Little Women

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.

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.

This is THE best version I have ever seen, including the latest remake w/winona ryder. The Allyson/1949 version captures the time, mood and setting perfectly and comfortably - Whereas the 90's version was too "90's". There was a lot more sarcasm, too much of "we women being held back" dialogue and overall coarseness. The June Allyson version, in my opinion, is still the one for me.

IC

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!!!!!

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.