User reviews

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.

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?

I don't know if I have much to say about this movie, save for two things: First, the much younger version of myself never would have gone near this, and looking back I can understand it and seeing it now as a grown I'd-like-to-think-vaguely-mature person I appreciate it a lot more (though it makes me wish I had a little sister growing up as I'm sure she would've watched it and I imagine not leaving the room). And secondly, the most succinct way I can think to describe what Little Women 1994 is... It's like being wrapped up in your genuinely loving and wholesome grandmother's *quilt, made from all natural fibers. It's warm and comforting and yet it tells some real truths about the world, and if you wake up in it it will still be just as comforting (or to put it another way, it's the best possible version of what I picture Hallmark movies are like, with the major boost of a cast that includes people like Winona Ryder and Eric Stoltz - what a fascinating 1994 those two had in movies - and Christian Bale rocking a goatee just when his character Laurie is at his moodiest).

It's a swell movie to watch with your loved one(s) on a cold almost-winter's night, just as snug as being in the aforementioned quilt.

(*I understand the coincidence or irony or what have you I made that comparison when three of these women went on to be in How to Make an American Quilt the next year)

LITTLE WOMEN is probably one of the novels that has the greatest number of movie adaptations. To date there are 7 movies and 7 TV miniseries based on it, to the point where you actually wonder if they don't get tired of always telling the same story with a different cast. Because of this I was reticent to watch the 1994 adaptation, but after seeing it I thought my fears were unfounded.

With so many versions of the story and so many reviews about this one already, I'll cut to the chase. The acting is great by all. Winona Ryder is top-notch for the role of Jo March as she looks more determinated than June Allyson in the 1949 version, and she also gives one of her most memorable performances of her career. Susan Sarandon is also good as Marmee and Gabriel Byrne and a then-unknown Christian Bale give probably the best portrayals of their characters. The soundtrack is very good and the cinematography is also very warm despite the film is set in winter.

If you are looking for the best version of LITTLE WOMEN, try this one as I think that it manages to be sweet without eventually making the viewer fall asleep or feel saccharine.

Along with the 2017 miniseries, this is the best film version of this classic tale.

Ryder totally owns the screen, and the character of Jo, and Bale brightens every scene he's in with warmth and truth.

This was by far the best movie or TV version of "Little Women" I have seen. (The BBC production, available on videotape, is also interesting, mainly in that the actress who played Jo was really plain looking, resembling Louisa May Alcott more than any other actress in the other productions.) However, my main complaint with the Gillian Armstrong production was that it couldn't decide if it wanted to tell Jo's story or Louisa May Alcott's story. The latter part of the film, where Jo writes the book "Little Women" and talks with Prof. Baer about "transcendentalism" is Louisa May's story, not Jo's. And the life of Louisa May Alcott is a wonderful story in itself, worthy of an original movie, about life with her quirky father and their residence in the experimental community Fruitlands, relationships with her literary neighbors in Concord, service as a nurse in the Civil War, and her writing career--which involved much more than children's books. Written on 7/3/02

This film is made by Winona Ryder, Susan Sarandon and Christian Bale. All the cast play valuable roles and the acting is sincere. I knew of the story "Little Women" as a child but I cannot remember ever seeing a production of it or reading the book! It is a lovely story, happy, sad, somewhat predictable but not everything turns out as you expect. I enjoyed every minute of it.

This has to be my favorite adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's classic novel. Gillian Armstrong does such an amazing job at directing, and Colleen Atwood's costume design is exquisite (very true to the individual characters and the time period in America of that time).

The actors are also perfectly cast in their roles! Winona Ryder is a real standout as Jo, likewise Kirsten Dunst really embodies Amy (at age 12) in the start of the film. Even Trini Alvarado and Claire Danes are excellent in the roles of Meg and Beth March. Plus, Samantha Mathis even embodies young adult Amy March well, in the second half of the film, with her mature, debutante presence.

Even though some people criticized some of the anachronistic aspects of the film, I personally liked the cute scene of Jo, Beth, and Amy playing in the snow with Laurie, since I felt that it really brought a lot of life in the film. Plus while Susan Sarandon's Marmee may have been slightly different from the other versions of said character (if not a bit too liberal for the Victorian era), she still embodied the kind motherly spirit that Marmee always had.

This 1994 adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's evergreen classic novel is a valiant and very workman-like effort that tries very hard to match the quality of the great 1933 production.

