Little Women (1994) User Reviews (210)

My Favorite Film Version

[annlevtex · 8/10 · 3 April 2019]

I first read this book when I was about ten years old, then again every couple of years until I hit twenty. I have since read it once again, and have seen every version except the recent BBC one. This is my favorite film remake of Little Women. Every version suffers, to some degree, from the film/television conventions of its time. June Allyson as Jo is too cute, albeit tomboyishly so. Katherine Hepburn, though wonderful, too crisp and aristocratic. Wynona Ryder some might say is too girlish and vulnerable, but I like that about her performance. Because Jo, for all of her independence, is still a girl in many ways. Jo is a tomboy, a writer, and a budding young woman, all at once. She blossoms throughout the film, and loses some of her prickliness without losing her spirit and color.

Susan Sarandon does make a wonderful Marmee. She comes across as a woman and not just a mother figure, though she does well as the latter too. Young Kirsten Dunst is the perfect Amy. I do think the Beth character was given short shrift to some degree, despite a wonderful performance from a young Clare Danes. But to be fair, Beth in the book is given short shrift too, in many ways. It is a long book, that covers a long span of time and has multiple main characters. The focus has always shifted to Jo and then Amy and Meg, in that order. It seems fitting for a movie that has to parse its moments.

The romance between Meg and Jon Booke is not given much room to breath. But to be fair, it is not in the book either. And I don't mind that. It was never a central character arc in any way. Jon was kind of a cipher in the book, and probably intentionally. Really, the key relationships are among the sisters, and then with Laurie and the various sisters. This version does a good job with that balance. I never was asked or made to care much about Meg and Jon in the books, beyond wishing them well. Same here, and that is fine.

Finally, my biggest point. Jo, Laurie, and Friedrich. I think this version does by far the best job of selling that drama. Christian Bale is just a great actor, and he captures Laurie very well: charming, confident, sensitive, but also a bit callow and never intended to develop past a certain point intellectually. He's a rich boy who needs a beautiful glamorous wife, and that's Amy. I never bought it with the others the way I buy it here. Gabriel Byrne as Friedrich is ideal. He captures the character's awkwardness and profound lack of glamour while at the same time being compelling, attractive, even sexy. You see that Jo accepts him not as a sort of "male placeholder" but because she wants him. The final scene is beautiful.

The cinematography and settings here are so much better. In other versions the surroundings seem staid, like in a BBC English period drama from the 1970s. Nature is present here, as it was in Civil War Era America. That sort of thing definitely makes a difference.

Anyway, a book is a book, and a movie a movie. This won't replace the book, but as a film version, I love it.

Loved It

[ekammin-2 · 8/10 · 9 February 2020]

I preferred this version to the new one. It was very true to the book. I cried a lot, remembering how I read the book when I was a little girl.

Wow, what do you know? A worthy remake!

[Boyo-2 · 8/10 · 14 January 2002]

I've seen the original, starring Katherine Hepburn as Jo which was directed by George Cukor in (what seems to be) 1901. That's an excellent version of this story, a real classic.

Maybe the story just needed a 'new coat of paint' to spruce it up a bit because it sure does seem new and worth telling again.

Winona Ryder has to carry the movie, more or less, and gives a confident performance as the independent Jo. Susan Sarandon is not around that much but makes a good Marmee. Christian Bale is great, as always, and Trini Alvarado and Eric Stoltz round out the cast.

You don't see Claire Danes that much, but then it becomes about her quite a bit as the story moves on. A gift she receives for Christmas from a kindly neighbor could give your tearducts a workout, at the very least.

Beautiful movie. Could even be longer, and how many times can you say that about anything?

a terrific novel effectively brought to life

[Special-K88 · 3 January 2020]

Superlative, mostly faithful adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's acclaimed novel of four impoverished teenage sisters who come of age in Civil War era New England. The film chronicles ambitious scribe Jo, decorative and impressionable Meg, timid, musically inclined Beth, and artistic, precocious Amy, with emphasis placed on their relationship with their beloved "Marmee" and their growing bond with the playful, cultured boy next door as they attempt to make their way while their father is off fighting in the war. While devoted readers may have wished for an ending that was more in line with the novel, this is perfectly cast and brilliantly acted, with wonderful characters, a pinpoint sense of the time period, and genuine emotions that flow throughout the proceedings; a worthy adaptation indeed. ***

"Time erodes beauty, but what it cannot diminish is the wonderful workings of your mind"

[Wuchakk · 6/10 · 3 December 2018]

Based on Louisa May Alcott's classic 1868 novel, "Little Women" details the coming-of-age years of four sisters from 1862-1868, covering most of the Civil War and a few years afterward.

