This was the last time to get it right...so did they?

High School Musical 3: Senior Year | rel. 2008 | dir. Kenny Ortega

Currently, a part of me wants to criticize the energetic, bubbly optimism of the obviously Disney-imagined world of East High. High school is sort of the purgatory of my life right now--I will not stand for any silly, fallacious accounts of it! Unfortunately, throughout my viewing of High School Musical 3: Senior Year, I failed to realize that I just paid ten bucks for a complete cheese fest--maybe because energetic, bubbly optimism is just as contagious as the common cold.

I felt completely "in the moment" when I watched High School Musical 3. When the Disney logo came on and Zac Efron's sweaty face (and gorgeous blue eyes) filled the screen, the audience went crazy. This was the first time I ever experienced a viewing experience when the audience reacted so strongly at everything on screen. They clapped at the end of almost every single musical number ("I Want It All" and "The Boys Are Back" received a loud, approving cheer from the crowds), went soft for every Troy and Gabrielle moment, swooned at Zac Efron every time he showed up, and laughed at every comedic moment--oh, the sweet sounds of both intentional and unintentional laughter!

Normally, I like to sink into my seat in a dark, silenced theater with only the screen blaring the sounds, but I don't think I would have had such a fun time without such an enthusiastic bunch around me. Never underestimate the power of an fantastic audience. Who knew middle-aged parents, pre-teen girls, teenage boys who have crushes on Vanessa Hudgens, and elderly couples would make such wonderful company? Honestly, I can't think of a better way to spend a Friday evening.

But even if I didn't have the company of such an energetic audience, the film itself has enough energy to last. The majority seems to agree that High School Musical 3 is infinitely better than it has to be--and once in a while, the general public is right. For starters, it is much better than its predecessors--by miles.

High School Musical 3 is every bit the predictable fluff that I expected it to be. But I never expected to be genuinely entertained and charmed by the shallow (but undeniably good-intentioned and G-rated) teen conflicts, the cast, and of course, the extravagant musical numbers. In short, I came out of the theater humming the tunes and feeling rather touched by the film's finale. Let's just say that if I were a pre-teen girl, High School Musical 3 would have set some unrealistic expectations for my future high school career.

The thin plot of High School Musical 3 is nothing but a slice of a high school fantasy. For one, the first scene concludes with the East High Wildcats winning their championship basketball game, set to the cool and catchy "Now or Never." While they may have won their championship game, the senior Wilcats at East High are uncertain about (what else?) their future. For jock Troy Bolton (Efron), he has to decide to pursue either basketball with his BFF Chad (Corbin Bleu) at his father's alma mater University of Alberquerque or consider Julliard as a possibility, where he can pursue his love for the stage. Besides, Troy's (supposedly) genius girlfriend, Gabriella Montez (Vanessa Hudgens) already has her sights set on Stanford University.

Can Troy have basketball, theater, and the love of his life in one accessible package? Just use a single brain cell and you might come up with the correct answer after all... But this fun journey of teenage self-discovery is worth it.

Of course, the delightful journey includes the prom, the musical spring musical, and graduation! (Where are the tests? Finals? AP exams? Oh right, I forgot, this is high school in an alternative universe.) The senior class is staging a spring musical that chronicles their time in high school. Where there is a show, Sharpay Evans (Ashley Tisdale) is there to steal it. Her scheme? Oh, not at all as impressive as her raging antagonism in High School Musical 2, but still pretty darn conniving: She demands her twin brother Ryan (Lucas Grabeel) to steal Kelsi's (Oleysia Rulin) best songs, which are usually written for Troy and Gabriella. Plus, Sharpay never minds causing some friction in the relationship between Troy and Gabriella. This time around, she has recruited the help of British transfer student by the name of Tiara Gold (Jemma McKenzie-Browne). But once again, Tisdale proves that Sharpay is the drama queen to beat.

I couldn't wipe off the goofy smile on my face the entire time.