Obviously technical aspects of this most recent version leave the old war horse in the dust, especially in the sound and editing departments. Although the new film doesn't obliterate memories of the wonderful art direction and costume design of the early "talkie" , it does a remarkable job of recreating the look of post Civil War New England, with meticulous attention to detail. As with the 1949 effort, this one is in color, and as photographed by Geoffrey Simpson it is by far the most ravishing "Little Women" to look at. Imagine a hand-tinted Christmas card circa mid 1800s and you'll have some idea of the visual beauty this film offers the viewer. As the story of "Marmee" March ( Susan Sarandon ) and her four spirited daughters unfolds, the screen is brilliantly awash with each successive season, winter and spring being most memorable. The Currier and Ives facade of the old sound film is magnified tenfold here. A note on the acting :

Katherine Hepburn's Jo March dominated the '33 movie to such an extent that she nearly overwhelmed some excellent supporting performances; a lot of this was due to her unusual mien [ lovely but far from the "standard look" of the era ] and Bryn Mawr educated diction. The new picture boasts two outstanding portrayals : Winona Ryder's Jo is a luminous creation, less tomboyish and more introspective than Hepburn's characterization. Jo's thunder is nearly stolen by Claire Dane's brilliant interpretation of the kind hearted, sickly Beth. My one gripe is the tad too cute acting of the angelic looking Kirsten Dunst as the younger Amy ; It's a respectable performance but it suffers at times from a tendency to ape the precious mannerisms of the 40's child actress Margaret O'Brien [ who ironically played the older Beth in the '49 release! ]. Australian director Gillian Armstrong has gained a solid reputation for eliciting strong female performances in her collective work, much like George Cukor [1933's director] achieved with his films. Is this new LITTLE WOMEN one for the ages? I think the Hepburn version still reigns, but the new film is an earnest and worthy effort ; it should endure.

Stepping nicely into the big shoes of Katharine Hepburn and June Alllyson, Winona Ryder heads a cast for another generation of Little Women as Louisa May Alcott's novel shows it still has a universal appeal.

Winona Ryder is Jo March and while we don't hear as many Christopher Columbuses out of her as we did with Hepburn and Allyson she dos get her ahead of her times feminist point of view across. The other March sisters are Kirsten Dunst and Samantha Mathis as Amy March, Trini Alvarado as Meg and claire Danes as Beth. Their mom is Susan Sarandon and Mary Wickes is their tyrannical great aunt.

Little Women paints a wonderful picture of Civil War era New England. People back in those days backed up their talk with action and the father who was anti-slavery has gone to war for that cause. The March women believe just as fervently in the cause as their husband and father and Susan Sarandon does her best to keep body and soul together. Mary Wickes's aid is appreciated but she's quite an old tyrant domestically.

In the novel the men take distinctly second place. But accolades can be given to Christian Bale for playing the local hunk next door that all the March girls have an eye for. Also Gabriel Byrne as the foreign tutor who opens up a lot of the world especially for Ryder.

Little Women got Oscar nominations for Costume Design and Musical Scoring and Winona Ryder got a Best Actress nomination., but she lost to Jessica Lange for Blue Sky.

This version can certainly stand up to Little Women of generations past.

I absolutely loved watching this and taking it all in without feeling compelled to compare it to other versions because this is the first one I have seen. The relationships between the March family and the people who come into their lives are convincing and real. If I were to have any qualms about this movie it would probably be that it didn't feel clear to me which character Samantha Mathis was playing until later when I had realised she was indeed an older Amy. The casting choice was perhaps the problem, four years later in the storyline Amy would have been a lady of society so about sixteen but she looks the same age as Jo. I later found out that Samantha Mathis is actually much older than is implied of her character, in fact much older than Winona and Claire and that makes it confusing and makes it hard to believe she is supposed to be Amy.

I'm gonna watch Gerwig's Lil Women this Thursday and I always watch the first version of the movie before the adaptation or remake so here we go. The cast is perfect, the setpieces are amazing and the story is heartwarming. Unfortunately, it feels like a mix of other period piece movies that I've seen and doesn't elevate the genre. It is very good and rewatchable so I can say that I'm now excited to watch Gerwig's version and what she has to offer.

Great telling of Louisa May Alcott's classic story.

The story of four sisters - Jo, Meg, Beth and Amy - told through Jo's eyes. From the bitter days of the Civil War until years afterwards, we see them growing up, their lives, dreams, loves and losses.

