Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="nwhoopfan, post: 3568022, member: 7894"] After watching the 2019 version of "Little Women" around a month ago, I was curious to check out the 1994 version starring Winona Ryder. I thought that I had started it briefly back when it was current but bailed out quickly. Upon further reflection that might have been a different period piece w/ Ryder I was thinking of. Anyway...the '94 version was going along decent, but about halfway thru it lost momentum and my interest drifted. I did finish it, but I have to say I much prefer the '19 version. Both had great casts and good performances. Interesting how differently you can tell a story, even if it's the same story. One major difference, and a bit of a dilemma, is how to approach the character of Amy. In '94, Kirsten Dunst played her as around 12 years old and then when it jumped forward 4 years a different actress, Samantha Mathis took over. That was fairly jarring, they weren't that similar looking and the entire rest of the cast hadn't aged a day in that 4 year period. That didn't quite work I don't think. In '19 Florence Pugh initially played her as fairly petulant and bratty. It was a bit odd, but makes more sense based on the age the character was supposed to be. Pugh obviously can't pass for anywhere remotely close to 12. That's a bit jarring as well, but I prefer that to the switcheroo. The cast from '94 also included Claire Danes, Susan Sarandon, Christian Bale and Gabriel Byrne among others. [/QUOTE]