Cinderella (1950) (Movie Review)

   Of all the Disney properties, nothing has grown in both popularity or marketability then Disney’s princess line up. Whenever I think of Disney animation, the princesses tend to be some of the first characters that instantly come to mind. Weather deserving of the attention is up for debate, but there’s no denying that their individual movies rank among some of the studios absolute best, and most significant. Heck, it was thanks to “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” that we even have animated movies to begin with. However, while that was the movie that started it all, I firmly believe that 1950’s “Cinderella” is the reason we still have Disney animation to this day. This film was actually a big gamble for the studio, as they were short on money due to previous movies under-performing, as well as the financial costs of World War 2. “Cinderella” naturally went on to become a smashing success, one of the studios highest grossing hits, and was hailed as a beloved masterpiece. Had that not been the case, the studio would have likely been bankrupted, shutdown, and the Disney we know today would not exist. Speaking personally, “Cinderella” is one of those movies I admire more then I love, but it’s unmistakably still a good film, and one that’s held-up better than some give it credit for.

   The story is so famous, it really needs no introduction, but I wouldn’t be doing my job without a proper lead-in. Cinderella is a young woman forced into servitude to her wicked step-mother, and cruel step-sisters. The one thing keeping her strong is a dream that one day things will be better. One magical night, her wish is granted, as a Fairy Godmother gives her a beautiful dress, sends her off to a majestic ball, but warns that the spell will end at midnight. While there, she catches the eye of the Prince, and just maybe, this will be the start of the happy life Cinderella has been dreaming of. However, not paying attention to the time, she runs off in a haste, and leaving only a glass shoe behind. Thus, the royals go on a search to determine with whom the shoe may fit. Right off the bat, the animation has aged beautifully with this film … not only are the colors warm and pleasant, but there’s a lot of dimension and scope to the locations. A good 90% of the movie is spent indoors, but it never feels claustrophobic, as the interiors feel so wide and appealing in their presentation. However, pretty visuals are one thing … how dose everything else hold up?      

    I find it interesting that the character of Cinderella has both inspired so many, and has equally become the subject of some controversy. The con’s come from people viewing her as a week role model … the pretty damsel who does nothing but wish away her problems, and get rewarded for doing little herself. I for one say that she’s a far better role model then those people give her credit for. Yes, she technically fits the brand of the damsel that needs rescuing, but she also displays a great sense of endurance. Someone who will still find joy and positivity in her life, despite being stuck in a horrible place. 

Even in her positive mindset, she still isn't a one-note character, as she displays her emotional limits, and has her times when she contemplates to herself ... "just get through it", "just make the best of it". She even has a good deal of personality, one that she has to keep reserved due to her situation. One of my favorite little details is when the Fairy Godmother finally takes notice of her beaten rags, and with just a little nod of the head from Cinderella, it highlights that she's brimming with personality. Plus, the message of holding onto your dreams or your happiness, even when faced with impossible odds, is still something that can inspire people on some general level. Now, I'd be lying if I said Cinderella ranked among my favorite characters, but I will say this ... of the three original Disney princesses, I think she's the only one to surpass being a stereotype of the time, and can be viewed as a genuinely strong role model for viewers both young and old.  

   Let’s cut to the chase, my absolute favorite thing about this movie, both as a kid and an adult is the ensemble of adorably little mice. Had it not been for these characters, the movie just wouldn’t be as entertaining as it is. The two lead mice named Gus & Jaq have always ranked among the lovable side-kicks that straight-up steal the show. Although, the critic in me has to acknowledge that they do more than standout … they flat out high-jack the movie from the admittedly more important characters. Yeah, players like the films titular prince are noticeably under developed in favor of lengthy scenes in which the mice need to out-wit the wicked cat named Lucifer. While I find their little ventures very entertaining, they do admittedly overstay their welcome, which results in both the story and characters being weaker than they should be. Still, I couldn’t imagine myself enjoying the film as much as a kid, or looking back on the experience with as much fondness if it weren’t for these lovable side characters. Also, I think the nasty cat Lucifer is the best animated character in the film, as the facial expressions and body language of the character at times are priceless. On a side note, I distinctly remember my mother was none to fond of the name Lucifer in a children’s animated movie, so she drilled in my head that the cats name should only be referred to by the mice’s pronunciation … which was “ru-ci-fee”. 

