Amazon.com essential video: The flaws are easily forgiven in this beautiful version of Louisa May Alcott's novel. A stirring look at life in New England during the Civil War, Little Women is a triumph for all involved. We follow one family as they split into the world, ending up with the most independent, the outspoken Jo (Winona Ryder). This time around, the dramatics and conclusions fall into place a little too well, instead of finding life's little accidents along the way. Everyone now looks a bit too cute and oh, so nice. As the matron, Marmee, Susan Sarandon kicks the film into a modern tone, creating a movie alive with a great feminine sprit. Kirsten Dunst (Interview with the Vampire) has another showy role. The young ensemble cast cannot be faulted, with Ryder beginning the movie in a role akin to light comedy and crescendoing to a triumphant end worthy of an Oscar. --Doug Thomas
A Classic for the Whole Family My family of boys and girls loves this family classic. We can sit and watch it anytime and remember that the most important things are under your own roof.
Great Movie It didn't come as fast as it said, but I did receive it and my wife loves the movie.movie.
Excellent Version Of The Classic "Chick Lit" Novel. Very Sentimental & Enjoyable From Beginning To End. I first read the book a few years ago (I've always loved what guys call "Chick Lit"; yes, I'm very sentimental; most guys aren't; they're basically unemotional pigs who think only about sex) and loved it. I love period films anyway. BOOK & MOVIE SPOILER AHEAD!!! I cried when one of the major characters dies. She reminds me very much of my best friend who has always been there for me. The cinematography was absolutely stunning. Winona Ryder (who was excellent in dual roles in Francis Ford Coppola's epic masterpiece "Bram Stoker' Dracula") is equally superb here, with Kirsten Dunst (fresh off her biting debut in "Interview With The Vampire"), Susan Sarandon, Claire Danes, Trini Alvarado, Samantha Mathis, Eric Stoltz, Christian Bale ("Empire Of The Sun," "Henry V"), Gabriel Byrne & Mary Wickes ("Now, Voyager") rounding out the cast. It's a faithful version of the story with absolutely nothing objectionable for family viewing. It received the PG rating for thematic elements (situations involving death). This is the kind of film that Hollywood rarely makes anymore (the seriously underrated classic "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" would be released the following year along with two excellent adaptations of Jane Austen's books: "Sense And Sensibility" & "Emma.") I HIGHLY RECOMMEND ALL those movies.
A good movie, as long as you don't expect it to be like the book... I'd really like to give this movie 3.5 stars because it was flawed yet I did enjoy it. The scenery and costumes were gorgeous and the movie is definitely loaded with plenty of emotion and heartfelt family moments. On top of this, the soundtrack is beautiful and entirely appropriate for the unfolding events.
I will admit that I didn't like this movie much the first time I watched it, and it was definitely something that grew on me. I think this is because the movie was not really an accurate depiction of the book. Other than the overly feministy nature of the movie, I also felt like some of the casting just didn't seem to be quite right. I think the character of Meg was okay because she was physically pretty and was accurately depicted as being somewhat vain (although she could have been more so), and the character of Beth was also accurately depicted as being shy and sickly, however I don't think Claire Danes was physically dainty/fragile enough for the role. As for the other two sisters, I felt like Amy was depicted very well by Kirsten and also by the other actress; she was selfish and wanted to be pampered. The character of Jo is the one I'm most unsure of. While Winona's Jo did have a temper and was a little fiesty, I felt that she could have been fiestier and more tomboy-ish. She also seemed to be a bit too reserved at times as well.
Also, I was a little disappointed with the way character growth was portrayed in this movie; it felt rushed and sporadic, not like character growth should be. For example, Amy starts out as a selfish little girl but becomes a better person as she gets older and we see none of this transition in the movie. One day she's one way, and the next day she's a completely different person. Maybe they should have made the movie longer to do this better and maybe a longer movie would have prevented the omission of certain critical scenes in the book that were left out of the movie (like the first conversation the sisters have which really emphasizes the differences in their personalities).
So overall, I would say this is a good movie if you don't compare or expect it to be too much like the book. Accept that it's different and you just might grow to like it like I did.
Very Accurate Version It's not the A&E Pride and Prejudice version when it comes to accuracy, but the care the screenwriters went to in order to make this true to the book (yet interesting to a film audience in ways that a straight book-film version would not have allowed) is what makes this movie such a masterpiece. The most important and memorable scenes are made dutifully true to Alcott's original, and the actors are almost always believable (older Laurie seems a little forced at times, and that is honestly my only acting complaint).
However, much of the dialogue is very soft, and while I don't remember having this issue the first time I saw the movie (about six years ago), I recently watched it again and found that I was looking at the subtitles a lot since I couldn't hear the full sentence. I am not quite 20, so I think it is less of a problem of my own hearing as it is the fault of track editing.
When I first watched this movie, I was moved to reread the book, and found it much more enjoyable than the first time I read it. After again seeing the movie, I hope to be able to read the book yet again - it just has that effect!
Anything Goes Trivia
Megaton Man
Not Available Comics
Trevor
