Review of Little Women (1994) by Gary B — 21 Jan 2012

I haven't read the book - no surprise there as Civil War lit not my style - so I had no preconceived notions of these characters, and as such this film version paints a vibrant picture of the lives of four sisters growing up in Concord, Massachusetts and beyond. Like all good films based on books, I was inspired to read the Wikipedia entry afterward, and according to what I read not even the dog who walked from Colorado back to his home in Connecticut is as faithful as Gillian Armstrong was to Louisa May Alcott.

Winona Ryder shines as spirited misfit Jo, and what a collection of other future stars: Claire Danes as simple yet sweet Beth, Samantha Mathis as older Amy, Christian Bale (!) does a great turn as family friend Laurie, and a babyfaced 12-year-old Kirsten Dunst showing great promise as younger Amy. Add to that Susan Sarandon, Eric Stoltz (this was made in the '90s so he had to be there), and Gabriel Byrne disarmingly effective as German professor Friedrich, complete opposite of the self-preserving A-hole he played in Miller's Crossing a few years earlier. This, my friends, is an actor.

Outstanding period detail adds to the rich tapestry. Jo is the focal point, but we follow the growth of all the March sisters and how they find their place in a world decades away from taking measures toward granting equality to their gender. This is not at all the schmaltzy sentimental chick flick I was half-expecting but instead filled with endearing characters while springing several surprises along the way. Not quite the masterwork of Ang Lee's Sense & Sensibility but worthy enough to sit at the same table.