I love the rustic New England ambiance, especially the wintery parts, but the story curiously isn't as compelling as the classic 1933 version with Katharine Hepburn, at least as I REMEMBER it being. Thankfully, things perk up in the second half when the forceful Jo (Winona Ryder) goes to New York City and develops a friendship with an amicable, but much older scholar (Gabriel Byrne). The ending is heartwarming.

It's interesting seeing all these actors when they were younger: Trini Alvarado as the oldest sister Meg, who's interested in a tutor that works next door (Eric Stoltz); Claire Danes as the sickly Beth; and Kirsten Dunst & Samantha Mathis as Amy, younger and older. Christian Bale plays the neighbor, Laurie, who becomes an honorary brother that loves the March family so much he desperately wants to be part of it. Meanwhile Susan Sarandon is on hand as the mother.

The film runs 1 hour, 55 minutes and was shot in British Columbia and Deerfield, Massachusetts. While the movie opened rather weakly at the box office during Christmas, 1994, it went on to become a surprise success.

GRADE: C+/B-

STILL the BEST version

[emiliecunning-21094 · 10/10 · 28 December 2019]

I have read the book and watched this version 8+ times, I love it so dearly, it is one of my favourite films of all time. I just watched Greta Gerwig's 2019 version and appreciated a lot of the performances and certain elements of it, yet it simply cannot hold a candle to this 1994 version. This one just has far more heart, warmth and loveliness to it - it always leaves me feeling cosy and warm inside and I always cry when Beth dies (Claire Danes is so fantastic in that scene). I just generally prefer this version in many ways: the linear storytelling, the two different Amys (which makes way more sense than these other adaptions which have one Amy), the aesthetic, the music, the performances. If you want to see a definitive adaptation of Little Women, this is it.

"I went to Europe to paint the great cathedrals but couldn't get our home out of my mind".

[richardchatten · 7/10 · 8 March 2022]

A highly worthwhile addition to the venerable screen career of Anna Louisa Alcott's classic novel. Warmly nostalgic and dressed in Oscar-winning costumes; the presence of Susan Sarandon ensures a very modern sensibility.

Something that should be treasured

[IridescentTranquility · 9/10 · 8 October 2005]

There are many, many reasons why I love this version of Little Women. The main one - or at least the most immediate - is the way the film looks. I love the soft lighting, the hair and costumes (I was astounded this year when I bought the DVD to hear on the commentary that Winona Ryder's hair was not her own but a wig! I never would have guessed it at all.) The male characters as much as the females, I do love the period costumes, and I'm impressed by the efforts the wardrobe department made to get everything so accurate. The girls were in impoverished circumstances, so the clothes they wear aren't new and look just as though they've been handed down from one sister to another.

There are a few subtle touches in this film that I sometimes find a bit jarring, such as when Marmee is talking with John Brooke in front of Meg and mentions her disagreement with the idea of women wearing restrictive corsets, but that is really the only bit that I don't feel is quite right, and it is there to demonstrate Marmee's liberal attitude.

I love the way the characters interact, although there perhaps isn't enough demonstration of why Laurie and old Mr. Laurence disagree. Jo and Amy act just like real sisters - they fight and provoke each other into arguments and disputes, and generally have a chance to make little digs at the other. Meg is the pretty - but yet also virtuous - one, and clearly the most socially at ease with the upper classes of the time, for instance reminding Jo "Don't shake hands with people. It isn't the thing any more", and in the end - although she has to wait for a period of time that would seem endless today before marrying the man she loves - she opts for a poorer but obviously happier life. It would be very easy to simply say that Beth is not given anything dramatic or interesting to do, but that is the whole point of her character. She watches those around her do great and exciting things, and there is a sense that she herself is happy with that. Susan Sarandon's Marmee clearly holds this family together - the ideal mother figure, she is comforting, incredibly wise (I wonder if anyone has ever met anyone with all the wisdom she seems to have) and always on hand to encourage her girls in their quest to do as they please.

