Les quatre filles du Docteur March

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.

There are many, many reasons why I love this version of Little Women. The main one - or at least the most immediate - is the way the film looks. I love the soft lighting, the hair and costumes (I was astounded this year when I bought the DVD to hear on the commentary that Winona Ryder's hair was not her own but a wig! I never would have guessed it at all.) The male characters as much as the females, I do love the period costumes, and I'm impressed by the efforts the wardrobe department made to get everything so accurate. The girls were in impoverished circumstances, so the clothes they wear aren't new and look just as though they've been handed down from one sister to another.

There are a few subtle touches in this film that I sometimes find a bit jarring, such as when Marmee is talking with John Brooke in front of Meg and mentions her disagreement with the idea of women wearing restrictive corsets, but that is really the only bit that I don't feel is quite right, and it is there to demonstrate Marmee's liberal attitude.

I love the way the characters interact, although there perhaps isn't enough demonstration of why Laurie and old Mr. Laurence disagree. Jo and Amy act just like real sisters - they fight and provoke each other into arguments and disputes, and generally have a chance to make little digs at the other. Meg is the pretty - but yet also virtuous - one, and clearly the most socially at ease with the upper classes of the time, for instance reminding Jo "Don't shake hands with people. It isn't the thing any more", and in the end - although she has to wait for a period of time that would seem endless today before marrying the man she loves - she opts for a poorer but obviously happier life. It would be very easy to simply say that Beth is not given anything dramatic or interesting to do, but that is the whole point of her character. She watches those around her do great and exciting things, and there is a sense that she herself is happy with that. Susan Sarandon's Marmee clearly holds this family together - the ideal mother figure, she is comforting, incredibly wise (I wonder if anyone has ever met anyone with all the wisdom she seems to have) and always on hand to encourage her girls in their quest to do as they please.

The male characters are also interesting. John Brooke is stable and compassionate and sensible. Laurie (also known as Teddy just occasionally) can be quite an intense figure and I was amazed to find that Christian Bale was only about twenty when this film was released. It is as interesting to see the changes his personality goes through as it is to see those the girls go through. The Professor is a slightly unorthodox character and yet he complements Jo perfectly.

I have watched this film many, many times now (so many, in fact, that I have sometimes been known to say the lines along with the characters as they say them) and I know I will watch it many more times in the future. It might perhaps be a bit of a holiday film but it's certainly worth watching for the feel-good factor it generates.

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?

"Little Women" is a gem of a movie, encompassing comedy, drama, and romance into one well-made film that is true to Louisa May Alcott's literary classic. It follows the lives of the four March sisters, from the turbulence of youth, the turmoil and romance of adolescence, the joy of love, and the pain of loss. The quality of this movie depends entirely upon the chemistry between the actors, and it accomplished this with success. The film is a vignette of scenes throughout the sisters' lives, showing their relationships with one another and with the people around them.

Winona Ryder is the quintessential Jo, the tomboyish, spirited sister who dreams of becoming an accomplished writer. She brings a refreshingly sweet, human touch to the character, who is as impulsive and headstrong as she is ambitious and loving. Ryder carried the film beautifully, and much of its success is due to her.

Trini Alvarado made a very pretty and convincing Meg, the dependable older sister, although she is not so set on marrying for money as she is in the book. Claire Danes as sweet, selfless Beth, really shone in one heartbreaking scene that is impossible not to cry through. For her performance as the spoiled youngest sister, Amy, the very young Kirsten Dunst showed remarkable potential, and brought humor to the character.

Christian Bale as Laurie was everything the "boy next door" should be: handsome, kind, and charming. His chemistry with Winona Ryder was considerable, and made their friendship very believable. Susan Sarandon played a wonderful Marmee, supportive and loving towards her girls.

Another thing I would recommend is the soundtrack to this movie, composed by Thomas Newman, which has some gorgeous music on it.

10/10

When I saw Little women I noticed I had seen my favourite movie, I could not believe a film where my favourite actors played together in one of the most beautiful stories ever written. Gilliam Armstrong`s adaptation is the best I`ve seen,the performances were incredible, specially, Winona Ryder and Christian Bale. But all of them where great, it also has a wonderful score, one of the most beautiful soundtracks I`ve ever heard, Thomas Newman did an excellent job, the script, made by Robin Swicord,is very loyable to the book by Louisa May Alcott.This film is beautiful in all its aspects, it was excellent the friendship and collaboration between all the actors, and for the first time most of them were played by actors of the same age as their fictional characters. The character of Jo has influenced me a lot, and I adore her, Winona Ryder did the best performance of his career, Christian Bale is the best Laurie I`ve ever seen, he did it great, he was so credible, it is difficult to understand why Jo refuses his marriage proposals, he was her perfect husband. Kirsten Dunst was quite OK like the young Amy, not so well done by the older Amy, played by Samantha Mathis, who loses the joy and the energy of the young one. Eric Stoltz was incredible, although his role is a very supporting one. Gabriel Byrne was the perfect professor Baerh, he was great, he does perfectly a German accent. Susan Sarandon was brilliant like Marmee, and I think Claire Danes does an inolvidable performance, a bit ignored after the movie was realised. Trini Alvarado is excellent like Meg. Not only the performances, but all the team that worked in the movie did a great job, the costumes were beautifully designed, the cinematography was brilliant. at least, what I have to say is that this movie has influenced me a lot, all the characters were lovely , the strength of Jo, her dreams of being a writter(I want to be a writer too), her way of think, her beauty,her power. I feel like if I was Laurie lots of times, Laurie is one of the most lovely male characters in the history of literature. And I think this is possible mostly because of Winona Ryder and Christian Bale. I couldn`t imagine a better couple of actors. An incredible and unforgettable movie.