Your IP has been blocked. Please perform the action below to regain access.
75.126.130.58-
Customer Reviews
Average Rating:
-
great things in little packages
i am a fortunate person. i had a 2nd grade teacher that turned me on to many of the classics of american literature. but it takes a lifetime to understand what many of these books are about. particularly 'little women'.
but if someone doesn't have a lifetime, then they can get a great adaptation of the material and view it as a film. such is the case with the most recent version of 'little women'.
the screenplay is a living thing, inspiring the musical which recently starred sutton foster on broadway. and the wise decision to not have a grown actress play amy as a child is even more fortunate. this role is split between kirsten dunst and samantha mathis and both are admirable. as are mary wickes as GREAT-aunt march and susan sarandon as the most warm and maternal abigail march of the many versions.
trini alvarado and winona ryder are both effective as meg and jo. in past versions, meg has always been a ravishing beauty (frances dee or janet leigh in particular) but alvarado makes more of the role by investing qualities of composure in her performance. ryder, while not as striking as katharine hepburn or brusque as june allyson, is still a capable and enchanting jo.
but the real movie-making performance is claire danes' beth. she and gilian armstrong keep beth ever present, even when the character is at her lowest ebb. i can't stop my eyes from filling with tears when she joins her family for christmas. and her final moments are once again enriched by that wonderful adapation of the novel's words. danes, in fact, is the only one of the young actresses that attempts a new-england accent.
my only criticism, on that note, is pronunciation of one word. marmee. the 'r' sound is like an 'h' if a person lives in new england. even to this day. it would be mah-mee. mah-mee. get it?
Rating: 
-
Although it Doesn't Follow the Book...
I love this movie; it's a classic in my household. Although it doesn't follow the book, it is a very good movie for all families and people to enjoy.
Rating: -
What's with all the harsh criticism??
Don't listen to people who criticize this film for all the "overt" feminist overtones. First of all, SINCE WHEN IS THAT A BAD THING? One of the underlying problems many young readers have with the novel is its cozy acceptance of the Angel in the House doctrine. But secondly, it is NOT completely out of spirit with the book. Alcott was herself a proponent of women's rights. She wrote the novel to make money, and was pressured by her publishers to tack on Part II (and further novels, like "Little Men"). Furthermore, many critics can EASILY pick out 19th century pro-feminist movement (a.k.a. New Woman) thoughts and episodes in the book. Jo's very character is very New Woman. The fact that the girls can only express themselves artistically whilst posing as men says a great deal about what Alcott is trying to express to us, in the guise of a "safe" novel for young female readers.
The film is simply excellent. The acting is fantastic; four actors playing the March sisters do a tremendous job, and Bale as Laurie is perfect. Even the Professor is made more likable! The film politely leaves off the fact that Jo is going to open a school for BOYS. I was appreciative of the decision; it seems to chip away at her character in the book.
Rating: -
love it
I LOVE this version of the movie, watch it at least 3 times every Christmas....a keeper for sure.
Rating: 
-
Solid
Okay, it's a bit schmaltzy, and steeped in our modern views--some of which Alcott shared, but couldn't print--but it's a reasonable interpretation of the book. I thought the casting was very good, and Susan Sarandon did a particularly fine job as Marmee. The most outstanding part of this production is that it succeeds in making John Brooke interesting, Professor Bhaer sexy, and the Professor and Jo's romance believable. Much as I enjoy the book, I think Alcott failed on those last points.