The male characters are also interesting. John Brooke is stable and compassionate and sensible. Laurie (also known as Teddy just occasionally) can be quite an intense figure and I was amazed to find that Christian Bale was only about twenty when this film was released. It is as interesting to see the changes his personality goes through as it is to see those the girls go through. The Professor is a slightly unorthodox character and yet he complements Jo perfectly.

I have watched this film many, many times now (so many, in fact, that I have sometimes been known to say the lines along with the characters as they say them) and I know I will watch it many more times in the future. It might perhaps be a bit of a holiday film but it's certainly worth watching for the feel-good factor it generates.

Harmless Enough, But Just Not for Me

[evanston_dad · 7/10 · 17 March 2009]

Eh, whatever.

I've never read the Louisa May Alcott story nor seen any of the previous film versions, so I have nothing to compare this to. It's a fairly enjoyable film, warm-hearted and full of girl power. I can see why mothers enjoy watching this with their daughters. I don't know that it's a story that will ever speak much to me, a 34-year-old male.

Winona Ryder plays the spunky Jo, and rode the wave of her brief period of success to a second Oscar nomination in two years. She's fine, but hardly Oscar worthy. Some young actors and actresses who we know very well today -- like Christian Bale, Claire Danes and Kirsten Dunst -- appear here before anyone knew who they were.

Grade: B

Best Version Out There

[thehigger-61176 · 10/10 · 11 March 2020]

Having seen all the versions, including the 2019 version, this is the best out of all of them. Much truer to the book, as are the characters. Totally charming, beautiful dialogue and music.

A more modern cast in a classic of Americana

[SimonJack · 7/10 · 29 March 2014]

"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.

"Little Women" in it's own right

[mercybell · 10/10 · 11 September 2002]

Though some may argue that the older classic versions of Little Women with Katherine Hepburn and June Allison may be better because it sticks to the book, this is the only version that captures the spirit of the book.

Though the filmmakers took license to cut away certain specifics, the end result is an absolutely gorgeous film that stands on it's own completely. One would be able to watch this film without ever having read or known the book and seen it as it's own film.

The film thrives on small scenes and nuances, moments of person to person contact, production design and cinematography, the all important score (which adds a great deal to the film). This delicate and complicated symbiosis between all aspects tactfully and poignantly creates the story, something missing from many movies these days which creates a tangible and effervescent emotional layer. Then the acting of one of the best ensembles to hit the screen in a long time. Keep an eye out for Susan Sarandon and Claire Daines in roles that ought to have been nominated along with Ryder. These actors create people that endear themselves to us, and make the film even more than it could have been.

It's a small scale masterpiece that will leave you in tears. The film is honest and true in it's portrayal of human emotion. It went from being an adaptation of the book to it's own story and portrayal of people and their lives. It's beautiful aesthetically and dramatically, and a real gem of a film.

"We all grow up someday. We might as well know what we want."

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 13 July 2018]

Winona Ryder seemed to have scored a major coup by having her name appear above the title of the picture during the opening credits. Granted, she already had a pretty good body of work behind her, but there were quite a few significant members of the cast in this picture. It's true that at a certain point, her character Jo March takes center stage in this tale of four sisters growing up during, and following the Civil War era. She did a credible job, though the film and story were greatly enhanced by the gorgeous camera work by cinematographer Geoffrey Simpson. I have no quarrel with the movie per se, but as a male senior citizen, there's not much I was able to relate to regarding the story. Based on the novel by Louisa May Alcott, it's fairly transparent that the author is represented by Ryder's character in this largely autobiographical story. It follows the fortunes of the four March sisters on their way to maturity and adulthood along with the attendant rituals of courtship and marriage that they experience, save for young Beth (Claire Danes) who succumbed to the ravages of scarlet fever. Reading several of the reviews on this board, there seems to be a dichotomy between those who feel the movie followed the novel fairly closely and those who thought it did a terrible job. Not having real Alcott's novel, I'd have to leave that impression to each viewer to decide.

