Review of Little Women

Little Women (1994)
6/10
Satisfactory version is better than the dated '33 classic...
17 September 2006
WINONA RYDER makes an impressive Jo in Louisa May Alcott's LITTLE WOMEN, tomboyishly charming and persuasive as she matures into a fine young writer. She won a Best Actress nomination, but strangely, her career never took off as strongly as it should have after this success. Except for GIRL INTERRUPTED, she hasn't had a recent string of hits nor has she been as busy at her craft as one would expect.

A good Jo is essential for the story to work, and since everyone else is well cast this is no problem. SUSAN SARANDON does a nice job as Marmee and the priceless MARY WICKES (in one of her last roles) is a formidable Aunt March. Christian BALE (who went on to much better roles in the future) makes a completely acceptable Laurie, and the sisters are well played by KIERSTEN DUNST (especially good as the young Amy), CLAIRE DANES, SAMANTHA MATHIS and TRINI ALVARADO.

Filmed in Canada, there's a genuinely wintry look to the New England landscapes and a warm glow to the interior scenes that is perfectly in keeping with the story. In fact, all of the technical elements are in fine order.

But somehow, it never quite reaches the grandeur of Alcott's beautifully written tale and, for a film based on a classic novel, doesn't linger in the memory as it should when the distance of a few years have passed. It should have been a minor masterpiece, but misses the mark, although it's considerably more worthwhile watching than the sweet George Cukor version with Katharine Hepburn which now seems awfully dated in style and conception.

There are some modern sensibilities written into this LITTLE WOMEN (thanks to Susan Sarandon's observations as the mother) and, in general, it plays more believably than the '33 classic.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed