MovieChat Forums > Little Women (1994) Discussion > Beautifully filmed, but.....

Beautifully filmed, but.....

posted 9 years ago by poettesse
4 replies | jump to latest

I'm 55 years old, and first read 'Little Women' 45 years ago. I've read the book many times since, and I wonder if ANYONE could make the movie version that would satisfy me.....
I'm not crazy about this 1994 version mainly because I feel it's terribly miscast. Ryder as Jo?? No, no, no. She should have played Beth. I don't like Samantha Mathis as Amy because....well, honestly, I just don't care for her at all. I think Amy should be especially pretty, and Samantha is not. Trini Alvarado would have been been better as Jo, as would have Clare Danes. Oh, well.....
The other thing that bugs me is all that fake snow!
I guess I'm just too hard to please!

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] poettesse 9 years ago

I can't shut up, you bleeding stupid idiot--I wasn't saying anything.
F#cking troll. Go back under your rock.

[–] IsoldeJaneHolland 8 years ago

It's unfortunate that Kirsten Dunst was just so freaking good as Amy; it must have been difficult for Mathis to come in after. I've seen every Little Women back to the 1933 version. Ann Dunsenberry's Amy (1978 tv movie version) was actually very funny, but so coltish I kept wondering how she'd have been as Jo.
(My library has all of them on DVD.)

[–] liscarkat (16873) 3 months ago

Samantha Mathis not "especially pretty"? Wow, somebody needs glasses.