Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Winona Ryder seemed to have scored a major coup by having her name appear above the title of the picture during the opening credits. Granted, she already had a pretty good body of work behind her, but there were quite a few significant members of the cast in this picture. It's true that at a certain point, her character Jo March takes center stage in this tale of four sisters growing up during, and following the Civil War era. She did a credible job, though the film and story were greatly enhanced by the gorgeous camera work by cinematographer Geoffrey Simpson. I have no quarrel with the movie per se, but as a male senior citizen, there's not much I was able to relate to regarding the story. Based on the novel by Louisa May Alcott, it's fairly transparent that the author is represented by Ryder's character in this largely autobiographical story. It follows the fortunes of the four March sisters on their way to maturity and adulthood along with the attendant rituals of courtship and marriage that they experience, save for young Beth (Claire Danes) who succumbed to the ravages of scarlet fever. Reading several of the reviews on this board, there seems to be a dichotomy between those who feel the movie followed the novel fairly closely and those who thought it did a terrible job. Not having real Alcott's novel, I'd have to leave that impression to each viewer to decide.

I haven't read the original book, but based on the movie it is hard for me to understand why it was so famous. Not having read it though, I will give it the benefit of the doubt. Regarding the movie now, the cast is amazing, I like 90's movies feel and directing and it was interesting to see young Christian Bale, Wynona Ryder and Kirsten Dust. I certainly liked the "warmth" this movie emits, as well the leading performances. However, the plot seemed a little bit boring and disconnected to me. With the exception of one or two scenes it failed to provoke either my thoughts or feelings. Finally, something that I always seek in movies is good inspiring soundtracks and in this movie were mediocre at best.

I read "Little Women" many times growing up. It is a wonderful book with memorable characters and great writing. It has been made into a movie three times. The first time, Jo was played by Kathryn Hepburn, the second time she was played by June Allyson, and this third time, she is played by Wonona Ryder.This is the story of the four March sisters who are growing up in Concord, Massachusetts. Their father is away serving the North in the War of the States. The family has undergone the hardship of losing their former money and must now struggle to maintain their genteel lifestyle.Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy become so real that they leap out at you from the book and on the screen.Their various mishaps and adventures are well done, touching and at times hilarious.Each sister has her distinctive personality, but it is Jo who is the real star. She is Louisa May Alcott's, the author, alter ego.Winona does a credible job playing her. A young Christian Bale plays Laurie, the boy next store.This is a beautiful movie which the entire family will enjoy especially at Christmas.

As a movie I find it to be sub-par as compared to the 1949 version. I'm torn, I do not want to rate it purely as a comparison but having been so familiar with the second version I can't entirely help it. Being honest with myself, were this the first time I was watching "Little Women" and this was the first version to be introduced to it I'd have stopped watching or completely lost interest. It was choppy, the acting didn't carry through all too well and it just seemed to be trying too hard to stick to a novel. Because of this I suspect it may be closer in accuracy to the novel than the '49 version. For that reason I am now interested in reading the novel that much more. Ryder did not play as strong a Jo as I found June Allyson did. Claire Danes was not a very warm and loving Beth nor was she very memorable a character as the '49 carried. I now simply must see the '33 version to compare as it is considered even better than the '49 version.