The inspirations for the musical span several decades: There are touches of classic Hollywood and eighties-MTV in these Disney-glossed tunes on the High School Musical 3 soundtrack--in a good way. I've always been a fan of catchy Disney tunes (however nasally they may sound) and High School Musical 3 has one of the most mind-blowing Disney soundtrack that I have heard in a while. (Yes, mind-blowing.) All the songs are made of pure win--even the lesser ones. I was busting a move in my seat like an insane maniac: "Now or Never," "The Boys Are Back," "Scream," "Right Here, Right Now," and "I Want It All" really got me moving to the beat. Nothing makes me happier than fun, catchy pop tunes. The impressive choreography (especially in "The Boys Are Back") and higher-budget set designs are a sensational plus. Director Kenny Ortega never seems to shy away from an occasional comical flair.

The returning cast can all sing and dance well. But the film belongs to the major characters, and rightfully so!

There is no arguing that Sharpay is a stereotypical villain, but Tisdale constantly makes Sharpay something more. Sharpay's grand entrance into a typical East High morning contains as much unspoken drama as the character herself. But Tisdale's moment of glory is in the face of defeat. The audience wants to see Sharpay get back up again and when she does, we cheer for her--thanks to Tisdale--because she is every bit as vulnerable and human as the rest of us.

After several months doubting Efron's acting talent, I want to issue an apology: Efron is the true star of this film. Finally, a young actor worshiped by pre-teen girls (and many others) who can act, sing, and dance! Efron possesses a certain kind of genuine charm as Troy. The awkward teenage boy and troubled jerk from the previous films are no longer there. All that there is left is a sympathetic, all-around nice guy who just can't decide which path he wants to take in life. Efron's performance is the crux of the film; it's the kind of performance that convinces me that Hudgens's unapologetic blandness is pretty darn close to irresistible sweetness.

I can safely say that I spied an ounce of chemistry between Efron and Hudgens. I've been waiting for this moment to happen for a while... How essential, since this is a romance.

As much as I enjoyed High School Musical 3, the film isn't without flaws. There are moments thorughout the film that feels somewhat rushed. Some of the musical numbers--as amazing as they are--still have some room for perfection. The transitions still have a bit of an awkward made-for-TV quality--something they should have left out when they switched to widescreen. The three freshmen who are supposedly taking over our beloved class of 2008 in an upcoming High School Musical 4 are weak and uninteresting. (Yes, I'm talking to you, Tiara, Jimmie, and Justin!) And like any filmgoer, I would have appreciated a little more conflict.

Calling High School Musical 3 cheesy or predictable isn't much of a criticism. In fact, it's almost a compliment since it must have been exactly what the film was aiming for. But it's perfectly cheesy and predictable--and that is, by the way, the compliment of a highest order I can give to such a film. The film is about 112 minutes long, but it is probably one of the fastest 112 minutes of my life. High School Musical 3 may be a cavity-inducing Valentine for its core audience, but it also ceased all rain and thunder in my life that Friday evening. Being a teenager who just recently discovered that her entire future may unfold at any moment, I related to the premise of High School Musical 3. Like Sharpay, I want it all. But fortunately, I sat through a movie that almost has it all.

Rating: 8.5/10

"Screws fall out all the time, the world is an imperfect place."

The Breakfast Club | rel. 1984 | dir. John Hughes

The Breakfast Club is often hailed as the greatest high school movie ever made. When I realized that I was one of the very few high school students who had not yet witnessed the pure brilliance of this John Hughes classic, I felt a little left out. I wanted to see what all the fuss was about.

Before I delve into my opinion of this film, I want to discuss my experience as a high school student thus far. I attend a suburban high school with a lovely campus, much like the setting of The Breakfast Club. My high school has its share of nerds, jocks, cheerleaders, preps, and some others who would fall into the misc. category. But people kind of just mind their own business at my school. There is a lot of cross-pollination going on at my school. One can have brains and be involved in a lot of social activities. Nerds can be fantastic athletes. People have a choice to make friends or be a loner. I don't know if I'm just extraordinarily lucky or not, but I go to a pretty accepting school. People know each other and generally treat each other with respect. If a cheerleader were to speak to a nerd, it would not tarnish either party's social record.

Everyone is a little bit of everything around here.

