I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

One of my all time favorites.

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

So this is another adaptation of the popular novel "Little Women" for Book Month. I admit that the first version I saw (the 1949 one) was good, but it was a little hard to follow. There was a lot going on and the plot wasn't that focused. I think this movie was better because I understood it more. Then again, I had already seen one version so I was already more familiar with the story. The main story is that Jo is trying to have her novel published.It's funny how the novel she's working on herself is actually called "Little Women", although I assume it's not the same as the actual story happening. I would think a writer would know what it's like to be a writer. The story is mostly slice of life and focuses on various other smaller aspects of the character's lives. I didn't know this had anything to do with Christmas. I should have seen this back in December! At least I'm seeing it now for Book Month. This is a very well acted film with a great cast and feel. ***1/2

I had seen a few bits of this movie on TV recently so decided to get the DVD from my public library.The story is semi-autobiographical and in fact at the end Jo has published her book titled "Little Women". Winona Ryder is the lead character Jo March, one of four sisters. Their dad is still in the military in Civil War times, their mother, played by Susan Sarandon, runs the household.The oldest sister is Trini Alvarado as Meg March, 11-yr-old Kirsten Dunst is Amy March. Claire Danes , still a teenager, is Beth March. The neighbor friend is Christian Bale , about 19 or 20, as Laurie.It is an epic tale of sorts, the movie does justice to the book.

This movie, which I watch every Christmas, is a wonderful movie in so many ways and for so many reasons. The aesthetic qualities are very appealing: the snow in Civil War-time Concord, Massachusetts was very beautiful, as is the grass in the spring time. As for the acting, the cast was superb. Susan Sarandon, who could act well the part of a rough southern girl, adapted herself well to this part of a proper New England lady who meets well the challenge of raising her four daughters (the "little women"). While you hated Christian Bale in "Shaft", he made a very positive impression in this movie as Teddy. Mary Wickes was convincingly crabby as Aunt March, and you felt for Claire Danes as the fragile Beth. Winona Ryder was excellent as the beautiful and high-spirited Jo. The story was a portmanteau: there were three different love affairs which were resolved at the end of the movie. The final scene was very touching. All in all, it was a superb production which was magnetic: again, I'm drawn to it every Christmas, though it is good entertainment for any time of the year. Definitely a favorite of mine.

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.