Dreadful version

[mkultra76 · 3/10 · 16 January 2006]

The only reason this dreadful version of a much loved book even garnered a four from me is because the scenery itself was beautiful, and the actual Orchard House where the Alcotts lived was incorporated into the filming.

This in no way touches on the depth of character from Louisa May Alcott's book, in fact it's so bad that when certain important events occur...don't want to give anything away here concerning the plot...one is left wondering why they should care. The acting itself was wooden--Winona Ryder makes a horrible Jo, and Claire Danes as Beth was truly pitiful--the script did not flow or introduce any of the wonderful aspects of character that was found in the book, or the movie version starring Margaret O'Brien, Elizabeth Taylor, and June Allyson. Watching this film, one does not know that Meg pines away for riches because the family used to be wealthy, and she has never forgotten having the "little luxuries." One does not know that Beth spent a great deal of her time next door at the Lawrence's and was such a beautiful piano player. They don't even introduce the fact that Amy is "ashamed" of her nose, which was most amusing. And Jo, it's miserable the way they butchered her character. Instead of holding her head high above her sorrows and troubles, this film portrayed her as a "oh-woe-is-me" type of character who just felt sorry for herself.

Please don't waste your time on this. If you wish to see Little Women in film, rent or buy a different version. The version with June Allyson was infinitely better than this one. Or better yet, spend some time and read the book.

Perfectly cast, lovely

[rachel.near · 12 April 2001]

This version of Little Women is lovely. Everyone is perfectly cast, and fans of the novel will be happy that it is quite true-to-book. Winona Ryder is perfect as Jo, quite equal to Katherine Hepburn's performance in the 1933 version. Susan Sarandon is wonderful (though I'm not sure Marmee would talk about 'restrictive corsets' to John Brooke). :) Christian Bale is an excellent Laurie, and Gabriel Byrne is wonderful as our Professor Bhaer. Kirsten Dunst and Claire Danes showed acting ability beyond their years. Trini Alvarado was a very pretty and sweet Meg. Samantha Mathis was a very pretty older Amy, but she could have been more lively. Eric Stoltz was a great John Brooke. I had never pictured Brooke with red hair, but it was nice. The rest of the cast was terrific, especially Mary Wickes as Aunt March. For once, Mary wasn't playing somebody's nurse or maid. :)

The music and cinematography were beautifully done. It was absolutely wonderful, and I highly recommend it (and the book of the same name). :)

Such a heartwarming story

[dancingsnail · 7/10 · 23 June 2022]

This film is so tearjerking and heartwarming. This is my first time watching it and I adored it. I may have to go and read the book now to see how it compares.

Heartwarming and true to the book

[LeadingLadybug · 10/10 · 12 February 2006]

"Little Women" is a gem of a movie, encompassing comedy, drama, and romance into one well-made film that is true to Louisa May Alcott's literary classic. It follows the lives of the four March sisters, from the turbulence of youth, the turmoil and romance of adolescence, the joy of love, and the pain of loss. The quality of this movie depends entirely upon the chemistry between the actors, and it accomplished this with success. The film is a vignette of scenes throughout the sisters' lives, showing their relationships with one another and with the people around them.

Winona Ryder is the quintessential Jo, the tomboyish, spirited sister who dreams of becoming an accomplished writer. She brings a refreshingly sweet, human touch to the character, who is as impulsive and headstrong as she is ambitious and loving. Ryder carried the film beautifully, and much of its success is due to her.

Trini Alvarado made a very pretty and convincing Meg, the dependable older sister, although she is not so set on marrying for money as she is in the book. Claire Danes as sweet, selfless Beth, really shone in one heartbreaking scene that is impossible not to cry through. For her performance as the spoiled youngest sister, Amy, the very young Kirsten Dunst showed remarkable potential, and brought humor to the character.

Christian Bale as Laurie was everything the "boy next door" should be: handsome, kind, and charming. His chemistry with Winona Ryder was considerable, and made their friendship very believable. Susan Sarandon played a wonderful Marmee, supportive and loving towards her girls.

Another thing I would recommend is the soundtrack to this movie, composed by Thomas Newman, which has some gorgeous music on it.

10/10

I think newer one is better!

