Mujercitas

Maybe it's because I saw this version after seeing the Katharine Hepburn and Winona Ryder versions, but I consider this version to be the least out of the 3. I don't know why. The girls seemed to be a tad to nice and cosy for my liking, and I just couldn't stand Jo's accent. And has already been said some of the ages of the characters seem to be completely out of line with the novel. In a related quibble I didn't like how they switched the ages of Amy and Beth around to make Beth the youngest - I guess this was done so they could get Elizabeth Taylor to play Amy seeing as how Beth dies. And I know it's probably typical of the times but the obvious use of studio sets for just about every single scene made the whole thing seem rather fake.

Overall though it is still an enjoyable film. However I'd recommend the above mentioned Katharine Hepburn and/or Winona Ryder versions over it.

A glossy, overly sentimental, candybox version of LITTLE WOMEN that is easy on the eyes with its vibrant, sometimes delicate use of color and pleasant to listen to with the same background score used for the 1933 movie version with Katharine Hepburn. But the trouble lies in the casting--June Allyson is tomboyish enough but uses all of her cute acting tricks to remind us that she's not really Jo March at all. Margaret O'Brien is a bit too mushy as Beth, her childish voice quivering with tearful emotion. Janet Leigh, however, makes a perfect Meg and Elizabeth Taylor is an inspired piece of casting as Amy.

Others in the cast are impressive enough--Mary Astor, Leon Ames and most of all, Lucille Watson as Aunt March. There is humor and pathos in the script and it is all played for warm-hearted, tender charm whenever it remains faithful to the Louisa May Alcott classic. But with two of the pivotal roles in the hands of unsuitable players, it fails to hold more than a modest amount of conviction.

The sets are artistic and beautifully photographed (it won an Oscar for Best Set Decoration in Color), but the March home looks a bit too imposing for a poor family during the Civil War and the costumes look as though they came straight from the MGM costume department without sparing any cost.

Peter Lawford makes an acceptable Laurie and Rossano Brazzi does his continental charm to the max. What could have been a great film manages to be warm and touching, slick and glossy at the same time--but worth watching for the performances of Elizabeth Taylor and Janet Leigh. The final scene in the rain between Allyson and Brazzi has a certain charm but then the camera pans to a rainbow over the March house which seems an artificial touch to one of the film's few genuine moments.

Since RKO had done such a classic version of this story back in 1933 one does wonder why MGM bothered to do the story again.

In watching Little Women I believe I found the answer. In 1949 the nation was still healing from World War II. The sacrifices made on the homefront supporting the troops overseas were fresh in everyone's mind. One thing that this version reminds us of more than the 1933 film is that it does take place during the Civil War. So this quaint 19th century novel all of sudden took on a relevance for the audience of 1949.

Of course this version did not have Katharine Hepburn. And of course June Allyson is no Kate, but CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS, who is? Allyson does make a winning Jo March and MGM got a great opportunity to get four of its loveliest contract players a showcase vehicle. Elizabeth Taylor, June Allyson, and Janet Leigh all surely had substantial careers with better roles, but it's a treat to see them all together here. And Margaret O'Brien capped her career as child star at MGM with her performance here as Beth.

Hard to believe that the hardboiled Brigid O'Shawnessy and the beloved Marmee March could be played by the same actress. But Mary Astor was just that talented. Her role is very similar to that of Claudette Colbert in Since You Went Away. Her best scenes are concerning her care for the less fortunate Hummel family, both in telling her kids how important it is to care for the less fortunate and in actually leading the March brood over to the Hummel household.

MGM definitely made a version that will stand on its own merits even without the great Kate. CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS who'd have thought it possible?

I can't see why so many people writing here liked this version. I can only guess they never actually read the book. Why was Amy changed from being the youngest daughter? Why are whole threads of a very well known story changed? For example, the party scenes didn't include Amy and Beth so why put them on the stairs.

What I find even more flat about this version is that it took away all the edge in the story. This was a feminist story that dealt with issues such as slavery that aren't even addressed in this version.

Not to mention that none of the actresses look the age of their characters.

If you have to watch a film version watch the 1994 version it is better acted and appears to be adapted by someone who actually read the book and not just the cliff notes.

I thought this was a beautiful movie, and very entertaining. My only real complaint is Elizabeth Taylor as Amy, (Amy is supposed to be the YOUNGEST??)I liked June Allyson as Jo, and I really liked Margaret O'Brien as Beth. I've seen the three versions of the book, and even though the one with Winona Ryder is my favorite, I really enjoyed this movie. There was one aspect that I noticed about this film. The sets are the exact same as the one with Katharine Hepburn!!!!!