I think one of the advantages of attending a fairly liberal school is that stereotyping is pretty minor and kept at an inoffensive distance. Perhaps that creates a more friendlier, less conflicted environment. Teachers are more aloof. Students choose to light up away from the school. Complete and total rebellion is kept at a minimum.

(I bet if several of my friends read this, they would give me the look the average middle-class person would give to President George W. Bush whenever he insists that America's economy is strong. But it's all about generalities and perspectives, my friends.)

Because of my experience (or lack thereof) as a teenager and high school student, I could not relate to or care for The Breakfast Club. I guess the most plausible explanation is that the film is simply dated. It has elements of the eighties glossed all over it--the fashion, the music, the hairstyles, etc. Then again, I love the eighties, so that couldn't have been a factor in my dislike of the film. But isn't stereotyping supposed to be a timeless message? Of course it is. Even if it doesn't happen at my school, I'm sure it happens in other schools. But I don't think Hughes executed his message about destroying the concept of stereotypes at all. In the end, I was completely lost in Hughes's mixed message about the world called high school.

The Breakfast Club centers around five teenagers who show up for a day-long detention at the school library: the brain (Anthony Michael Hall), the athlete (Emilio Estevez), the basket case (Ally Sheedy), the princess (Molly Ringwald), and the criminal (Judd Nelson). At first, they can't stand each other; conflicts are created. But little by little, they reach over their comfort zones, start talking each other and realize they have more in common than they initially thought.

All this felt forced and rather dull. The conversations aren't engaging and the characters aren't at all likable. I can't blame the performances--the young actors are quite good--but the characters definitely feel underdeveloped. Hughes is an interesting storyteller and creates somewhat authentic characters, but something is missing in his dialogue. Something doesn't ring true. So even though it might seem like it sometimes, no one is ever black and white. Okay, I get it... Then why couldn't these characters look each other in the eye before?

Apart being branded with their stereotypes, how do these kids really feel about the people they associate with everyday who are also branded with a similar stereotype? How do they feel about being part of such a group? Perhaps all my answers are answered somewhere in the film, but everything seems to be muzzled by excessive, annoying, and hard-to-relate to whining. Hughes doesn't really create a world for the high school, which makes his smaller world between these five teens harder to believe.

A major problem I have with the film is the ending. Comfort zones are broken down. Characters are changed. But do they change for the better? Do they finally accept who they are? Why must one of the characters change completely just so she could be accepted and loved by another character? (Yes, I'm referring to Sheedy's character.) Sure, I can understand how The Breakfast Club is a teen classic (Nostalgia? Maybe.), but it is nowhere close to one of the best high school movies ever. The film contradicts itself too much and lacks the truest emotions and wonders of being at such an interesting and sometimes difficult age.

Rating: 6/10

I will be re-watching this film as a companion piece to The Catcher in the Rye in my English class some time during the spring semester. So yes, this film will be re-reviewed to see if my feelings toward this film have been changed or not.

Alive and kicking: 7 Films

For the past month, my blog has been the perfect model of Super Neglection of Film Blog, unfortunately. I have been busy with life, which has been unfairly dominated by the multiple horrors of a new school year. It has only been a month and I'm already nerd-failing Pre-Calculus. Really. But enough of teen angst, let's talk movies.

I have seen seven movies since my last review of all three versions of Little Women. Seven. I'm pathetic, I know. My weekends are now not only dominated by school work, but also volunteer work at the library. I'm kind of on a path to be a (lol) librarian. I mean, I have to pretend to get somewhere in life and library science seems, well, not too bad.

Anyway, about all the films I've seen since my last post. Behold, incoherence!

- The problem I have with Princess Mononoke is that it is practically Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind all over again. I really, really, REALLY like Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind (thanks to J.D.'s recommendation--and surprisingly, it's pretty much my BFF's favorite Miyazaki film). Princess Mononoke is just a better-animated version (no, that's an understatement--the animation in Mononoke is insanely spectacular) of Nausicaa, with different characters. Both films have a strong environmental message and the way the message is executed feels so...similar. I understand environmentalism is a theme that Miyazaki often explores in his films, but he could have created a brand-new story. I mean, Miyazaki is so extraordinarily imaginative (duh) that any striking similarities between his films would result in some minor disappointment. I expected something new from the filmmaker. But even Miyazaki's lesser films are true works of art--and that is the case for Princess Mononoke.

