Product Description

As the Civil War rages on, the four sisters of the March family struggle to grow up without the guiding hand of their loving father.
Genre: Feature Film-Drama
Rating: PG
Release Date: 3-JUN-2003
Media Type: DVD

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #804 in DVD
• Brand: RYDER,WINONA
• Released on: 2000-04-25
• Rating: PG (Parental Guidance Suggested)
• Aspect ratio: 1.85:1
• Formats: AC-3, Anamorphic, Closed-captioned, Color, Dolby, DVD, Special Edition, Widescreen, NTSC
• Original language: English, Portuguese
• Subtitled in: English, Spanish, Portuguese, Georgian, Chinese, Thai
• Dubbed in: Spanish
• Number of discs: 1
• Dimensions: .20 pounds
• Running time: 115 minutes

Amazon.com essential video
The flaws are easily forgiven in this beautiful version of Louisa May Alcott's novel. A stirring look at life in New England during the Civil War, Little Women is a triumph for all involved. We follow one family as they split into the world, ending up with the most independent, the outspoken Jo (Winona Ryder). This time around, the dramatics and conclusions fall into place a little too well, instead of finding life's little accidents along the way. Everyone now looks a bit too cute and oh, so nice. As the matron, Marmee, Susan Sarandon kicks the film into a modern tone, creating a movie alive with a great feminine sprit. Kirsten Dunst (Interview with the Vampire) has another showy role. The young ensemble cast cannot be faulted, with Ryder beginning the movie in a role akin to light comedy and crescendoing to a triumphant end worthy of an Oscar. --Doug Thomas

DVD features
Based on the feature commentary for her film, Gillian Armstrong must be a pretty delightful person to spend an evening with. The Australian director takes us all the way through the lovely 1994 film, "whispering in our ear" with deft clarity. Armstrong engages us while talking about casting (much influenced by star Winona Ryder), locale (mostly Vancouver, B.C.), the modernization of the characters, and the task of bringing the intricate design of the 19th-century piece to life. Armstrong also narrates over two deleted scenes shown separately. She admits it's enjoyable to view the picture five years later because of Thomas Newman's Oscar-nominated score. (The score can also be heard an isolated music track.) There is also a general six-minute featurette (made by HBO) and a better eight-minute featurette on the film's costume design, narrated by Oscar nominee Colleen Atwood. Talent files, productions notes, an elementary timeline, and trivia games are also included. --Doug Thomas

From The New Yorker
Gillian Armstrong's movie is more naturalistic-less storybooklike-than the previous screen versions of Louisa May Alcott's novel about a poor but noble New England family in the eighteen-sixties. In this rendering, the Marches-mother, father (mostly absent), and four daughters-inhabit a coherent, fully realized world. It's a deceptively audacious picture. Armstrong and the screenwriter, Robin Swicord, treat Alcott's familiar coming-of-age saga as if it were the story of American culture's coming of age, and, amazingly, they make their grand conception stick. Winona Ryder, as the aspiring writer Jo, gives a luminous performance; she shows us that even this remarkable young woman comes out of a family, and out of a society. Also with Susan Sarandon, Trini Alvarado, Claire Danes, Kirsten Dunst, Samantha Mathis, Christian Bale, Gabriel Byrne, and Mary Wickes. -Terrence Rafferty
Copyright © 2006 The New Yorker

Customer Reviews

A great movie and a great remake!!!
To start out, this is one of my favorite books. So I of course started out with an additude to begin with, muttering that the book was always better. In this case, I was so wrong. The characters portrayed in this film are the same ones I met in 5th grade when I first read "Little Women". The actors shine in their roles and truly embody everyone one of the literary creations they represents.
Playing the March matriarch, Susan Sarandon is great! She is able to maintain the feel of the period while bringing to Marmee an empowering bout of women's rights thoughts. Sarandon gives off warmth and knowledge wiht the apparent ease of someone completely familiar with the material.
Wynona Ryder is another standout here. She is the raging bundle of emotion that we have all come to know as Jo March. Playing down her usually unique features, Ryder plays the part with spunk and earnestness.
My favorite here is Christian Bale as the oft put uopn Theodore "Laurie" Lawrence. Quite a jump from his "Newsies" days, Bale is the best Laurie I have seen on screen to date. He has the mannerisms and lines down to perfection, while still maintaining the spontanaity that really is a huge part of Laurie's character. He also handles the age jump incredibly well.
Not until my most recent viewing of the movie did I realize Gabriel Byrne was Professor Bhaer. The native irishman does a great job of bringing Frerdrick to life, right down to his physical bumbling and poetic heart.
In my opinion, this movie was a complete triumph and a complete success from novel to film. All actors are fine in their roles, most exceptional, and it is such a joy to see an old favorite and all-time classic brought to life which such enthusiasm and talent. This is a must-see for any fan of the novel~although it will leave you yearning for "Little Men" and Jo's Boys" featuring this cast-which has yet to be done!!

Beautiful Version of the Classic Story
This version of Little Women is a classic in its own right. Armstrong did an amazing job here capturing the period and coaxing beautiful performances from her cast. Ryder, Dunst, Alvarado, Mathis, Sarandon, Byrne, Bale and a heartbreaking Danes are all in top form. Visually, the movie is just beautiful and the soundtrack is mesmerizing. A must see.

This wasn't the time or place
It's a sad commentary on the state of political correctness when a book written in the 19th century has to be "updated" instead of being preserved as a precious reminder of times gone by. Are filmmakers so concerned with the bottom line that they don't think viewers are capable of recognizing a historical setting for what it is? The virtue of the novel is in its message - that love is eternal, surpassing youth, beauty, and riches. What part of that message can't be understood by a modern audience without "sanitizing it for our protection" against mores of bygone days? Why must we be hit on the head with the Anvil of Political Consciousness in a story where those notions had yet to be brought to the fore?

If the people making this movie had been truly interested in finding feminism in Louisa May Alcott's text, then they missed the boat in three enormous ways:

1. They made Jo the prettiest girl. That casting move left all of her lines about being an awkward tomboy sound as if she were fishing for compliments. What would have been so terrible about having someone less model-waif-starlet take the role? Go back and watch June Allyson and Katherine Hepburn in their turns as Jo - they weren't prettied up by the makeup artists and photographers, and it makes them all the stronger. By making Jo so lovely, the film accidentally moves against feminism by falling into the stereotype that even "little" women have to be beautiful. (To be fair, they also make Professor Bhaer unrecognizably handsome, missing the point for the male as well as female characters.)

2. They ignored the subtle textual references about Marmee having as severe a temper as Jo. Instead of showing Marmee shouting out a window about not wearing corsets, why not show her working to control her emotions for the good of her family? Why not show her desire to work for the betterment of the poor as an outlet for her frustration over being left at home? Can you imagine what Susan Sarandon could have done with material like that?

3. I'll grant that it would be hard to portray the changes in Amy, because in the novel most of them are happening in description rather than in her actions. Simply changing actresses in mid-stream isn't enough - we should have seen her growth from inside, her desire to become a good person rather than a rich one. Instead of seeing Laurie as her just reward for having made such a difficult journey, as we do in the book, it comes across as irony that someone so selfish should wind up with the rich boy next door.

Thanks, but no thanks - I'll go back to Katherine Hepburn or June Allyson (even though in the latter version it's obvious Joan Bennett was pregnant when she portrayed Amy), and take my message undiluted.