   On that note, let’s talk about the villains of the picture, who’ve likewise remained Disney icons over the years. Truthfully, The Evil Stepsisters never left any kind of impression on me, as I always felt they should be either crueler, or funnier, and I just felt neither from them. Although, the scene when they destroy Cinderella’s dress was very effective, and certainly bothered me whenever I watched this as a kid. Of course, the big one is the evil step-mother known as Lady Tremaine. This is a case in which simplicity can go a long way, because on the surface, she’s kind of one-note villain … but man dose she play that note well. Everything from the way she’s animated, to the way she’s voiced gives the character an imposing presence. Voice actress (as well as model actress) Eleanor Audley finds that perfect middle ground of conveying a sense of dominance, without acting too over-the-top. That wicked smirk of hers says more than any maniacal evil laugh ever could. More than anything, this character gets my blood bowling more than any other Disney villain. Of course, she also has that shadowy glare, which was the stuff of nightmares for us kids. By simply having control over one person’s life, she’s remained one of the most iconic of Disney villains.

   One detail of the movie that has been criticized over the years is Cinderella’s under developed relationship with the Prince … who I think has about two lines of dialog in the whole film. I don’t think the Prince even has a name, although I’ve heard many refer to him as Prince Charming … which sounds more like a brand to me. Plus, we also have dozens of scenes solely focusing on both the goofy King and clumsy Grand Duke, as opposed to the prince himself. Unlike the lovable mice, the antics of the King were filler that I could have done without. It goes without saying that the romance is not one of the films strengths. However, I give the movie a get out of jail free card, because Cinderella’s journey wasn’t about finding love … it was about finding happiness. When she finally makes it to the ball and has her waltz with the prince, I just feel happy for her that she’s finally having a positive experience. Walt Disney always viewed Cinderella as a model representation of himself, as someone who through lots of patients, and hard work can transform themselves from rags to riches. So, I feel there’s always been more to the story of Cinderella then a romance. It’s a story of hope, and keeping your dreams alive. I should also note that, of all the Disney fairy-tales, this one has the least magical elements, yet still feels like a very magical experience. Once the Fairy Godmother appears and we get the famous transformation scene, it always seems to catch me off guard, like … “oh yeah, I forgot this was a fantasy”.

   Disney’s “Cinderella” also received three Oscar nominations, including best sound design, best music score, and of course best original song with “Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo”. While the tune is unmistakably bouncy and fun, I really just enjoyed the scene on its own. The Fairy Godmother, despite only appearing once in the film, is still one of the movies most delightful additions, and this song punctuates just how lovable the character is. Actually, I find myself liking the musical numbers more for their individual scenes as opposed to the songs themselves. “Oh, Sing Sweet Nightingale” would have honestly been a downright forgettable song, had it not been for the colorful layout and visual design of the sequence. The famous song “A Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes” is good, but it’s just never stuck with me as a memorable highlight, mostly because the song is set to our lead girl simply getting out of bed. My favorite musical number of the whole film is actually “The Working Song” provided by the mice, when they put together a special dress for Cinderella. I’ve always loved my song numbers with a lot of bustle and activity, and when paired with the adorable squeaky voices of the mice, it helps this song stand out as an especially up-beat sequence.     

   Now I didn’t know where else to fit this in my review, but there’s one scene that I find unintentionally hilarious … and it’s the famous stroke of midnight scene. We all remember Cinderella losing her shoe on the stairs, but what amuses me to no end is the Grand Duke reacting in such a panic that he dispatches these scary looking horse riders to chase her down … as if she’s a fugitive. Even as a kid I found myself chuckling at how over that top that was. Now what did work in building suspense was the climax, in which Cinderella gets locked in her chamber room, just as her hopes for a better life are waiting downstairs. Of course, this is where people complain about Cinderella’s damsel status, but those people are missing-out on just how suspenseful and exciting this finale is. We have another mini-venture with the mice trying to get the door-key up to her, all while battling the cat Lucifer, and lengthy flanks of stairs. I think the bit with the stairs is the funniest joke of the whole film, and something “Kung Fu Panda” probably drew inspiration from. Also, as far as villain defeats are concerned, there’s nothing quiet as satisfying as seeing the cat Lucifer get pushed out a window. My one issue is that the Prince should have been there to put the glass slipper on her, like … it kind of robs the moment of its impact if he’s not there to rediscover the woman he fell in love with.

