This is overall an enjoyable and fairly faithful adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's well-loved book, but it, like the other filmed versions, has its problems. I wish, for instance, that they hadn't chosen to combine Alcott's first two books about the March family into one film. This results in many small but enjoyable scenes being cut or compressed, and some characters (Laurie's grandfather, for instance) all but ignored. Moreover, the second book, Good Wives, is more uneven and less enjoyable than Little Women--too sprawling and pat--which drags the second half of the film down. Generally the performances are quite good. I like Winona Ryder's fiestiness and humour as Jo, although I feel that she was physically a little too pretty and delicate. Claire Danes was a disappointment, although she's usually very reliable. Her Beth was properly shy, but not soft and capable as she should be. Her retincence seemed almost like a mental handicap. Trini Alvarado was great as Meg, she really seemed like a product of that era, and Kirsten Dunst had Amy pretty much down pat. Samantha Mathis, playing the older Amy was all wrong though, too old to be only four years older (she looked older than Ryder) and far, far too stilted. Gabriel Byrne's professor was the perfect antidote to Christian Bale's Laurie, too. It was easy to see why Jo would choose The Professor...but then I'd take Gabriel Byrne over just about anyone.
Little women was a great movie to watch and a great lesson about a families love and each and every person is different. It was mostly about Joe's life and how just because she was more adventurous then the other girls i irl. She loved to write and explore the world herself. She did things that made her wonder t caused her life to be a bit more confusing. It is set in the early 1900's so they believed girls were suppose to stay home and be a house wife. Joe was not that kind of g about herself. She was a loving and caring sister who would do anything for her family. Family was the one thing she was sure about. It took a lot of heartbreak and life experiences to teach this girl what life was really about. After her two sisters got married and she inherited a house to big for herself, she realized she too had to start looking forward to life. Joe was also a wonderful writer. She dreamed of writing a novel and she never could get her dream accomplished. She finally started remembering her childhood and the perfect novel came to her. I recommend this movie to anyone interested in movies about life in the early 1900's and who enjoy a warm-heart movie about family. This movie is great for a school lesson or a family movie. It makes you laugh it makes you cry and even makes you mad at a few things.
When remaking a classic and staying within the time period that the novel was written in, the film makers should stay within the author's intentions as well. Now had they updated the movie and changed it to a more modern time period, then I would understand the undertones of feminism or activism so prevalent, but in my opinion, it's not completely appropriate in this version. Costuming was great, the "look" of the movie was dead-on and spectacular. It was the over-tones of feminisism I take issue with. Sure the March family is "ahead of it's time" and "different." The movie expertly captures that on the screen. But some of the speeches didn't ring true to the original. Once again, had they updated the tale to a more modern time period I would have believed it more having read the novel and knowing the characters and their intentions. Casting was great. Some reviewers had a problem with the actresses who played the roles of both Amy and Beth. Well, I tend to agree. Kristen Dunst did a great job portraying Beth, but she was too tall for the part! That is OK for stage and you can get past such minor annoyances, but on the big screen it is hard to get around visual appearances. Dunst did a great acting job though, her Beth made me cry harder than all the rest of them. Very believable and heart renching. The dual-Amy bit was irritating. One actress would have been preferable over splitting it between two actresses. It changed the mood terribly but didn't ruin the movie. Jo March is one of the best characters in literature and she is brought to life beautifully by Winona Ryder. What plum role, what an amazing actress. Over all, I loved the movie. It is a perfect holiday movie to watch with the family and enjoy again and again.
Having seen all versions of the movie and having loved the book, I would have given this a higher rating except that the mis-casting of Clare Danes really spoiled this movie for me. I thought Winona Ryder did a credible job and comparisons with Katherine Hepburn and June Allyson would be inevitable. Susan Sarandon was good as the mother too. But, who in the world cast Clare Danes as Beth! She's too big, too tall, there's nothing frail about her. In one scene where she is laying in bed, her legs and ankles look like giant Sequoias. Her acting is nothing to brag about either. If another version is made, please read the book and the descriptions of the characters.
D'après un commentaire précédent disant que ce DVD n'est pas doublé en français, je vous confirme qu'il n'est vraiment pas doublé en français. Serait-il possible de corriger cela sur le site? Toute la famille adore ce film et j'aurais aimé l'avoir en Original.