When I bought my first VCR in the 1980's, the first movie I recorded off TV was the Katherine Hepburn version of of "Little Women." I recorded it to see if I could get the machine to work. It did and I found that the movie was excellent (I was stunned that I could fast forward through the commercials). So I have a warm place in my heart (I'm sure I saw the old one some other time as well) for this film. There have been some pretty good remakes before, but I find this contemporary one to be really good. With an all-star cast, an excellent screenplay, and a beautiful setting, this timeless book is brought to life. I know some people find it sentimental and maudlin, but it's a really fine portrayal of a time. Also, the characters are often talked about as goody-two-shoes. This is far from the truth. The girls have their own personalities and frequently clash in harsh and mean ways. The movie is unpredictable and true to the author. It doesn't follow a formula that it could have. See this if you have not.

"Little Women" is one of those stories that movie makers are drawn to film anew after some time with a cast of modern actors. It probably has been done as many times as any other classic novel. The challenge always seems to be to make as good or better film with better technology for production values; and with a cast that is able to portray the film as believable for the time it takes place. Three TV movies gave the story short shrift, and a fourth was a mini- series with nine episodes of 25 minutes each. But all three of the full length movies for the silver screen in the 20th century are well done. They all have very good production qualities and sets. Each, by itself, is worthy of the novel by Louisa May Alcott. Yet, there are differences. I compared the 1933 and 1949 films in my reviews on them. So, now I match the 1994 version up against the other two films. My review focuses on the story as presented with the cast in the film. How well does this film overall reflect the mannerisms, customs and idiosyncrasies of the time the story takes place – as opposed to the time in which the actors are living? I thought the 1933 and 1949 films were well situated in the time of the novel – the 1860s. But this 1994 film has a modern feel to it. For instance, the pouting and very marked mood and expression changes by Winona Ryder as Jo are how we see people acting, and behaving in real life, at the end of the 20th century. She seems to overact. But people weren't that given to such expressiveness in the mid-19th century. At least not by any means we can tell from novels, studies, family stories and other accounts. In the 1933 film, Katherine Hepburn's Jo seemed forced in her feigning a tomboy by male mannerisms in her play and dialog within the film. But in the 1949 film – without words, we see the tomboy in Jo quite clearly when June Alyson jumps the fence, falls on her face in the snow, and then gets up to go around and jump the fence again – this time without falling. At the same time, Louisa May Alcott wrote her different characters with particular traits. In this 1994 film, we see more of Marmee – here played very well by Susan Sarandon, than in the earlier versions. She seems to be more of a doting mother here. But that is a considerable change from the earlier films. They seem more true to the book and the times. Marmee is gone quite often to care for other needy people – especially Mrs. Hummel and her family. So, the girls are alone more and have somewhat of a responsible nature in being able to do things by themselves in Marmee's absence. The roles of Beth, Laurie, John Brooke, Aunt March and Mr. Laurence especially were all better portrayed by the respective cast members in the 1949 film. So, in general then, this 1994 version of "Little Women" is very good, but is not the best. It comes close to the 1933 film with Katherine Hepburn, Joan Bennett, Henry Stephenson, and Douglas Montgomery . But neither this nor the 1933 film can match the 1949 version with June Allyson, Mary Astor, Margaret O'Brien, Janet Leigh, and C. Aubrey Smith. In my review of the 1949 film, I noted all the roles that I found to be better over the 1933 film. Those differences all stand in comparison to this film as well – although for different reasons in some cases.

Little Women remains one of my all-time favorite films. I first saw it as a child (after having loved the 1949 version) and this film completely opened up the world of the March sisters for me. Not to knock the previous two big screen adaptations, but they don't come close to conveying the happiness, heartbreak, and nostalgia that Little Women of 1994 does. What is so refreshing about this film is the truth and realism of the book. The actresses don't wear makeup, they don't speak in melodramatic tones; the men aren't playboys or Rhett Butlers. The writing and acting feels natural and true to Alcott's novel - which makes the sisters' victories and losses all the more authentic to the viewer. This is a wonderful movie to watch with your family to teach them values of love, friendship, and loyalty.

Let me just say that i have never read the book nor seen another adaptation, so this is my first "Little Women" experience... I am a huge fan of period dramas and usually figure that they are going to be soppy and romantic and usually i am correct. Usually.I thought the acting in this movie was great, it was just some of the plot that made this film impossible to enjoy. I am sure in the book things flow a lot nicer than they do in this film..Basically i thought that Laurie and Jo were meant to end up together, and for some reason when he proposes she says no! She says they would fight too much but they didn't fight at all in the movie.. I couldn't understand when they seemed to have such good chemistry. I've come to an understanding that in the book she considers him more as a brother but i only found this out AFTER watching the film and getting mad at her rejection of him.When Jo's love interest is introduced all I could do was shake my head and say "no no no no" There seemed to be no chemistry there compared to what Jo and Laurie had previously.So when they kiss at the end, It all feels wrong.Then finally, when Laurie sees the older Amy and suddenly likes her? how long has actually past since Jo's rejection of him? To me it seemed as though he was on the rebound. Their marriage wasn't romantic at all.. I just didn't feel the romance in this film they way other period films show it. It was disappointing. The rest of the story was fine.But if you're looking for romance watch something like Wives and Daughters or North and South (Gaskell) or something Austen. They are all better than this.