Little Women (Collector's Edition) | Winona Ryder, Gabriel Byrne

Little Women (Collector's Edition) | Winona Ryder, Gabriel Byrne | Excellent interpretation

DVDs:

Little Women (Coll...

	Little Women (Collector's Edition) Winona Ryder, Gabriel Byrne Sony Pictures, 2000 average customer review:based on 194 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

I'll take a little more 'Little Women'.

Truly one of those wonderful films that never gets old; `Little Women' is a delightful movie experience that will find a place in anyone's heart. Winona Ryder delivers a brilliant Oscar nominated performance as Jo March, the most outspoken of the March sisters. The movie focuses mainly on her and her growth over the years as her family suffers during the Civil War. Jo longs to be an author and provide for her family, but her dreams meet opposition along the way. The girls fight, fall in love, fall apart and come back together before the credits roll but nothing ever seems forced, rushed or cluttered.

The cast on the other hand is `cluttered' with young talent, Kirsten Dunst proving that age means nothing when you have natural talent and Claire Danes wonderfully capturing the heart of this film (is it just me or is she probably the BEST onscreen crier in the business!), as well as a young Christian Bale who plays the funny love interest almost as well as he plays the quiet psychopath (this guy truly is talented). Susan Sarandon also co-stars as the girl's mother Abigail (or Marmee). As I said, a truly wonderful film that never tires out, a film I could watch again and again.

for more information click here

Excellent interpretation

I was very impressed by this interpretation of Little Women. While the 1949 version is nearly a word-for-word remake of the 1932 version, this production took a new look at the script and as a result the characters have more depth and the background of events, attitudes, and living conditions is more accurately and thoroughly portrayed.

The Best of the Three Versions

The most interesting thing about the three film versions of "Little Women" is comparing them to each other or comparing each of them to Alcott's book.

What makes them so difficult to choose between is that the casting of the four title characters is the critical element, and each film featured at least one actress whose performance was clearly superior to her character's portrayal in the other two films.

This all star cast would include Jean Parker (Beth) in the 1933 version, Janet Leigh (Meg) in the 1949 version, and Winona Ryder (Jo) in the 1994 version. The 1994 version also had the best Amy, if only because they wisely split the role into a younger Amy (Kirsten Dunst) and an older Amy (Samantha Mathis).

Since Jo is pretty clearly the most important of the four sisters (to the story), the 1994 version gets my nod as the best of the three films. The 1933 version pulls in as a close second as Joan Bennett and Katherine Hepburn are the second best Amy and Jo; and Francis Dee's Meg is as good as Trini Alvarado's. Neither Margaret O'Brien nor Claire Danes come even close to Parker's portrayal of Beth.

The biggest casting problem all the productions had was in the age of the actresses. With the exception of Beth, all three characters must span a five year period. The casting process typically addressed this by selecting older actresses and getting them to play (with varying degrees of success) much (June Allyson was 32 years old) younger versions of themselves during the first half of the film.

At least the 1994 versions managed to get the birth order right. The 1933 version had some problems in this area, as Hepburn was two years older than Dee and Bennett five years older than Parker. While this still causes many Alcott fans to cringe, it is nothing compared to the 1949 version where Allyson was ten years older than Leigh and Elizabeth Taylor was five years older than O'Brien.

Taylor should have played Jo, which would have saved viewers from Allyson's embarrassing portrayal and from Taylor's attempt to pass as a blonde. Few actresses (even in black and white) were less suited to a light hair color. While Taylor's portrayal of Amy is painful, she would have been well suited to the Jo role.

Critics frequently point out that both Hepburn and Allyson were much like Jo in real life, so there is a certain irony that Ryder's portrayal of the character (one so dissimilar to herself) was far superior. But Ryder and Jo have a similar level of intensity so maybe it was not as much a stretch as it seems.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

for more information click here

great movie

I like to watch this whenever in a sentimental mood...plus the acting is superb. Don't miss it.

perfection

This movie captivates from start to end. I find it flawless, extremely well-acted. I will continue to watch it from time to time.

reviews: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, page 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

products you might be interested in