[UniqueParticle · 7/10 · 5 January 2020]

An incredible cast in a delightful 90's era of a precious film! I must say I love Greta Gerwigs 2019 Little Women a bit more although I absolutely love Christian Bale and Winona Ryder in this version. Gabriel Byrne is an awesome actor as well. It seems well done to the source novel too.

a triumph

[mercybell · 10/10 · 4 April 2003]

I hear it's really hard to turn a book into a movie, and even as a viewer, I notice this. You can keep the book and lose a movie, or you make a movie and lose a book. But this balances and keeps the essence of the book and creates a miraculous movie that works on every single level.

It's depth, it's warmth, it's beauty (from aesthetics to costumes to storyline), it all works. I saw this movie before I read the book, and my mom, a big fan of the book loved it, so did my dad who had never read it.

Unlike a lot of period classics that are turned into films, this one has no rigidity or boring spots, and it doesn't feel like the dime a dozen period films out there that re-use the same costumes and replay the same stories. It flows and invites you into the world of these girls, making the 1860s and the March family intensely real.

Fabulous acting by an ensemble cast completes this film. Winona Ryder was inspired casting, and in my opinion makes the best screen Jo ever. She's feisty, strong, tomboyish, but has a warmth and grace about her that I feel Katharine Hepburn and June Allyson (the most famous Jo's) didn't have and suits the character wonderfully. the best thing about these characters is that they endear themselves to you, something many movies lack. Great ensemble as well: Susan Sarandon, Christian Bale, Claire Danes (at 14, believe it or not), Eric Stoltz, Kirsten Dunst, Trini Alvarado, Susan Wickes, Gabriel Byrne all of them are incredible, and fit perfectly.

And if you can get through Beth's death scene without crying, you're pretty tough. It's a scene that doesn't pull sentimental melodrama, but plays honestly and goes to that heartbreaking sadness of losing someone. And the geranium petals and dolls and Thomas Newman's brilliant score finish off the scene, and I think makes it one of the greatest scenes in any film of the last 10 years (and they didn't even include it in the 75th Oscars montage, tsk tsk). The ending is incredibly lovely, and as James Lipton of the Actors Studio says, only needs those "three words" to coney everything that needs to be said.

This is a beautiful film. It's inviting, but not overly sweet, and though nothing too exciting happens, still very fulfilling and entertaining; it can be very bittersweet, but it is a joyful film, and says a lot about people and our emotions and our lives and yet is not confrontational in the least. It pulled out themes and messages which are often looked over out of one of the world's most famous books and made a lasting work of art that touches your heart.

Loved the first part, but can't watch the second

[bulletproofclod · 7/10 · 21 July 2006]

The entire movie is an incredibly good and seemingly realistic story of what life was like back in the late eighteen hundreds to early nineteen hundreds. Winona Ryder as Jo is phenomenal as is the rest of the cast, apart from Samantha Mathis who I believe did not suit the role of bratty Amy as well as Kirsten Dunst did. The entire movie is captivating and mostly flawless, at least the first half or so.

It does not go down hill due to acting, writing or anything else that is by the fault of the actors or director, but it is the story written as is that is a punishment. From here on out there will be spoilers. In the book there is a basic understanding as to why Lawry and Jo were not meant to be together, but all throughout this film not only do Ryder and Bale have incredibly good chemistry, but the story is believable.

Jo states that they would be fighting all the time, though not once in the movie do we see a genuine argument between the two, apart from during the proposal. She is affronted when people consider Meg and Lawry to be together, and does as Amy says 'hog him'. Every action, every glance seems to be pointing to the two of them being in love, but then she flatly refuses his hand. In Louisa May Alcott's book it is made clear that she sees him as a brother and nothing else and even has aspirations for he and Meg, which is perfectly understandable. However, this film is not the book!

When Lawry proposes and eventually marries Amy, it truly seems as though he is settling for anyone related to Jo and becomes involved with Amy much as Mr. Wickham does with Lydia in Pride and Prejudice. In this adaptation I cannot understand why the two do not end up together. This is a movie, a completely separated object from the book. One is not expected to read a story before watching the film, and that is the only way you can truly understand what is going through their heads.

Ever since I first saw this in full, I always stop it after Meg's wedding, knowing that I have fallen in love with Lawry/Jo all over again and can't stand to watch it happen again. The character development is nearly flawless so that I can relate to the two and am upset when they do not get married.

