Recensioni degli utenti

I found this to be one of those "haunting" films that has stayed with me. Suzy Amis' performance has stuck with me since I first saw this movie in 1994.

As for the story, yes it's hard to believe that no one would notice a "man" who never had any facial hair, whose voice was fairly high and had such narrow shoulders but despite the unrealistic premise, it's a good story that keeps your attention all the way without the need for action (although there is some.)

Amis does transform her looks from a fairly pretty woman to someone that looks like a frail 17-year-old boy. David Chung, who plays her Asian friend (well, more than that) also is very good and Bo Hopkins also has a strong contribution as the neighbor.

But this movie belongs to Amis all the way and just the painful looks on her face alone are memorable enough for me. What a haunting, sad look! Thus, it is not a happy story, but it's powerful one and worth seeing. Worth hearing, too, with some nice guitar work for the soundtrack.

If you are looking for a western that has a different angle, this certainly qualifies.

This is a non-action-oriented Western about a woman who, for years, masquerades as a man. At the beginning of the film, she is thrown out by her father after she gives birth to an illegitimate child, so she travels west. However, along the way, she is attacked and decides to disguise herself as a guy so she'll be left alone. While this might be seen as a strongly feminist or gay-positive movie (featuring a very alternative lifestyle, indeed), the movie did not seem preachy or agenda-driven. Instead, it is a smart film that takes a very slow and leisurely pace to the ultimate conclusion. I would have preferred the pace and mood to perhaps be a little less somber, but considering how intelligent the film was, I will certainly forgive this.

Particular standouts are Suzy Amis as Jo and Bo Hopkins. I always felt that Hopkins was a bit of a light-weight (particularly considering the parts in the 1970s), but he proves himself to be an excellent actor. It's a real shame neither of these actors got much work after the film debuted--they certainly deserved it.

This is a great western that is hardly even known. It's directed by Maggie Greenwald and stars Suzy Amis as a woman in a rich family who is kicked out after she has a kid out of wedlock and she decides to go west. Amis knows she isn't going to survive as a woman because on the first night she is almost raped by two soldiers and barely escapes. So Amis decides to dress as a man and then makes a big cut on her face so it will leave a scar. Amis winds up staying in a mining town and the people believe she's man. Ian McKellen is a man who takes Amis in and shows her the ropes but he can get pretty violent when he's drunk. Amis doesn't stay with him long and winds up buying a place away from town so she can have her privacy. It's a great movie and i can't see why it isn't more well known.

This is an incredible movie. It is one of the most visually beautiful films I have ever seen. The landscape is so gorgeous -- snowy mountains, vast plains, rolling hills -- just incredible. The story is very interesting. It is based on the true tale of a woman who went out west in the 1800s, and dressed and passed as a man. This film explores issues of sexism, racism, belonging, individuality, and isolation. I recommend it highly.

Viewers looking for a classic western risk to be disappointed by this movie. It's not that shotgun duels are missing completely, but this film is not about shotgun duels. Most disappointed will certainly be action movies fans if they happen to see this film, as the pace is slow and the emphasize is on something else. Director Maggie Greenwald focused here on the life of women in the West, and on the possibility of leading an alternative style of life during that period.

The result is a different type of movie, different in subject, style and pace than you would expect. The title says it all maybe, the film is a ballad in the sense that it focuses on the hero - in this case a woman thrown out from her Eastern rich environment, running away, and choosing to live all her life in disguise as a man. Was this possible? Probably so, as the film is said to be inspired by a true story.

There is some fine acting especially from Suzy Amis which sustains the film, and also a very closely and carefully rendition of details of the day-to-day life in the epoch. However this is not enough to maintain interest for the full duration of the two hours, some of the characters seem too remote and too hard to read missing the chance to involve the viewer in becoming interested in their destinies. Maybe the director kept intentionally the distance and did not want to reveal too much of their secrets, same as the folks around Little Jo did not push too much to be able to understand her real secret. The result is that a film which could shock and involve by presenting the continuity of the harsh realities of the status of women and other minorities all over the American history fails to do so completely.

It is still worth watching, especially as the end brings at least part of that dose of sharpness and weirdness missing in much of the rest of the movie. I am however wondering where talents like director Maggie Greenwald and actress Suzy Amis disappeared in the fifteen years that passed since this film was released.