- Newsies is awesome in a sort of, "Lol, it's a Disney musical directed by the director of High School Musical and it stars Batman" kind of way. But seriously, I love the songs. "Seize the Day" is my favorite. Not the best family film, but I like it a whole lot. And I'm in love with the soundtrack. How can you possibly NOT love Alan Menken?

- Okay, am I really the only person out there that did NOT know the "twist" in Psycho? Hitchcock is the man when it comes to slow revelations. I'm sort of like a filmmaker's ideal audience: Ignorant and guillable. I don't force myself to think ahead when I watch a movie. I just kind of sit there and enjoy the ride. But I love Psycho. It is probably my favorite Hitchcock film right now. For someone who loves fascinating fictional characters, Norman Bates is practically my obsession right now. I love the way Anthony Perkins portrays him. At first, Norman just appears charming, shy, and rather lovable. Perhaps that is his true nature. I don't know. I'm still waiting for Shawn's take on the character in his Hitchcock Marathon. All I know is that Perkins humanizes a character that has been so often villified in pop culture. But that shower scene is still badass.

- My thoughts on Amazing Grace is kind of "meh." It's okay, I guess. My mom wanted to see it because her sister said it was a great movie. The performances are decent, but it is kind of boring on the most part.

- Enchanted is really all about Amy Adams's performance. I love it more than Marion Cotillard's in La Vie En Rose and Ellen Page's in Juno. I smiled all the way through the movie, mainly because of Adams's fantastic performance. It is predictable and silly, but lots of fun. The story is, well, amazingly imaginative. I just thought, "Why didn't I come up with this story?" I also really like James Marsden in the prince charming role and--surprise, surprise--I actually really love Patrick Dempsey as the single father/divorce lawyer/possible love interest (c'mon, that is NOT a spoiler). I was really impressed by his performance, considering I've only seen him in the first two seasons of "Grey's Anatomy." The part where Dempsey begs Adams to not sing is just a little piece of comedy heaven.

- Charlie Bartlett has several entertaining aspects: It is a fairly intelligent teen comedy and a fairly decent coming-of-age story. Robert Downey Jr. and Hope Davis both give amusing performances. I kind of like the film...but I kind of don't. There are some things I didn't really care about, such as the central romance of the film. I didn't really sympathize with the Charlie Bartlett character. Plus, I didn't find the film to be very funny either. The film had trouble finding a balance between comedy and drama. I guess it tried to be too many things at once that I ended up not caring about any of the things they wanted me to care about. And honestly, it felt like a slight rip-off of Rushmore.

- I loved the first Anne of the Green Gables. The sequel, appropriately titled, Anne of Green Gables: The Sequel, is well, has several melodramatic and dull moments, but all in all, it's all about Megan Follows' lovely, enthusiastic performance as Anne Shirley. It's a touching coming-of-age story about finding a place to truly (cheesey moment) belong. I realize that Kevin Sullivan totally raped L.M. Montgomery's books to make his Anne sequels, but I kind of like his more epic take on the stories.

I'm kind of fascinated by the Jonas Brothers right now. Not in a, "Wow, they're hawt and their music rox" kind of way, but I just love memorizing random facts about them. I've watched tons of their music videos for no particular reason and a lot of the videos are really, really funny. In their "S.O.S" music video I love the part where Kevin Jonas gets so pissed at a text message he receives that he throws his entire cell phone away. Okay, nobody needed to know that. Anyway...

I hope you're all doing well. I've been trying my best to keep up with all of my favorite film blogs. Even though I rarely comment, trust me, I lurk.

Where's the balcony?

I watched the newly revamped "At the Movies" last night and I thought it was...okay, I guess. I don't want to be too harsh on the show or the two Bens because of how new everything seems to be at the moment, but there were definitely things that bothered me. Surprisingly, I liked a few things as well.

