Clevercell Very disappointing...

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Freeman This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Jakoba True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

SimonJack "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.

piedbeauty37 I read "Little Women" many times growing up. It is a wonderful book with memorable characters and great writing. It has been made into a movie three times. The first time, Jo was played by Kathryn Hepburn, the second time she was played by June Allyson, and this third time, she is played by Wonona Ryder.This is the story of the four March sisters who are growing up in Concord, Massachusetts. Their father is away serving the North in the War of the States. The family has undergone the hardship of losing their former money and must now struggle to maintain their genteel lifestyle.Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy become so real that they leap out at you from the book and on the screen.Their various mishaps and adventures are well done, touching and at times hilarious.Each sister has her distinctive personality, but it is Jo who is the real star. She is Louisa May Alcott's, the author, alter ego.Winona does a credible job playing her. A young Christian Bale plays Laurie, the boy next store.This is a beautiful movie which the entire family will enjoy especially at Christmas.

daviddaphneredding 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.

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.