I'm sure that is *is* possible for a woman to pass as a man - given a masculine enough face and mannerisms, but... I can't help thinking that this movie would have been better starring a man as a woman pretending to be a man. At least then the viewers wouldn't have had to suspend their belief for two hours while the 'awful' truth unfolded in front of dozens of men who couldn't tell the difference 'twixt girl and boy. Suzi's acting is good, but the others don't really contribute much; they seem unimpressed with the plot... and I have to admit, there wasn't much of one. The detail and the stark reality of the period are well captured, though; the cold, the rain, the emptiness and loneliness of the hills and the stark wild west; the barbarity, stupidity and selfish race and sex discrimination were well portrayed in the direction and dialogue.

Upon giving birth out of wedlock, a young woman named "Josephine Monaghan" (Suzy Amis) is forced to leave her parent's home and--after giving her son to her sister--heads out west to start a new life as best she can. Unfortunately, she soon discovers that making ends meet as a single, young female in this particularly brutal environment is almost impossible. So in order to protect herself and avoid being sexually assaulted she puts on male clothing and poses as a young cowboy named "Little Jo" with her final destination being at an isolated mining camp where the people are too busy with their own concerns to pay much notice to her. The problem is that each day she is faced with the possibility of being discovered and for that reason she has to be on her guard at all times. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this was an entertaining film which was actually based on a true story. Admittedly, although I liked the performance of Suzy Amis, there were some scenes which were a bit difficult to fully believe. But then, according to the real-life story there were several people who suspected Jo Monaghan was female but went about their lives all the same. So perhaps having Suzy Amis in this particular role it isn't so unbelievable after all. One thing I didn't like, however, was the ending which seemed rather unseemly to me but again, perhaps that is also more in tune with history as well. In any case, despite my disbelief on certain issues, I liked this film for the most part and have rated it accordingly.

To say that there is nothing positive about "The Ballad of Little Jo" may be a bit harsh – so, in reality – there is ABSOLUTELY nothing positive about "The Ballad of Little Jo". Some will argue that Suzy Amis "delivers an outstanding performance as a woman passing as a man", but this viewer found it unbelievable and chaotic. Why was a scar needed to disguise her face? Why didn't the photographer take her back? What caused Josephine's father to react the way that he did? In a barrage of flashbacks, we get this feeble story of how Jo came to the decision to transform her image. Opening the door to the most incomplete scenes of the film, director Maggie Greenwald treaded lightly, giving us mere glimpses of her past instead of what should have been nightmarish remembrances. The sound of her father's angry voice should have been repeated throughout the film, giving us a sense that Jo struggled with this throughout her life – but instead – they faded in an out continuously, giving us only short times to remember the truth before it was forgotten again. The largest complaint with all the characters is that none of them push the question of "why?" Why did Jo leave her child? Why didn't she just stay in a nearby neighborhood back east? Why did she happen to "friend" nearly every person that she met? Why didn't Jo have any enemies? Where was the conflict among the characters, and to say that she had conflict with Ian McKellen's character or Bo Hopkins, would be rubbish. She lived, like this film, randomly and transformed this film from pushing the sexual envelope to merely a documentary. "The Ballad of Little Jo" had no message, simply demonstrating to us that if you wanted to escape, fool those who cared, and forget about the past – it was possible.

Suzy Amis was a major contributor to the downfall of the film, but the same blame can be placed on Mr. McKellen who left us more confused and bewildered with each tangent step. Why did Jo befriend him? What was his dark secret? While he was essential to Jo understanding the ways of "man", he seemed more like filler than influence. With no understanding of his motives, we are left with simply a shell of a character. That could be said for everyone – shells with no life. As we come full circle, another finger could be pointed at director Maggie Greenwald. What was her purpose with this film? Was it to critique gender roles throughout history or strike a chord with women's rights? The message, like this film, is unclear. She balanced uneven narratives with panoramic widescreen shots of the open land. In one instance she introduced a new family to the characters, a group of foreign settlers staking their claim, and instead of developing a bond between Jo and these less influential characters, we are left with just a handful of moments that lead to an non-climactic moment. Forced tears are constantly a staple of Greenwald's shots, but those man-made rivers go nowhere. Tears were shed for this family, but without purpose the audience feels cheated and misplaced. Greenwald is your average director, never quite reaching her full potential, while never slipping below the "I learned this in Directing 101" line.

