Little Women (1994)

Absolutely brilliant

It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

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

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

So this is another adaptation of the popular novel "Little Women" for Book Month. I admit that the first version I saw (the 1949 one) was good, but it was a little hard to follow. There was a lot going on and the plot wasn't that focused. I think this movie was better because I understood it more. Then again, I had already seen one version so I was already more familiar with the story. The main story is that Jo is trying to have her novel published.It's funny how the novel she's working on herself is actually called "Little Women", although I assume it's not the same as the actual story happening. I would think a writer would know what it's like to be a writer. The story is mostly slice of life and focuses on various other smaller aspects of the character's lives. I didn't know this had anything to do with Christmas. I should have seen this back in December! At least I'm seeing it now for Book Month. This is a very well acted film with a great cast and feel. ***1/2

Louisa May Alcott's autobiographical account of her life with her three sisters in Concord, Massachusetts in the 1860s. With their father fighting in the American Civil War, sisters Jo, Meg, Amy and Beth are at home with their mother, a very outspoken women for her time. The story tells of how the sisters grow up, find love and find their place in the world. Little Women has a simple premise and thanks to some great actors that are really good in it it does entertain to a point. There was also a scene with Claire Danes that i found it very touching and for that i'm gonna give it a 9 out of 0 it's a simple good film nothing more.

The March family has fallen on hard time during the Civil War without the father. The four sisters (Winona Ryder, Kirsten Dunst, Claire Danes, Trini Alvarado, Samantha Mathis as older Amy) struggle to find love and their way in the world.There are some great actors here. I wonder if Claire Danes would make an even better Jo. If this was filmed a few years later, Danes would have been the choice. This was an embarrassment of riches acting wise. When you add the young Christian Bale and the veteran Gabriel Byrne, the talents are all there. All except maybe an overarching first rate directions. Gillian Armstrong has made a life of these intimate movies, but this needs a splash of grandeur. The tone of the story never really changes like the music. It's that sweet melancholy that persist throughout. It needs wisps of excitement to break up the monotony of sadness. But it's still a great watch to see all these fine actors.

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.