Things I Didn't Like:

• Remember when I discussed Ben Lyons's weird fidget problem? Yeah, the guy couldn't stop moving. At all.
  
• Now that I've addressed Lyons's annoyingly fidgety presence, I'll just go ahead and say it: Lyons was annoying. Period. He sounded like a robot (or cue card reader) who really, really wanted to be enthusiastic. When Lyons spoke about Don Cheadle and how the actor could do no wrong, he asked--in an extremely unnatural, awkward voice--his fellow film critic, Ben Mankiewicz, "Name a bad Don Cheadle movie!" The tone of Mankiewicz's response sounded like, "Why the hell are you asking me this insipidly random question to highlight Cheadle's greatness? He deserves better."
• Why must it take place in front of a lame flatscreen TV? Why? Why? WHY?
• Yellow. Orange. Ugh. The set is so...bright.
• The show felt like a couple of friends discussing the movies they watched the past week, which is actually something I can do with my friends all the time. I don't need to spend thirty minutes of my life (one of Lyons's favorite phrases, I believe) watching that. What I used to love about the old show is that critics like Roger Ebert, Gene Siskel, and Richard Roeper (to some extent) had some extensive knowledge about the subject of film and the show just felt somewhat educational.
• They messed up the whole concept of "Three to See." It was supposed to be the ranking of a single critic, not both.
  

Things I Did Like:

• The whole "Critics Round Table" idea is kind of cool. I do hope they change it up a bit with the critics once a while, though.
  
• Ben Mankiewicz seemed fine. Uncomfortable, probably, but fine. Hell, I'd freak out if the guy standing/sitting next to me couldn't stop smirking like an idiot.
  
• Was I being too harsh on Ben Lyons? Possibly. Well, at least he's better-looking than Mankiewicz...?

So what is everyone else's opinion about the new "At the Movies"? Feel free to share.

--------

There wasn't a "Five Links Friday" last week because (thinking for a good excuse--uh, never mind)...I forgot. I started school last week and the school year got really busy, really fast. I might end up neglecting this little blog throughout the school year, but hopefully, I will find the time to keep it afloat.

"I could never love anyone more than I love my sisters."

I recently read Louisa May Alcott's brilliant classic novel, Little Women, and it is one of the best books I have ever read. I picked it up because a very good friend of mine had very positive things to say about the novel, so I thought I'd give it a try. I wondered why I didn't read it until I was so late into my teenage years. It is primarily a children's book, but it is much better known as a "domestic book," nowadays, being read by people of all ages. Although some of the morals presented in the novel are a little too old-fashioned for the twenty-first century, Alcott's writing never ceases to create an undeniable sense of warmth and charm. Even in the culture of late nineteenth century, Alcott was able to create independent, vibrant female characters who could hold their heads up high in a male-dominated society.

The novel chronicles the coming-of-age of the four March girls: Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy. Their father is a chaplain in the American Civil War and the girls are left to fend for themselves in their home in New England with their loving mother, Marmee. All four girls have defined characteristics: Pretty Meg yearns for wealth and finer things. Tomboyish Jo is an ambitious young writer. Delicate Beth is shy, but has a caring, gentle heart. Amy, like Meg, likes wealth, but she is unfortunately spoiled and childish due to being the youngest.

The March's next-door neighbor, Theodore Laurence--better-known as Laurie--becomes part of the March family's fiber. Laurie is a lonely young man lives with his wealthy grandfather and often finds solace in the kindness and warmth of the March family--much like any outsider who encounters the March family. Gradually, Laurie falls for the feisty Jo, only to discover she doesn't feel the same for him.

But through pangs of heartbreak and the bonds of love, the March family survives life's trials and tribulations--together. The March girls become women by enduring the many hardships found in their own flaws, journeys, relationships, and their pursuits of romance. Admittedly, I read the book with an old-fashioned mindset, only to realize in the very foundation of Alcott's story is a timeless message about growing up and eventual self-understanding.