    In the end, of all the animated Disney princess movies, “Cinderella” is the one I’ve loved the least, but that’s splitting hairs, as this film obviously stands as a great achievement for the studio. I still wouldn’t go so far as to call it a personal favorite, as there are more involving stories, and more magical experiences then this, but I’d never sweep this one under the rug, like some dated product of the time. Like I said, it is largely thanks to “Cinderella” that Disney survived the war times of the 40’s, and the character has still inspired many to follow their dreams. The songs are still nice, the colors are great, the experience is charming, and its further proof that simplicity can go a long way for an engaging experience.

Thanks for reading my review of Disney’s 1950 classic “Cinderella” … and continue to enjoy the movies you Love!  

Slumdog Millionaire (2008 movie review)

    

      When I first saw the 2008 academy awarding winning motion picture “Slumdog Millionaire”, I was completely blown away by it. I couldn't get enough of the film, I had to encourage all my friends to see it and I even referred to it as “One of the most perfectly constructed movies I’ve ever seen.” I wasn’t alone in making statements like that, audiences fell in love with this movie and it appropriately won the best picture award for 2008. However, over the past five or so years, I’m starting to look back at this film is a different way. Don’t get me wrong, my feels for the movie haven’t changed, I still think it’s an excellent flick but my attitude tower this film has changed a great deal. Yes, it’s still a great movie, but I certainly don’t think it’s perfect either. Obviously, in order to get my point across, I need to go over the plot, characters and subtext that “Slumdog Millionaire” has to offer.  

       Our story takes place in India, around 2006 and a young man named Jamal is a contestant on “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” (the Indian version). Jamal is apparently very good at answering these complicated questions, which is surprising the audience and host because Jamal’s from the Slums and has gotten little education. It gets to the point where he’s arrested and interrogated by the police on suspicions of cheating. To prove he knows his facts, he shares his life story with the interrogators and addresses that many of the events in his life lead to his knowledge demonstrated during the game. So the film cleverly conveys that if you pay close attention to what you learn throughout your life, simple knowledge and understanding can have a significant impact on your future.

     80% of this movie is told through flashbacks and its here that the film becomes the most interesting. Watching this young man’s story unravel from his child hood, to his teenage years and then to his young adult life is such an exciting experience. Most of what he lived through is very downbeat but it’s also very intriguing to see how his life moves from one situation to another and how his relationship with both his older brother and girlfriend develops over the years. Sometimes, the journey of one’s life can be more exciting than any big adventure that a first rate action star embarks on and here it’s quiet literal because Jamal’s life is a tragedy and an adventure all rolled into one.    

    

     It’s a story about good things that happen to people in bad circumstances and the ending is one of the best feel good moments ever to be experienced in film. I love movies that combine and convey different tones and emotions because it’s kind of like being on a roller-coaster ride. At times this film can be upbeat and even really funny, most of the time it can be down beat and depressing but it can also be very uplifting and powerful all at once. The directing and editing style of the film is especially cool and the lighting is very stylish. The movie also ends with an especially upbeat musicale number set to the song “Jai ho”, which is fun but completely off track of the realism the movie tried to convey earlier, making this a perfect example of the movies Achilles Heel.  

    This story is rooted 100% in the real world and every obstacle that Jamal faces or encounters have some series resolves. The scene involving the Bombay Riots is especially intense and done with a frightening sense of realism. However, the way the story is told and concludes feels more like something from a fairy tale. Let’s be honest, it’s pretty convenient that every one of these questions had some impact on his life and it’s even more ironic that every question is in a perfect order that matches with the linier story of his life. Plus, unlike most reality based drama’s, this film ends on the happily ever after note, with Jamal getting together with the love of his life and they both dance off into the sunset together. Now that’s not to say people can’t have happy lives after some series life struggles. It’s just that the way the film represents real life struggles, events and situations with absolutely no fantasy overtones makes you expect everything it to end on a series and intense note that’s more honest and true to the films dramatically realistic tone. Films like “Big Fish” and “Moulin Rouge” also have stories that follow a fairy tale formula but there set in worlds that are reality mingled with fantasy. “Slumdog Millionaire” is just an uneven clash of real life situations and fairy-tale style storytelling that can throw off many viewers.  

   

     There’s also a lot of scenes that feel a little exaggerated. When Jamal is first brought to the police station on suspicions of cheating he isn’t just interrogated, no, he is tortured in some brutal and horrific ways. He’s electrocuted, punched, beaten and his head even gets dunked in a bucket full of blood for long periods. It’s not like he’s being accused of stealing or murdering someone important, he’s being brutally tortured on the small suspicions (with no clear evidence I might add) of cheating during a game show. Now I’m no expert on what the polices or procedures are like in India are or other foreign countries but this just feels manipulative and uncalled for.  

