Little Women

A while back Turner Classic Movies ran two versions of Little Women. Then a couple of weeks later, the third version was run on another station (unfortunately with commercials!). I set my DVR to record them all and today I finally sat down and watched them all . . . back-to-back-to-back. I watched them in the order they were filmed.

I started with the 1933 version starring Katharine Hepburn. I'll start by saying, I enjoyed the movie. I also love Katharine Hepburn. That said, I didn't much care for the way Jo was portrayed. At least for the first 30 minutes or so of the movie. Katharine Hepburn has a husky voice to begin with and the character of Jo is a tomboy but, for whatever reason, that combination wasn't working for me.

After a while though, it seemed like the "butch-ness" of the character was toned down. Jo was still a tomboy and Katharine still had the husky voice but it seemed to fit better. Maybe I just got used to it. Whatever the case, it wasn't grating on my nerves anymore.

Bottom line, I enjoyed the movie.

Next I watched the 1949 version, starring June Allyson. According to my DVR listing, it starred June Allyson and Peter Lawford. When I started playing the movie the opening credits showed that Elizabeth Taylor and Janet Leigh were also in the movie. As I was watching it, I realized that the March's maid was played by the same person who played the cranky neighbor / Little Ricky babysitter from I Love Lucy, Mrs. Trumbell! I guess what I'm saying is that I was surprised at the number of actors I was familiar with in this version of the movie.

That said, I had the same problem with June Allyson's portrayal of Jo as I did Katharine Hepburn's. Her voice is husky and the tomboy-ishness of Jo was overplayed, in my opinion. I think what it is is that they didn't come across as feminine at all to me - and that bugged me. The difference with this version is it didn't seem to go away during the course of the movie.

Despite that, I did enjoy this version as well. There were other distractions too though. For example, this was before Elizabeth Taylor developed her classic good looks - at least in my opinion. But the character of Amy (which is the part she played) was very vain. Kind of funny / ironic, if you ask me. Oh and Janet Leigh. Very understated. I thought she did a great job as Meg. I had to keep reminding myself that it was Janet Leigh.

Then last (but not least), I watched the 1994 version, starring Winona Ryder. I think it's very possible that I liked this one best because it was the first version I ever saw of it.

But then again, I didn't have the distractions about it that I had with the others. From Winona's portrayal of Jo I got that she was a tomboy but she also was very feminine. No "butch-ness" about it.

You add to that that there was more humor in this version of the movie. Overall, the characters were more relatable in this version than in the other two versions. At least in my opinion.

They all three were good movies that I can in good conscious recommend but when it comes down to it, this one was my favorite of the three.

In a related side-bar, I also learned today that there were two silent film versions made based on the book. I don't know if there are copies out there to be had but I think it would be real interesting to see what they did with those. What do you think? Would you watch a silent film version of Little Women? Inquiring minds want to know.

Score one for Hollywood

So, I went to see The Time Traveler's Wife yesterday as planned. The night before I got my People magazine and they had a review of it. Normally I won't read a review before I see a movie because I don't want to be influenced by it but since I'd read the book, I didn't figure it could hurt.

Let's start with the reviewer gave it two out of four stars and says ". . . is a swoony love story that gets too caught up in explaining the mechanics and minutiae of its hero's wanderings woes, including a subplot in which a doctor discovers Henry is "chrono-impaired". "

Um, reviewer person? I have two comments about the "subplot" you diss in your review... 1) No more than ten minutes of the two hour movie were spend on that matter and 2) it was a BIG deal in the book, which you obviously haven't read.

She goes on to say she was put off by ". . . queasy-making scenes as Henry chatting up Clare when he's a 40ish adult and she's a young girl." Um, again, big part of the story, if you've read the book. But whatever. Who says you have to do your homework to get something published in a magazine that has the circulation that People does?

But this wasn't supposed to be a critique of one critic. No, it's supposed to be MY review of the movie.

Let me start by saying the book was over 500 pages long. I knew going in that there was no way they could cover everything from the book. I just didn't want them changing it so much that it was unrecognizable to the book.

Well, I loved the movie as much as I did the book. I found myself smiling quite a bit throughout it, much like I did while reading the book. For what it was able to include in the movie, it stayed pretty close to the book. Yes a few scenes were altered or combined but all-in-all the effect was still the same.

I will say that I'm not certain that I would have followed everything as well as I did, had I not read the book first but, I went with a friend who hasn't read the book and she enjoyed it as well. She didn't seem to have a problem following what was going on. Now, when I told her a few things they left out, she said that she wanted to read the book.

My opinion? I would've given it 4 out of 4 stars. :-)

Books made into movies

When the previews came out for The Time Traveler's Wife, I knew I wanted to see the movie. Then, I heard it was based on a novel.

You all are familiar with my book addiction by now so I probably shouldn't have to tell you that I had to buy the book and read it before the movie came out. Well, okay, you might not have known the last part about me - if I know it was a book first, I want to read the book first (and am kind of annoyed that someone pointed out that Julie & Julia is based on a book now!!! But I digress.) - before I see the movie. But yeah, I bought the book Saturday night and finished it Monday after work.

Loved it.

Which is kind of my point. I don't see how the movie can capture everything it needs to to tell the story that the book tells. I still want to see the movie but I don't want to be disappointed.

There are a couple of exceptions where I liked the movie better than the book (The Constant Gardener, Under the Tuscan Sun and Message in a Bottle come to mind) but in those instances, I saw the movie first (in the cases of The Constant Gardener and Under the Tuscan Sun I would have never gone to see the movies if it depended on my opinion of the book!). In the case of Confessions of a Shopaholic, the previews didn't look anything like what I'd imagined when I'd read the book, so I wouldn't go see the movie. I didn't think I would like it. I still don't.

Anyway, my question to you is, do you like books that are made into movies? Will you go see a movie without reading the book first? Or do you wait until after you see the movie? Which do you typically prefer (if you do read and see the movie)? And why do you think that is?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Oh, and for the record, I still plan to go see The Time Traveler's Wife this weekend. Me and my best friend will be sitting in the 11:30 a.m. showing Saturday morning. I'll let you know what I think. :-)