Alcott's novel was such a success when it was first published that it inspired two sequels (that I yet to read), Little Men and Jo's Boys. Little Women has ever been out of print. It is one of the most popular books of all-time, transcending Alcott's expectation of it being simply a "girl's book." It is no wonder Hollywood can't keep their hands away from the novel--and I can't blame them.

I believe if there is a good story somewhere, there is a good movie to be made. But when I saw the 1933 and 1949 film adaptations, I was tremendously disappointed. Not only the two films lack the warm atmosphere of Alcott's novel, the casting for the films is atrocious.

OLD OLD OLD OLD OLD...yeah, sorry, but that's the painful truth.

Katharine Hepburn stars in the 1933 version as Jo March. Although Hepburn seems like a fantastic choice to play the fiercely self-assured female character, the actress couldn't exude the immature, tomboyish nature of Jo; Hepburn's voice and movements reeks of elegance and high society. In her autobiography, Hepburn stated she had a wonderful time making the film, but something about her performance didn't feel like she was giving it her all. Under the direction of Hepburn's favorite, George Cukor, Hepburn exhibits moments of excellence that never go a long way.

Sadly, the 1949 version was a remake of the 1933 version. The 1949 film has an entirely identical script to the 1933 version, only with several minor changes. I wondered: Why copy the script of the 1933 version when Alcott wrote 500 pages of film-worthy material?

One of the advantages of filming in black and white is that it is easier to control the lighting. The 1949 version is in bright technicolor so the weather outside was always, well, bright. The film is obviously filmed on a sound stage that looks cheap and clausophobic. It is one of the poorest sound stages I've seen from that era; I really got the feeling that the setting and the characters existed solely in a box.

Peter Lawford: Why is Elizabeth Taylor blonde?

As for the casting, June Allyson is a solid Jo March. In comparison to Hepburn, Allyson is a much better choice and delivered a much better performance. Strangely enough, the filmmakers decided to switch the age order of Beth and Amy, for no particular reason. Elizabeth Taylor is noticeable in a blonde wig as a selfish, greedy, and bitchy interpretation of Amy. Margaret O'Brien plays Beth with symptoms of Annoyingly Precocious Movie Child Syndrome nicely in-tact, especially when O'Brien delivers Beth's speech in acknowledgment of the character's declining health.

Unlike George Cukor, who is known more as an "actor's director," Mervyn LeRoy impressed me with a single shot: After the girls' father, Mr. March, returns home, the entire family is happily together for Christmastime. But behind their precious gathering, Laurie (Peter Lawford) looks in with longing and sorrow--a moment that spoke volumes about Laurie's character.

Being a huge fan of the novel, I found it difficult to fully embrace either of the films. I thought everyone involved in the 1933 and 1949 versions failed to capture the heart of the novel's sweet coming-of-age theme. For one, all the actors looks two times older than their characters. The 1933 version is especially awkward to behold, since all four actresses just looks so darn old in their matronly costumes. So much for coming-of-age...

I approached the most recent version made in 1994 with low expectations. Besides, I've actually seen the 1994 version a few years ago and remember not liking it at all. I was in my Vietnam War/mafia/investigative drama phase back then so sappy films where love triumphed all did not appeal to me all that much. But I've grown to appreciate those sappy movies throughout the last couple of years. And, even though I didn't like the 1994 version, I remember it being of better quality than the 1933 and 1949 versions.

I've came to the conclusion that even though the 1994 version is far from a perfect movie, it is probably the best adaptation of Little Women that we're going to get for a while.

Winona Ryder: I'm too gorgeous to play Jo, but hopefully my performance will make up for it. (And it does.)

Director Gilliam Armstrong's film is definitely the most well-made and well-cast version of Little Women. In addition, the film has a believably warm atmosphere that is absent from the first two films and has the attentive details a period piece deserves. Thomas Newman's dazzling, touching score is the icing on the cake. Unlike the script(s) for the previous versions, 1994's scripts emphasized the emotional core of the March family rather than settling on a summary of Alcott's novel.

The 1994 version of Little Women definitely made several stars who all happen to be working actors today. It is an talented bunch, with a single exception I would address later.

