I preferred this version to the new one. It was very true to the book. I cried a lot, remembering how I read the book when I was a little girl.

I've seen the original, starring Katherine Hepburn as Jo which was directed by George Cukor in (what seems to be) 1901. That's an excellent version of this story, a real classic.

Maybe the story just needed a 'new coat of paint' to spruce it up a bit because it sure does seem new and worth telling again.

Winona Ryder has to carry the movie, more or less, and gives a confident performance as the independent Jo. Susan Sarandon is not around that much but makes a good Marmee. Christian Bale is great, as always, and Trini Alvarado and Eric Stoltz round out the cast.

You don't see Claire Danes that much, but then it becomes about her quite a bit as the story moves on. A gift she receives for Christmas from a kindly neighbor could give your tearducts a workout, at the very least.

Beautiful movie. Could even be longer, and how many times can you say that about anything?

I first read this book when I was about ten years old, then again every couple of years until I hit twenty. I have since read it once again, and have seen every version except the recent BBC one. This is my favorite film remake of Little Women. Every version suffers, to some degree, from the film/television conventions of its time. June Allyson as Jo is too cute, albeit tomboyishly so. Katherine Hepburn, though wonderful, too crisp and aristocratic. Wynona Ryder some might say is too girlish and vulnerable, but I like that about her performance. Because Jo, for all of her independence, is still a girl in many ways. Jo is a tomboy, a writer, and a budding young woman, all at once. She blossoms throughout the film, and loses some of her prickliness without losing her spirit and color.

Susan Sarandon does make a wonderful Marmee. She comes across as a woman and not just a mother figure, though she does well as the latter too. Young Kirsten Dunst is the perfect Amy. I do think the Beth character was given short shrift to some degree, despite a wonderful performance from a young Clare Danes. But to be fair, Beth in the book is given short shrift too, in many ways. It is a long book, that covers a long span of time and has multiple main characters. The focus has always shifted to Jo and then Amy and Meg, in that order. It seems fitting for a movie that has to parse its moments.

The romance between Meg and Jon Booke is not given much room to breath. But to be fair, it is not in the book either. And I don't mind that. It was never a central character arc in any way. Jon was kind of a cipher in the book, and probably intentionally. Really, the key relationships are among the sisters, and then with Laurie and the various sisters. This version does a good job with that balance. I never was asked or made to care much about Meg and Jon in the books, beyond wishing them well. Same here, and that is fine.

Finally, my biggest point. Jo, Laurie, and Friedrich. I think this version does by far the best job of selling that drama. Christian Bale is just a great actor, and he captures Laurie very well: charming, confident, sensitive, but also a bit callow and never intended to develop past a certain point intellectually. He's a rich boy who needs a beautiful glamorous wife, and that's Amy. I never bought it with the others the way I buy it here. Gabriel Byrne as Friedrich is ideal. He captures the character's awkwardness and profound lack of glamour while at the same time being compelling, attractive, even sexy. You see that Jo accepts him not as a sort of "male placeholder" but because she wants him. The final scene is beautiful.

The cinematography and settings here are so much better. In other versions the surroundings seem staid, like in a BBC English period drama from the 1970s. Nature is present here, as it was in Civil War Era America. That sort of thing definitely makes a difference.

Anyway, a book is a book, and a movie a movie. This won't replace the book, but as a film version, I love it.