     Now having said all of that, I do still enjoy this movie a lot and honestly, I think it’s the best movie to receive the best picture award in years. I love the characters, I love the different emotional levels the movie takes you through and even though the ending leans closer to fantasy then reality, it truly is one of the best feel good finalizes that a film can offer. If you can watch this movie without analyzing all the details and just accepting what the film has to convey, then you’ll definitely have a good time. I give “Slumdog Millionaire” 4 ½ stars out of 5.

O Brother Where Art Thou? (Movie Review)

     Now and then in school and in college, we’d see movies in class, some regarding class topics or because the movie touches on the subjects and events where learning about, and I can honestly say that there is no other movie I’ve seen more frequently in school then the 2000, Coen Brothers comedy classic “O Brother Where Art Thou?” Seriously, this film would always pop up in my history classes, literature classes, film is art classes and plenty others.  Now the Coen Brothers have done some classic hit movies including “The Big Lebowski”, “Fargo”, “Blood Simple” and “No Country for Old Men”. Even though “O Brother Where Art Thou?” never reached the same critical praise as those films, it has gained a devoted fan base over the years and has become a cult classic, personally it’s my favorite of their movies.

      The plot goes like this, it’s 1937, the time of “The Great Depression” and three prisoners named Pete, Delmar and Everett Ulysses McGill have just escaped a chain gang. There setting out to retrieve $1.2 Million in treasure that Everett claims to have stolen from an armored car and buried before his incarceration. Time is not on their side, they only have four days before the area in which he buried the money gets flooded. From that point on the film moves like a road trip movie, they get into one loony scenario and then they leave only to pick up and get into the next loony scenario. It’s all about the journey rather than any big twists and turns an individual character’s story might go through. Everything revolves around these silly people as they play off of all the unique things they encounter.

        It may sound like a simple premise but it’s the characters that make the movie worthwhile. George Clooney plays Everett Ulysses McGill, who leads the group, he acts like an intelligent and sophisticated fellow but in reality, he’s just as dumb as the other two. Now George Clooney has always been a hit or miss actor, sometimes he can be really good in a role and other times he’s just George Clooney acting like George Clooney. Well, I can safely say that Clooney is outstanding in the role of Everett Ulysses McGill, honestly, it’s my favorite performance he’s ever done. Clooney completely looses himself in the role and is clearly having a lot of fun with it. He just livens up this character with so much charm, personality and some very quotable lines. Whenever the three get into trouble, Clooney always says “Blast, where in a tight spot!” But he delivers this line in a way that only Clooney can make it funny. Next is Pete played by John Turturro, he’s the grumpy guy of the group and the perfect guy to offset Clooney. Then at last we have Delmar played by Tim Blake Nelson. He’s the pore looser of the group, very short on intelligence but he has a big heart, he’s the kind of character that people refer to as the dumb nice guy. With their distinct personalities and individual charms, all three make a perfect comedic trio, the same way that Laurel and Hardy are a perfect comedic duo.    

      The story is actually a modern satire that’s loosely based on “Homer’s Odyssey”. It’s a Greek poem that centers on the hero Odysseus and his journey home after the fall of Troy. In the same way, these characters are on a journey that will take them back home after the fall of their once proud economy and along the way they encounter characters that are reminiscent of things you’d read about in Greek fantasies. They encounter a blind man traveling on a manual railroad car who claims to have no name but he can foretell their futures, that they seek great fortune and promises them that they will “find a fortune, though it will not be the one they seek”. So he’s like an ancient fortune teller or profit. There later mugged by a one-eyed man played by John Goodman, this character represents a ferocious “Cyclops”. They also encounter three women who seduce them through the power of bewitching music and good looks but it’s a ploy to drug them, and make them disappear, which is a nice little nod to the “Sirens” of Greek mythology. My favorite running joke in the movie by far is when Delmar believes that his close friend Pete has been bewitched and transformed into a toad, when he really finds Pete and discovers that he’s not transformed, it leads into a silent conversation (whispers back and forth) that results in one of the most subtle laugh out loud moments ever put into film. Then there’s this law official with a hound dog who’s tracking them down, however, he’d rather kill them on the spot rather then put the three back in prison. So he’s like a representation of “Death” (or Grim reaper) dogging at their heels. The title of the movie is a reference to the 1941 film “Sullivan’s Travels”, in which a director wants to film a fictional book about the Great Depression called “O Brother Where Art Thou?”    

