Little Women

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!!!!!

It's difficult to watch this version of "Little Women" without comparing it to the 1933 film starring Katherine Hepburn. One can understand why they chose to remake the film, especially since this version benefits from color film.

There are other aspects of this film that compare favorably to the earlier film. Although June Allyson, as Jo, is not as convincing as Hepburn for me, her portrayal is very earnest. Other actors in the cast are noteworthy, especially Margaret O'Brien, who plays Beth, the shy musical sister. Janet Leigh and Elizabeth Taylor play the other two sisters, completing a stand-out foursome.

C. Aubrey Smith also deserves recognition for his portrayal of the elderly neighbor Mr. Laurence, who befriends Beth. It is one of the warmest moments of the film.

This is a wonderful coming of age story based on a classic novel.

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.

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.

This version of Little Women was the third film I ever saw, after Oliver! and Jane Eyre (1943), so that makes it special and remembered with affection. I wouldn't compare it with the 1930s and 1990s version, or the TV serial, because that wouldn't be fair. It's a product of its time, 40s MGM, and it shows. Sentimental, yes. But its almost perfect casting (many of the St Louis family including Astor and O'Brien, plus Allyson, Leigh, Lawford and Taylor) and its good heart keep it a constant favourite. I finally got a video copy last year and made my acquaintance with this peach of a film again. Highly recommended and a good tribute to all involved.