A wonderful, moving, bitter-sweet story. There is a great sense of family and belonging.

Great performances by an all-star cast (just some of them weren't stars yet): Winona Ryder, Susan Sarandon, Claire Danes (14 years old at the time), Kirsten Dunst (11 years old), Christian Bale, Eric Stoltz and Gabriel Byrne plus Samantha Mathis and Trini Alvarado. Winona Ryder received an Oscar nomination for her performance.

I do, however, prefer the 1949 version a bit more. It felt more earthy and more focused. That could be because I saw it first, thus the plot is less predictable, or because it is older, thus has that rougher, less pristine, feel to it, which helps the sentiment.

This said, the 1994 version is still a great movie.

Viewers expecting a faithful adaptation of Louisa M. Alcott's novel are likely to be disappointed. However Gillian Armstrong's film is a charming piece - beautifully photographed with a strong sense of seasonal change and how the March family react to such changes. The lighting - both natural and artificial - is soft yet atmospheric, the use of music unobtrusive yet significant. Yet Armstrong does not want to produce a heritage film, prompting viewers to admire the historically accurate sets and costumes; on the contrary, her approach remains strongly character-focused, with the attention paid to nuances of performances. Winona Ryder gives perhaps the best performance of her entire career as Jo; her command of gesture and facial expression is impeccable, especially at those moments of extreme disappointment (for example, when she is told that her first book manuscript is actually no good). A young Kirsten Dunst is both childlike yet mature as Amy; someone who wants to act grown-up yet yearns for her father to be around. Susan Sarandon turns in a winning performance as the matriarch of the family; someone who is incredibly fond of her offspring, yet well aware of their individual faults. The ending might be sentimental, but Armstrong is nonetheless well aware of the economic hardships experienced by the March family as they struggle to survive while their father is away fighting. Definitely one of the best classic adaptations to appear during the Nineties.

Overview:

Plot: Excellent

Characters: Excellent

Reasons to Watch: Louisa May Alcott's Greatest treasure was Little Women, even though she declined writing the book at first. This film is a great treasure, beautifully done with an all star cast featuring academy award winner Susan Sarandon, Wynona Ryder, Kirsten Dunst, Claire Danes and Christian Bale.

Basic Plot: During Civil War America, Abigail "Marmee" March (Sarandon) and her four Daughters, Passionate Meg (Trini Alvarado), Spirited writer Jo (Ryder), fragile musician Beth (Danes) and Romantic artist Amy (Dunst and Samantha Mathis) try to get by while learning the lessons of life's agony and love's magic.

Favorite Character: Jo (Wynona Ryder), because she is an independent writer who is never afraid to speak her mind.

10/10. Beautiful, touching and merry, Little Women is a triumph to all.

This film is, without a doubt, gorgeous. Gillian Armstrong does an amazing job. Everything is so detailed and bright and colorful. There are wonderful moments when the camera does a close-up shot of a pair of hands shaking sugar powder over a cake ... or of red rose petals being spread over a row of worn dolls. These are very little, but memorable moments.

I've read the Little Women series several times - before and after seeing this movie. I've also seen two other film versions; this one is really a superb adaptation of Little Women and Good Wives. It's also modernized (and pretty much de-Christianized) but in keeping with the original sentiment of the novels.

This is one of those movies that I watch and ... as the minutes pass I dread arriving at the conclusion. I just want it to go on and on.

Kirsten Dunst, Susan Sarandon and Christian Bale are really the stand outs in this picture. Christian Bale is the absolute best Laurie imaginable. His proposal scene to Jo ("I'll let you win every argument") is great. Kirsten Dunst is perfect as the spoiled, self-absorbed (but still sweet and lovable) youngest March sister. Every time I see this movie I want Susan Sarandon to be MY mother. She is just like Marmee in the book.

Winona Ryder as Jo is, of course, the central character - and she plays her well, but I found it a little hard to accept her because she is nothing like the Jo in the book. I mean, Jo wasn't really supposed to be so pretty and petite as Winona Ryder. One of the reasons Jo is such an enduring and beloved character is the very fact that she WAS an ordinary-looking girl - but she had an extraordinary spirit. Thousands upon thousands of girls could relate to her.

