Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

AutCuddly Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

SnoopyStyle 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.

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.

melsishunney Let me just say that i have never read the book nor seen another adaptation, so this is my first "Little Women" experience... I am a huge fan of period dramas and usually figure that they are going to be soppy and romantic and usually i am correct. Usually.I thought the acting in this movie was great, it was just some of the plot that made this film impossible to enjoy. I am sure in the book things flow a lot nicer than they do in this film..Basically i thought that Laurie and Jo were meant to end up together, and for some reason when he proposes she says no! She says they would fight too much but they didn't fight at all in the movie.. I couldn't understand when they seemed to have such good chemistry. I've come to an understanding that in the book she considers him more as a brother but i only found this out AFTER watching the film and getting mad at her rejection of him.When Jo's love interest is introduced all I could do was shake my head and say "no no no no" There seemed to be no chemistry there compared to what Jo and Laurie had previously.So when they kiss at the end, It all feels wrong.Then finally, when Laurie sees the older Amy and suddenly likes her? how long has actually past since Jo's rejection of him? To me it seemed as though he was on the rebound. Their marriage wasn't romantic at all.. I just didn't feel the romance in this film they way other period films show it. It was disappointing. The rest of the story was fine.But if you're looking for romance watch something like Wives and Daughters or North and South (Gaskell) or something Austen. They are all better than this.