Sloppy acting coupled with sloppy direction, my critique of there being nothing positive to say about this film stays firmly in place. As I recall moments of this film, with the direction and acting firmly traveling a corrupt path, the two subsequently hurt the tone and pacing of the film. Greenwald took liberties in the simplicity it was to transform one's self into a man. Jo seemed to accomplish this feat in a mere matter of hours, and with no acting, was easily able to slip into the role. This leads us to the ending, which (without giving any parts away), is a disaster because we work ourselves up for two hours, questioning Jo's every move that may consequently stumble upon the truth, only to get our wind let out as nothing happens to bring Jo full circle. Realism? One could argue that this was simply a ploy to end a train-wreck of a film, but with Greenwald behind the camera, anything is possible. This was a waste of two hours, not even those hoping to say, "…sexual questioning was alive during the settlements", would be fooled by this one. It is a cheap biography that fails to give us an accurate depiction of a brave heroine.

Overall, if you haven't already guessed it, I cannot support this film with any part of my body. My heart hoped this would have been a darker film with more attention spent on the horror of man towards women, or at least a film about the struggling voice of a woman, but instead it was a shady film about one woman's ability to cower away from responsibility (she should have fought for her son) and trick everyone around her. It was neither a sad film nor a persuasive film, as the moments of emotion were forced by Greenwald's camera and desire to build a "pretty" frame. The characters suffered from missing souls, and the question of "why" suffered from not being asked enough. Amis, Hopkins, and McKellen were atrocious in their respective roles as they never quite understood the period they resided. "Ballad of Little Jo" was missing important elements like style, themes, reality, and cohesiveness. While I was hoping it wouldn't be another "Brokeback Mountain", I was at least hoping for purpose, reason, or point, but found nothing but the truth that women could easily hide from men if randomly excommunicated from their families. This was an embarrassment of a film, and a disappointment for those hoping for a clear, concise message about sexuality. Skip this one – unless you like unbiased, unchallenging biographies.

Grade: * out of *****

I've been waiting to see this film ever since it premiered in 1993, but only a couple of days ago I finally got a chance to see it on TV. It was well worth the wait, although I would have loved to have seen it on big screen instead. First of all, Suzy Amis who I think has repeatedly been miscast and generally far too unappreciated as an actress does a brilliant, intuitive job in the lead role. Her transformation from Josephine to Jo is touching and believable, and her performance all through the film maintains the very same characteristics. She avoids the trap of being a mere male imitation and instead builds her own tough concept of what constitutes a true man of honor living in the middle of the rough wilderness. Director Greenwald lets her story flow beautifully in its own calm pace; she makes Jo's expressive face the very core of this remarkable film - that's where all starts and, finally, ends. Film's gorgeous landscapes and panorama may take your breath away as well, but it's really the director's ability to understand Jo Monaghan's incredible life story that makes The Ballad of Little Jo such a magnificent experience.

I remember reading the review in the paper, and thinking that the movie might be worth seeing the one time. I rented it and loved and then once I got my video collection up and running, it was one of the first movies I bought. Suzy Amis is outstanding as Jo and does an excellent job at first portraying the out of her element woman, and gradually over the film does a fine job of conveying the woman who lives a hard life as a man.

I liked the movie. I found the story quite amusing and inspiring. I thought the acting was great too. I really think Suzie did a great job of portraying a woman trying to survive in a man's world. I enjoyed the perspective that it gave the viewer as to the expectations of gender roles. I loved the reactions of the towns' people when the truth was discovered, ranging from amused to outraged. All in all, I was very impressed by the whole story and the way it was portrayed by the actresses and actors in this film. I would recommend it.

Driven to despair by the summer offerings on TV, I thought I had run out of options one night until I came across this gem on the Independent Film Channel. It's one of those films I probably wouldn't have walked around the block to see when (if?) it was in release. Don't listen to the nay-sayers, everything works in this movie. It reminded me a little of McCabe and Mrs. Miller in it's presentation and pace. Just sit back, power down, and enjoy.

I remember watching Suzy Amis in The Usual Suspects and several other films. She is perfectly casted in the main part of the picture. An outcast by her Eastern family she tries to live out West. Facing hardships going West, she buy men's clothes and live in a mining town as a man. One of the best portrayal in a movie with a woman standing her ground.

It is really a great movie. Believe it or not, I saw it 6 times in 2 days!

The performance of Suzy Amis and other actors are really excellent, the music and the photographs are excellent too!

