But when ever I just am fealing like I need to see a good movie, something that I love, it comes on TV and so I watch it and it makes me feal good cause after I've watched it I've cried a little, I've smiled a little, been a little bitter that Christian Bale falls in love with Winona Ryder and not me, and in the end everyone seems so happy. You just get so involved with the lives of these "Little women" it just makes you feal so good inside and warm. I love this, and now that it is out on DVD I think I am going to buy it to add to my collection to make sure I have it for all time. I reccomend this movie for people who love sweet movies that make you feal good on a rainy day. It is great! An all time favorite!
Rating: 
Summary: Beautiful movie, but a bit flawed.
Review: When remaking a classic and staying within the time period that the novel was written in, the film makers should stay within the author's intentions as well. Now had they updated the movie and changed it to a more modern time period, then I would understand the undertones of feminism or activism so prevalent, but in my opinion, it's not completely appropriate in this version. Costuming was great, the "look" of the movie was dead-on and spectacular. It was the over-tones of feminisism I take issue with. Sure the March family is "ahead of it's time" and "different." The movie expertly captures that on the screen. But some of the speeches didn't ring true to the original. Once again, had they updated the tale to a more modern time period I would have believed it more having read the novel and knowing the characters and their intentions. Casting was great. Some reviewers had a problem with the actresses who played the roles of both Amy and Beth. Well, I tend to agree. Kristen Dunst did a great job portraying Beth, but she was too tall for the part! That is OK for stage and you can get past such minor annoyances, but on the big screen it is hard to get around visual appearances. Dunst did a great acting job though, her Beth made me cry harder than all the rest of them. Very believable and heart renching. The dual-Amy bit was irritating. One actress would have been preferable over splitting it between two actresses. It changed the mood terribly but didn't ruin the movie. Jo March is one of the best characters in literature and she is brought to life beautifully by Winona Ryder. What plum role, what an amazing actress. Over all, I loved the movie. It is a perfect holiday movie to watch with the family and enjoy again and again.
Rating:
Summary: Two or Three Jarring Notes in a Beautiful-Looking Picture
Review: Jarring Note #1: The screenplay does a disservice to Alcott's book by including many references to women's rights and feminism. Sorry, it's just not in the original work, and you lose a large part of the point of Alcott's message that way: the little women are being taught how to be proper mothers and supports to their husbands, which requires them to work constantly on self-improvement--that's why there are so many references to "Pilgrims Progress" in the novel. If the writers wanted to flesh out Marmee's character more, they might have done what none of the other writes had done yet, which is focus on the curbed volatile temper of Marmee--indeed, Marmee sees Jo as the daughter most like herself. Jarring Note #2: Beth. I know many reviewers praised this actress's work, but I couldn't get past her height. Beth is usually thought of as fragile and slight; that's why it's not hard to imagine that she might die. This Beth looks like a strapping farm lass; I half expected her to go out and clear a field of heavy rocks. I remember when I saw this in the movies, one of the attending doctors makes a comment about "the child", to which one of my companions responded, "Child? What child?" She was completely mystified as to the person being identified. So this Beth has physical volume working against her. Jarring Note #3: Changing Amys. For all the crucial scenes building characters in the first half of the movie, we have one Amy, and then another Amy shows up at Meg's wedding, takes the Grand Tour with Aunt March, and marries Laurie. Huh? This completely undercuts everything that has gone before. Why not hire just one actress and be done with it? Here also we lose Alcott's intention that the four sisters are each on a journey of self-improvement. That first Amy didn't get her rightful reward of going to Europe and marrying a rich man. The second Amy says hard things to Laurie in Europe, sitting in judgement on him--well, since you get the impression that they've only just met, who is she to say all those things? He didn't grow up with HER! Bad idea all around. Still in all, it is a beautifully filmed movie, which included some scenes from the book not in the other movies, like when Meg goes to a society party and is persuaded to act the flirt, only to be horribly embarrassed by Laurie's stern reproof. This is important in particular because Meg gets short shrift most of the time, and is the least developed cinematically of the sisters. So for atmospheric reasons of accurate costuming, sets, and cinematography this is a good "Little Women", for other purposes, consult Hepburn/Allyson.
Rating:
Summary: Best Screen Adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's Novel
Review: This film was a truly remarkable adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's novel, Little Women. The cast is near perfect, although I couldn't picture Claire Danes as "Beth", she was wonderful emotionally mind you but she wasn't physically "Beth". Winona Ryder puts on a stunning performance as "Jo", I could go to sleep to the sound of her voice. And Kirsten Dunst is the unforgettable "Amy", she's so cute. Later in the film Samantha Mathis plays grown up "Amy" and though not as cute as Kirsten Dunst she's very pretty and portrays the grown "Amy" very well. Trinni Alvarodo is the mortherly "Meg" and is exactly how I picture Meg to be. Susan Saradan is loveable "Marmee" and is so moving in that role that you almost wish she was your own mother. The movie followed the novel very nicely and though a few scenes from the book were not included in the movie(those missing scenes aren't an any versions of Little Women), it was still a heart-warming film and one that I love watching again and again.
Rating:
Summary: A Must See!!
Review: "Little Women" is one of the best movies I've ever seen. It has one of the most perfect casts I could imagine. Susan Sarandon is terrific as Marmee. She is completely unwavering. She's the strong one on whom everybody depends upon. Susan Sarandon plays her part wonderfully. Winona Ryder is great as Jo March. Most of my friends prefer the June Allyson version of Jo March, saying she's more boyish, but not me. Winona Ryder is tomboyish, but gives the effect of respecting herself. In the book Little Women, Jo is a tomboy at first, but later grows into a sweet, mature woman, and June Allyson just doesn't show that. Trini Alvarado is perfect as Meg March. I was amazed. She is completely simpering, but very sweet, and very kind. She's very beautiful, but not as pretty as I've thought of Meg as being. However, she does the part of helping Marmee great. You can really envision Trini Alvarado and Susan Sarandon being a daughter/mother duo. Claire Danes was of course fabulous as Beth. I was surprised that she wasn't given very many lines. Throughout the whole movie, you really like this character. Claire Danes plays the fragile Beth to perfection. She's very quiet and sweet. (Completely different to the character she plays in "The Polish Wedding.") If I had a problem with anyone in the movie, it was Kirsten Dunst. Don't get me wrong; she wasn't bad. But she didn't play her part of (young) Amy as well as the other girls played their parts. I thought Samantha Mathis played Amy much better, as a woman. She looks like I've always thought of Amy looking. She does a smooth transition from being proud and selfish to a wonderful little woman. The only problem I had with the character of Amy is that when Kirsten Dunst plays Amy, she's not selfish at all, and Samantha Mathis is. Christian Bale, Gabriel Byrne, and Mary Wickes are all great as supporting characters. This movie is a must see for all movie-lovers!!
|