  

        When the movie isn’t referencing “Homers Odyssey”, it takes full advantage of its time period. We get several different representations of how people lived and acted during the depression, including children trained to shoot down people from the bank if they approach the house. Even the look of the film makes you feel like you’re in the 1930’s, all the color is muted against bright, glaring sun light, it might just be one of the first movies to extensively use digital color correction to give the film a sepia-tinted look. The locations and sets are also fantastic to look at, putting you in the right mind set of the time. Our hero’s also come across some fact based people from this time. The craziest period based encounter of all involves a wild bank robber named George “Baby Face” Nelson. He robs banks simply for fun and shoots down cows for amusement, money doesn’t seem to matter to the guy, he just wants to make a name for himself. Unfortunately for him, he has a very childish looking face, so the only name people associate with him is “Baby Face”.

       We also have a frightening encounter with the Ku Klux Klan, our three hero’s have to rescue their Negro friend from being hung at one of their rally’s. This is actually where I first learned of the KKK and I always thought of this movie when they were brought up in history class. Even though this scene doesn’t feature anything graphic and it’s not meant to be taken too seriously, it still has this genuinely unsettling feel of what a KKK rally is like. Now the scene is once again supposed to mix historical facts with a reference to “Homer’s Odyssey”, however, I can’t help but think of “The Wizard of Oz” whenever I see this. The song the Klan chants sounds almost identical to what the Wicked Witches guards were chanting. Also, our three hero’s steal clan outfits and sneak in to save their friend the same way Scarecrow, Lion and Tin-man discussed themselves as guards to rescue Dorothy. I don’t know if the Coen Brothers had “The Wizard of Oz” in mind when they wrote this scene, but it is very similar.

     Speaking of historical facts from the 1930’s, the radio was the only source of joy for people back then, so we get many scenes with characters listening to radio broadcasts and period folk music. It’s an effective touch and you hear this variety of music throughout the whole picture. One of the films big highlights is when our three heroes’s put together their own little band called the “Soggy Bottom Boys” to make money at a radio station, the name is a homage to the “Foggy Mountain Boys”. My favorite scene is when the Soggy Bottom Boys get on stage and perform a number titled “Man of Constant Sorrow”, it’s just a real delight to watch.

        Overall, it’s a really fun film and my favorite Coen Brother movie to date. It may not be the biggest laugh out loud comedy ever but it still really funny and the way it balances references of Greek Mythology and historical pried pieces makes it all the more unique to watch. But the big reason to watch this movie is the three main characters, there’s just a very genuine charm that comes from these three talents and it’s an instant joy watching them go from one crazy predicament to the next. I give “O Brother Where Art Thou?” 4 stars out of five.             

Little Woman (1994) (Movie Review)

  Along with Charlies Dickens “A Christmas Carol”, Louisa May Alcott’s classic novel “Little Woman” is one of the most frequently adapted works of literature, and most of its adaptions to film are quite successful. It’s simply one of those rare easy books to make a good movie out of and can stay fresh no matter how many times it’s been adapted. For me, I was introduced to the source material through the 1994 movie version of “Little Woman”, and while I can’t argue if it’s the objective best, it’s the version I have the most fondness for, and the one I feel most like putting a spotlight on.

  Set in Massachusetts, in the mid-19^th-century, amidst the Civil War, we focus on a family of four siblings, collectively referred to as the March Sisters. As war wages, we see how these four young ladies live out their lives, and comfort each other through all the financial shortages, health struggles, growing pains, and romantic flings that arise from the changing times. 

At the center of attention is "Jo", who’s the second eldest of the siblings, is on her own personal journey of independence, and aspires to be an author. She occasionally finds herself at odds with her loving mother, as well as her cranky Aunt March, and develops feelings for two men, one of them being an impulsive neighbor, and the other being her considerably older linguistic professor. In essence, this is one of those humble little “Slice of Life” stories, and when done right, the formula can be quite special. Life is interesting, it can be magical, it can be scary, it can be unpredictable, and above all else, it’s engaging.     

  Before I get lost in the details, let’s highlight the cast, all of whom are ingrained in my mind as the figure heads of these literary icons. Winona Ryder leads the charge as Jo, and it’s the role that garnered her first Oscar Nomination for Best Leading Actress. The year prior, she was nominated best supporting actress for “The Age of Innocents”, so this was the next big step in her career. 