I am so exciting to find such a good movie. I feel it unfair that this film hasn't been given enough attention. Again, it is one of the best movies I have ever seen!

Highly recommended. If you're looking for an inspiring film about an inspiring woman, check it out.

I saw this movie years ago on the Lifetime channel. I just happened upon it and decided to watch. I thought it was so well done and thoughtful. I have looked for this movie since then and it has never been shown again. I absolutely loved it and am so glad that I can now watch it online or even own it! So worth watching...you will have empathy for the characters. The ending is the most memorable...just great!! What makes it even better is that it's a true story. Yes, I'm sure some of it is embellished, but the fact that she lived as a man and no one noticed? Incredible! This movie is for all ages...a good family movie.

Cast out of her rich family home for having a child out of marriage, Josephine takes the road in the new west of America. When she is attacked and nearly raped by outlaws she goes into hiding, disguising herself as a man. Jo settles into a small mining town under her new identity but can she keep the charade up?

Based on a true story this film is a reasonably worthy story of one woman's life in the old west as a man. How close to the referenced `true story' this is, is beyond me, but I don't think it was that important as the tale stands up for itself without mattering how true it was. However, the actual delivery of the story here is all a little bit dull for my tastes. The lack of actual story beyond the `woman dressed as man' shows through, and instead we have (probably fictional) episodes from Jo's life – the captions `months later' and `several years later' pop up at random breaking up any sort of narrative flow.

As a result I never really got into the film and it just didn't have a drive to it. The one line summary is worthy enough but it still needed to tell me a story and not just expect me to sit and go `wow, she lived as a man' all the way through the film. Put simply, far too little happened of interest and it all took too long to tell.

The cast is not great and fit with the inconsequentialness of the whole film. Amis is a bit bland in her delivery and her lines sound flat, in fairness she was trying to sound like a man but even still! Her looks are also a problem. Amis is a very pretty woman and it is hard to make her look like someone who could be taken for a man, a less feminine actress would have been a better choice for the role as it would have made it easier for the audience to suspend belief. McKellen is good but all too brief, Hopkins is an enjoyable character but has little to do, Chung is actually quite good and Heather Graham has a fleeting early role.

Overall the story is worth hearing but only as a few page story. As a two hour movie it drags and finds that it doesn't actually have much to say or do after the pitch is delivered. It drags through little scenes and dramas but overall comes out as just a little dull – something more dramatic was required but is sadly absent.

08/16/2018 I suggest that you read the wiki bio of Josephine Monaghan and look at the images before watching this movie. It will make a difference if you do. The movie is perfection and the fact that it's based on a true to life woman makes it all the more special. I loved it and believe that you will too. Keep in mind that this is not a biography so the writer and director have creator license to alter the storyline or any other fact that they see fit. Bon Appetit

This could have been interesting. BUT, why on earth did the casters choose such a beautiful, obviously feminine actrice? It makes a mockery of the story and spoils it. She tries to look out from under her hat to appear less girlie, but let's talk 24/7, not feasible really. They even make 'Jo' behave more like a 'dumb blonde' than should be stereotypically possible. And still no man notices. DUH! Were frontiersmen all stupid, or does Hollywood just expect us to swallow this unbelievable stuff - based on a real story or not. 3/10

i had never heard of this film, and after seeing it wish i hadn't come across it in the video store. the only believable performance was by the always excellent ian mckellan, who breathed life into the woman-hating character he was portraying, although i kept wondering what he was doing in this movie. the lead actress delivered all of her lines in a loud, monotone, stilted voice, reminiscent of junior high school drama class. i had to leave before it was over, but the friend i was with admitted that it got better once you accepted how bad it was and let it wash over you. i never bothered watching the end, her synopsis was probably more entertaining.

I screened this movie in a film class and was horrified by the violence towards women. I am shocked to learn here that it was written and directed by a woman. The acting was horrible and, with the exception of Carrie Snodgrass whom I adore, this movie is a waste of time unless you enjoy watching women portrayed solely as whores and victims of violence. I am now convinced that my film teacher is a sadist. In one of the most disturbing scenes a pimp visits the mining camp with a prostitute who is deaf and dumb. All of the men in the town take turns with her until one of them assaults her because, "she wouldn't put it in her mouth." The prostitute is bleeding from the mouth and is moaning and crying as the man who assaults her (played by a very convincingly digusting Ian McKellan) is bleeding from the crotch of his long underwear. This movie disgusted me over and over.