#Little women 1994 cast tv

How little are the women? Not little at all (in their performances). The film seems to take a more rosy approach to the early childhood aspects, avoiding the harsher elements except for Beth's sickness and the impoverished conditions of the poor people that Marmee cares for. Amy and Laurie's romance takes place entirely offscreen, with Jo's story taking over the latter half of the film. The film doesn't portray Amy's caning, nor does it show Amy burning Jo's manuscript or Amy's fall through ice. How accurate is it? Jo and Laurie's first meeting doesn't come at a party, but in a house visit after the Laurences send food over to them after witnessing their charitable deed. While film is a little frontloaded, it's a lovely, easy-going adaptation. Hepburn's chaotic energy permeates the entire film, and though the rest of the cast doesn't quite live up to her level - though she and Douglass Montgomery's Laurie have a wonderfully scampish dynamic - their performances would form the template for big-screen adaptations of Little Women to come. Though other Little Women movies are ranked higher, Hepburn is the purest embodiment of Jo - boisterous and intelligent, with a sensitive streak - and the silver screen legend perfects her hysterical pratfalls during this early-career film. But the little women remain at the forefront of the story, particularly Katherine Hepburn's indomitable Jo March. The 1933 Little Women amps up the social reform and conservation aspects of the story, giving more attention to Marmee (Spring Byington) and her charitable deeds. Perhaps the most somber of the Little Women adaptations, George Cukor's 1933 film came during the height of the Great Depression, and reflected some of the anxieties of the time.

#Little women 1994 cast tv

They're all perfectly TV movie-level competent apart from Lucas Grabeel's genuinely terrible Laurie, looking like he wandered off the High School Musical set. Allie Jennings plays her Beth as a little too doomed, but I didn't expect too much nuance from this film.

Melanie Stone as the lovesick Meg March is not bad, as is Taylor Murphy in her short appearance as older Amy March. How little are the women? I have no complaints about the women! Sarah Davenport is a little on the angry side for Jo, but it's a refreshingly flawed approach to the beloved character.

The only major change is making Amy fall off a horse instead of through thin ice, which doesn't land quite as well. All the major story beats are there - the play, the Pickwick Club, the New Year's party, the manuscript burning, Amy's accident, Beth's sickness, Jo's journey to New York - with a modern sheen. But the 2018 Little Women, released on the 150-year anniversary of Alcott's book, does a pretty good job at capturing the essence of the story.

How accurate is it? Technically, because of its the modern-day setting, not very. The 1949 Little Women is the stereotypical idea of a classic Hollywood period costume: sentimental and stuffy. LeRoy's Little Women is nearly a shot-for-shot remake of the 1933 film, with much of the exact same line delivery, except more sluggishly paced and with added scenes of the characters simply spouting exposition while standing handsomely in their beautiful costumes against painted sets. Unbearably slow and lifeless except for a hilarious Elizabeth Taylor as the spoiled Amy March, this is the Disney live-action remake of Little Women adaptations. It may have been a result of watching the 1949 Little Women immediately after the 1933 version, but LeRoy's retelling is baffling in its choices to hit every story and dialogue beat from the 1933 film and do it worse. Directed by Mervyn LeRoy, the 1949 version of Little Women prettiest of the Little Women films - filmed on lavish sets and in eye-popping Technicolor - but it is astonishingly stilted and stiff in its retelling of the classic Louisa May Alcott story.