Little Women (1994)

One of the worst movies I've ever seen

Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

Absolutely brilliant

Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

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.

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.

This movie, which I watch every Christmas, is a wonderful movie in so many ways and for so many reasons. The aesthetic qualities are very appealing: the snow in Civil War-time Concord, Massachusetts was very beautiful, as is the grass in the spring time. As for the acting, the cast was superb. Susan Sarandon, who could act well the part of a rough southern girl, adapted herself well to this part of a proper New England lady who meets well the challenge of raising her four daughters (the "little women"). While you hated Christian Bale in "Shaft", he made a very positive impression in this movie as Teddy. Mary Wickes was convincingly crabby as Aunt March, and you felt for Claire Danes as the fragile Beth. Winona Ryder was excellent as the beautiful and high-spirited Jo. The story was a portmanteau: there were three different love affairs which were resolved at the end of the movie. The final scene was very touching. All in all, it was a superb production which was magnetic: again, I'm drawn to it every Christmas, though it is good entertainment for any time of the year. Definitely a favorite of mine.

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.