Let's be realistic.

Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

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

Louisa May Alcott's autobiographical account of her life with her three sisters in Concord, Massachusetts in the 1860s. With their father fighting in the American Civil War, sisters Jo, Meg, Amy and Beth are at home with their mother, a very outspoken women for her time. The story tells of how the sisters grow up, find love and find their place in the world. Little Women has a simple premise and thanks to some great actors that are really good in it it does entertain to a point. There was also a scene with Claire Danes that i found it very touching and for that i'm gonna give it a 9 out of 0 it's a simple good film nothing more.

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.

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.