While not my absolute favorite character performance of hers, she certainly elevates the films warmth and charm with her presence. Typically, when I think of Winona Ryders memorable roles, I think of her acting with a “thousand-mile stare”, but in this film, her smile and jubilant personality is absolutely infectious, and can stand out. It’s also kind of amusing to see her play a Massachusetts girl in this film, only two years before she’d deliver another memorable portrayal of a Massachusetts girl in “The Crucible” … polar opposite characters but highlights the range in Ryder’s acting.    

  Not to be overlooked is Claire Danes, who before her more famous roles in “Romeo & Juliet” and “Stardust”, made her film debut here as the third sister "Beth". 

Her character arguably has the most emotional baggage, as she battles scarlet fever, yet still maintains a sweet demeaner. Susan Sarandon is both dignified and charming as the family mother, and Trini Alvarado played the eldest sister Meg. A young Christian Bale is the love-struck neighbor named “Laurie”, and it’s always fun to see him in his pre- “American Psycho” years. Gabriel Byrne is also good as professor Bhaer, who eventually develops romantic feelings for Winona Ryders character Jo. Truthfully, even with the two acknowledging their gap in age, I never quite got on board with their romance … although the actors do a convincing job making their feelings genuine. The cast as a whole have wonderful chemistry with each other, and it feels like everyone just had a great time making this.

  Of course, I can’t forget Kirsten Dunst, who was riding the high of her breakout performance in “Interview with a Vampire” and plays the youngest of the March sisters named Amy. Once again, she owns every scene she’s in with her delightful and lively charisma. Regretfully, she's only in the first half, as her character grows up, with Samantha Mathis playing her seventeen-year-old appearance in the second half of the film. I’ve actually enjoyed Samantha Mathis in a number of roles, playing Princess Daisy in the “Super Mario Bros. Movie” and voicing Crista in “FernGully: The Last Rainforest”, but for whatever reason, I didn't care for her older portrayal of Amy in this film. She isn’t bad, but I never once believed she was an older version of the same character who Kristen Dunst brought to life with so much personality.         

  My only other reservation with this film is its “time transitions”, as the segues between events aren’t always the smoothest, and some events happen off-screen, forcing the audience to play catch-up. Thankfully, most of the sequences work great on their own. Without going into specific details, there’s a moment with a family member on their death bead, and it’s a perfectly constructed sequence. The scene starts off rather comedically, then gradually gets more sympathetic, and through brilliant direction … a character looking out a window with a ragging storm outside is our only clue that someone is about to pass away … it's very effective. The great Gillian Armstrong directed the picture and really stuck the landing where it mattered.     

  The score was composed by Thomas Newman, who’s credentials are too high to recount, so for simplicities sake, he’s a great composer, and his music for “Little Woman” garnered an Oscar nomination for Best Original Score. The film also had one last nomination at the Oscars for Best Costume Design. Most important of all, this film manages a perfect tone that balances its sentimental moments with touches of the dramatic, and it never goes too far with either. The film already had a winning “slice of life” template to work with, and getting the tone right was crucial, otherwise the final product could risk being overly sentimental or too melo-dramatic.

  While the film can be labeled as a character Drama, and has its share of emotional punches, the experience is still quite uplifting and works as a cozy family film. I suppose it can also pass as a “Christmas movie” of sorts. The film opens on Christmas, and the holiday comes back a second time before a four-year time-jump. I don’t view this as a traditional Christmas movie exactly, but it’s a good one to watch during December post-Christmas, in which the feelings of the holiday are still in the air, just not the center of attention. 

  When I first saw this movie, I was a young middle school kid, and a film about four sisters comforting each other during their daily lives was the last thing I wanted to experience at the time … and yet, through the film’s simplistic charms, it somehow won me over. I’d say I appreciate the movie more than I actually love it, as I don’t re-watch it often. With that said, it’s nice to have as an option, and whenever I do watch it, the film still leaves me feeling just as delighted and optimistic as ever. It’s charming without feeling manipulative, the cast is wonderful, and it’s one of those simple experiences that's just plain good for the heart. If you’re unfamiliar with the source material, I’d say this movie is a good starting place, as it may encourage you to either read the book, or view any of the other terrific film adaptations of this story.  

Thanks for reading my review of the 1994 adaption of “Little Woman” … and continue to enjoy the movies you Love!