By casting Winona Ryder it felt silly to hear her say things like "I'm ugly." If she was supposed to be ugly, what about the rest of us? Well, in any case, I can forgive that because Ryder really does do a good job and the rest of the casting (except for the somewhat distant Samantha Mathis) was right-on.

All in all, the movie is great family entertainment. It's a nice portrayal of old-fashioned feminism, and the bonds of family (especially sisterhood). Maybe it won't strike such a strong chord with the male sector but I haven't met a woman yet who didn't love it.

Louisa May Alcott's famous novel is not only a beloved American classic but is also well-known in Britain, so I need not repeat the plot here. Suffice it to say that it concerns the adventures of four sisters growing up in a small New England town during the Civil War, in which their father is fighting. It has been filmed several times; the first two versions, both dating from the silent era, are now lost, and I have never seen the 1933 version with Katharine Hepburn. I am, however, familiar with the other three- this one, the 1949 version with June Allyson and Elizabeth Taylor and Greta Gerwig's recent take on the story.

Those other two films have their virtues, but in each case they those virtues are outweighed, or nearly so, by equally prominent defects. Mervyn LeRoy's film from 1949 suffers from some eccentric casting, particularly that of the 32-year-old Allyson as Jo, a girl of around half that age. (The teenage Taylor is also unconvincing as Amy, a child in the early part of the novel). As for Gerwig's version, there is some decent acting, but the film is spoilt by an extreme form of non-linear narrative which makes it difficult to follow. It must be the only version of "Little Women" where Beth appears to come back from the dead, at least once and possibly twice.

Armstrong, by contrast, is content to tell her tale simply, and she obtains some very good acting performances from her stars. There is not enough space here to single them all out, but the best in my view came from the lovely Winona Ryder as Jo, perhaps rather more fragile than the character is normally played, but nevertheless still passionate and determined. Mention should also go to Susan Sarandon as the girls' mother Marmee, Christian Bale as Jo's suitor Laurie, Trini Alvarado (an actress I have not heard much of since) as Meg and Gabriel Byrne as Friedrich Bhaer, the German professor with whom Jo falls in love. In the original novel Friedrich is considerably older than Jo, but in Gerwig's film he became a young man of around the same age, more undergrad than professor. There was, apparently, talk of doing something similar here, with Hugh Grant as a possible candidate, but the producers decided to stick with the book, and I think that decision paid off.

The visual look of the film is essentially that of the "heritage cinema" movement, albeit more muted and restrained than many films in that style, possibly to emphasise that the March family are not particularly wealthy. As with the 1949 film the predominant colours are dark greens and reds, possibly because these colours were felt to be particularly appropriate to Christmas, the season during which much of the action in the first half takes place. Here in Britain the film is, in fact, often shown on television during the Christmas season; it seems to be on the way to becoming a beloved classic in its own right. Gillian Armstrong's film is by a considerable margin in my view the best of the three versions I know, the one which best conveys the emotional power of Alcott's storytelling. 8/10.

This version is as close to perfect as it gets. The costumes, the sets, the acting. It's all so charming and warm and feels completely realistic and alive. Watching this is like cuddling up in a warm blanket on a cold night. It's been a comfort film for years and will remain so for me.

That delights, maintains the fidelity of the work, which, because they have been published in several editions, cannot portray details and some omitted facts, but the essential one is there, and it is fantastic... These determined little women are fantastic... We love...

I bought my mum this film for Christmas as I remember loving it as a young girl 10 or more years ago and wondering which March girl I would grow up to be most like- I was a hopeless romantic like young Amy but envied Meg's grace, Beth's serenity and Jo's zest for life. It's interesting watching it again and being able to appreciate fully the vivid characters and relationships and fabulous screen play. Now I'm 22 and relate to the girls from a new perspective but with just as much empathy and adoration. I'm so glad i sought this film out again. A lovely, heartwarming film for all the family with great acting by some of today's leading names. Only criticism is that I found the ending a little abrupt but overall, much enjoyed.

This is the third movie version of Little Women that I've seen and it does nothing to break the Hollyood rule – re-makes are never as good! True, this is a decent, watchable and engaging movie. Gillian Armstrong has made a touching, well cast version of the story with Winona Ryder really snapping up the chance to shine as Jo. Nice under-playing by Susan Sarandon, and it's great to see Mary Wickes still going strong. But the fact is that George Cukor did it best of all back in 1933. Of course, he did have an unfair advantage – HIS leading lady was Katharine Hepburn . ..