I've just started to read 'Little Women' (I know, kinda late. But I never got my hands on it before now) on my Kobo, and I've watched some clips from some of the adaptions on the internet.
I must say, I'm quite disappointed.
Some of the older ones are atrocious. I've always disliked how movies in the prior to about the 70's always have to incorporate the current day's fashion and hair into a historical piece - so you get Princess Mary Tudor in a French hood and a retro perm in Anne of The Thousand Days, pour exemple. Same deal with Little Women.
Another thing that is steadily occurent is that they always cast some 20 or 30 year old as Amy March. The reason is quite silly - Amy March, being the youngest of the 'Little Women', changes the most, physically, throughout the story - wherelse Beth dies before she gets very old (sooo sad) and the eldest are introduced as being 15 and 16 - virtually adults. The 1994 takes the obvious route by casting two actresses for the role of Amy March - a pre-teen Kirsten Dunst and an older actress to play the love interest of Laurie, played by Christian Bale who was double Kirsten Dunst's age and height at the time. I don't understand why they didn't do that sooner - it would have made much more sense than a 30 year old trying to fit in to a classroom full of little schoolgirls.
The 1994 version with Winona Ryder and Susan Sarandon is by far the best adaption, but I don't understand why a remake hasn't been made. There has been a resurgence in recreating period pieces - Wuthering Heights, Jane Eyre, Pride and Prejudice - why hasn't Little Women had their revamp yet?
Btw I am two chapters in and LOVING the book.