Ketrivie It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

DipitySkillful an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.

ChampDavSlim The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

TxMike I had seen a few bits of this movie on TV recently so decided to get the DVD from my public library.The story is semi-autobiographical and in fact at the end Jo has published her book titled "Little Women". Winona Ryder is the lead character Jo March, one of four sisters. Their dad is still in the military in Civil War times, their mother, played by Susan Sarandon, runs the household.The oldest sister is Trini Alvarado as Meg March, 11-yr-old Kirsten Dunst is Amy March. Claire Danes , still a teenager, is Beth March. The neighbor friend is Christian Bale , about 19 or 20, as Laurie.It is an epic tale of sorts, the movie does justice to the book.

l_rawjalaurence 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.

piedbeauty37 I read "Little Women" many times growing up. It is a wonderful book with memorable characters and great writing. It has been made into a movie three times. The first time, Jo was played by Kathryn Hepburn, the second time she was played by June Allyson, and this third time, she is played by Wonona Ryder.This is the story of the four March sisters who are growing up in Concord, Massachusetts. Their father is away serving the North in the War of the States. The family has undergone the hardship of losing their former money and must now struggle to maintain their genteel lifestyle.Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy become so real that they leap out at you from the book and on the screen.Their various mishaps and adventures are well done, touching and at times hilarious.Each sister has her distinctive personality, but it is Jo who is the real star. She is Louisa May Alcott's, the author, alter ego.Winona does a credible job playing her. A young Christian Bale plays Laurie, the boy next store.This is a beautiful movie which the entire family will enjoy especially at Christmas.

bluebwings As a movie I find it to be sub-par as compared to the 1949 version. I'm torn, I do not want to rate it purely as a comparison but having been so familiar with the second version I can't entirely help it. Being honest with myself, were this the first time I was watching "Little Women" and this was the first version to be introduced to it I'd have stopped watching or completely lost interest. It was choppy, the acting didn't carry through all too well and it just seemed to be trying too hard to stick to a novel. Because of this I suspect it may be closer in accuracy to the novel than the '49 version. For that reason I am now interested in reading the novel that much more. Ryder did not play as strong a Jo as I found June Allyson did. Claire Danes was not a very warm and loving Beth nor was she very memorable a character as the '49 carried. I now simply must see the '33 version to compare as it is considered even better than the '49 version.