Hitchcoc 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.

Red-125 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!

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.

Cameron-gagon Well I don't know where to start with this movie. I don't like it. The problem with this movie is there are no little women. There is one played by the mediocre Kirsten Dunst. Next, who names their child Jo. Jo is a man's name. If you want a butch in the movie, just name her Jo. She crushes on like a 40 year old man anyway. That explains the marital situation in the early 1900's. I didn't understand the point of the movie. The title was named for Jo's book that she wrote? Apparently i need to read the book... NOT. I wouldn't dare read this book. This movie maybe a classic for past generations of women with heart warming fun about lovely girls' lives in the early 1900's and how they deal with relationships. That in my opinion is the WORST. STORY LINE. EVER. Even if I appear to be sexist. I laugh at this movie every time Christian Bale appears with such a gross Fu Man Chu. It's gross and no one wants to see that. I think i got a little gayer watching Christian(Laurie)prance around like a little boy off the Newzies.(hey oh!) I mean he took my breath away! And not in a good way. In conclusion, if you're a girl, enjoy watching.:) If you're a boy and like this movie, you have major issues and keep watching gay boys dance around...