7/10, love the beginning, the last half is painful for me to watch.

One of the best adaptations

[rs-89619 · 10/10 · 13 December 2019]

I really enjoyed this version. It was depicted with class & Grace & what an outstanding cast. Remaking this one with the actors they chose is what made this version the only version I'll watch.

Please no more versions of this novel

[jromanbaker · 6/10 · 25 December 2021]

George Sanders in ' All About Eve ' was very witty about Louisa M. Alcott and not very kind. I tend to agree with the intrinsic and annoying sentimentality of her writings. I cannot ' gush ' over her as others have done here, and this version directed by Gillian Armstrong is arguably better than the previous versions I have known. Katherine Hepburn was in the first I saw and no one in this cast comes anywhere near her. Winona Ryder is good in Hepburn's role, but lacking the fire and Christian Bale is bland beyond belief. Good looking but bland, but to say something nice to please readers he can be much better ( American Psycho ) comes to mind. Susan Sarandon does not convince at all and the house they live in poverty in is startlingly luxurious!! But the story is told well and the narrative is clear, and this is a bonus. I saw it out of a sense of hope that I would like the story better, but Mary Wickes is superb and she gets the 6 vote from me. But then she was a truly great supporting actor, and she encourages me in the greatest human response of all; a smile.

Beautiful

[catherinemncw · 10/10 · 24 January 2021]

Having watched this and also seen the remake with Saoirse Ronan as Jo, in my opinion there is no comparison. The 1994 version is far, far superior, more beautiful. I couldn't stand Jo as portrayed by Ronan but loved Winona Ryder as Jo, far more likeable and believable. The film is absolutely beautiful.

Satisfactory version is better than the dated '33 classic...

[Doylenf · 6/10 · 17 September 2006]

WINONA RYDER makes an impressive Jo in Louisa May Alcott's LITTLE WOMEN, tomboyishly charming and persuasive as she matures into a fine young writer. She won a Best Actress nomination, but strangely, her career never took off as strongly as it should have after this success. Except for GIRL INTERRUPTED, she hasn't had a recent string of hits nor has she been as busy at her craft as one would expect.

A good Jo is essential for the story to work, and since everyone else is well cast this is no problem. SUSAN SARANDON does a nice job as Marmee and the priceless MARY WICKES (in one of her last roles) is a formidable Aunt March. Christian BALE (who went on to much better roles in the future) makes a completely acceptable Laurie, and the sisters are well played by KIERSTEN DUNST (especially good as the young Amy), CLAIRE DANES, SAMANTHA MATHIS and TRINI ALVARADO.

Filmed in Canada, there's a genuinely wintry look to the New England landscapes and a warm glow to the interior scenes that is perfectly in keeping with the story. In fact, all of the technical elements are in fine order.

But somehow, it never quite reaches the grandeur of Alcott's beautifully written tale and, for a film based on a classic novel, doesn't linger in the memory as it should when the distance of a few years have passed. It should have been a minor masterpiece, but misses the mark, although it's considerably more worthwhile watching than the sweet George Cukor version with Katharine Hepburn which now seems awfully dated in style and conception.

There are some modern sensibilities written into this LITTLE WOMEN (thanks to Susan Sarandon's observations as the mother) and, in general, it plays more believably than the '33 classic.

A total downgrade from the 1933 release

[lwbing00 · 4/10 · 15 June 2007]

This modern remake of Little Women is simply no match to the 1934 classic. Winona Ryder was pale, uninspiring and unnatural compared to Katharine Hepburn. It is utterly beyond me how Ryder was nominated for an Oscar for her role while Hepburn was not. Maybe this just shows how much movie-acting has degenerated -- after all, the year Ms. Ryder was nominated was the year of Forrest Gump. The four girls in this contemporary version appeared mostly chubby and mellow and looked perfectly like the middle class offsprings from a suburban family of the '90s. They even spoke the accent of the 90s! Except for the music score, it is very hard to identify any part on which the new film improved upon the old one. The supporting roles, played brilliantly by the likes of Edna May Oliver (aunt) and Henry Stephenson (Mr. Laurence) in the old version, were mostly succeeded by bland and uninteresting performances.