The four sisters are wonderfully cast: Winona Ryder is a terrific Jo, perfectly conveying the dreams of a young woman and the fierce head-strong ambitions of a determined writer. Kirsten Dunst is a surprisingly adorable young Amy, especially during a memorable (added) scene in a carriage where Amy tells Laurie (Christian Bale) that she wants to be kissed before she dies. The scene itself is a bit silly, but the way Dunst delivers the line with such innocence and wistfulness will put a smile on almost any viewer's face. Claire Danes gives a touching and heartbreaking performance as Beth. Although Trini Alvarado most definitely doesn't look the part of the beautiful Meg, she understood the character of Meg very well and it showed through her performance.

Unlike the 1933 and 1949 versions, the 1994 version is a true ensemble piece. The focus isn't all about Jo and her relationships with her sisters anymore--it's about every supporting character as well. Although the film is not a summary of the novel, Armstrong captures the spirit of the novel better than any director before her. She lets every actor an opportunity to shine.

Susan Sarandon is lovely as Marmee. Sarandon somehow knows how to portray Marmee on-screen in a lovingly didactic way without being overly preachy. Eric Stoltz plays Brooke, Laurie's tutor and Meg's eventual suitor. Although I don't think it is entirely appropriate to make Brooke into typical comedic relief, I think Stoltz does a good job with the material given to him. Gabriel Byrne is much too attractive to play the homely Professor Bhaer, but hey, this is Hollywood--all love interests should be somewhat attractive, right? But Byrne's performance is great and acts far from the notion of an afterthought.

I have mixed feelings about Bale's performance as Laurie. Like I said before, most readers could identify with Laurie's longing to officially belong in the March family. Laurie is a difficult role to perfect. Since Laurie is one of my favorite male literary characters of all-time, I'm very passionate about the way he is portrayed on-screen. Douglas Montgomery and Lawford from the 1933 and 1949 versions, respectively, looks twice the age of the character of Laurie in the films and are honestly, absolutely charmless. Bale, on the other hand, has a natural boyish charm about him that suited Laurie nicely. Besides, Bale has amazing chemistry with Ryder. So compared to the others, it is automatic that Bale is the finest on-screen Laurie.

But there is this scene in Europe much later in the movie where Laurie says to Amy, "I envy her happiness. I envy his happiness. I envy John Brooke for marrying Meg. I hate Fred Vaughn. And if Beth had a lover I would despise him too. Just as you have always known that you would never marry a pauper, I have always known that I belong to the March family," which makes Laurie sound like a serial killer who wants to take over the world--I mean, erm, the March family. I know that Laurie in "Part II" of Little Women (otherwise known as Good Wives) is kind of creepy, but he isn't that creepy. And sleezy, for that matter.

This brings me to Samantha Mathis as older Amy. Dunst sets the stage for a likable Amy and it seems to be up to Mathis to hold on to it or tear it down. Mathis does the latter, unfortunately. Mathis looks much too old for Amy since Mathis's appearance makes everyone look like they ceased aging during the past four years. It's just weird casting. In the scenes in Europe, Mathis's Amy just comes off as extremely snobby and annoying, enough for me to hate Amy in the same way I hated Juliette Lewis's character in Husbands and Wives.

This film is so nineties: The couples all have their passionate kisses, which is probably far from the customs of nineteenth century New England. But no matter--it makes the proposal scene between Jo and Laurie much more affective and emotional.

The 1994 version is the best version, but like I said before, it's a not a perfect movie. The film may be an accomplishment in aesthetics, with its gorgeous scenery, soaring score, and charming cast, but it lacks the emotional punch of the Alcott's novel. It is a great family movie with an insanely traditional but positive message aimed at young women, but it lacks Alcott's balance in storytelling and social commentary. Armstrong's vision is certainly an emotional one, but her film barely resonates with its viewers the same way Alcott's novel resonates with its readers.

My suggestion is, skip the 1933 and 1949 theatrical film versions and watch the 1994 version if you must see Little Women on-screen. But remember, the book is always available.

Ratings: 1933: 5/10, 1949: 5/10, 1994: 8/10