Les quatre filles du Dr March

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.

The opening scenes of Little Women are so beautifully captured on film that it looks almost like a Currier and Ives post card. It is so magically evocative of a New England in the early 1860's that the viewer is transported to that time visually and emotionally. The characters are so well crafted, warm and human that you truly wish you knew them. The way the movie glides through the season's, from the deep snows of winter, to the bright flowers of spring, through the summer into the golden hues of autumn each season is so wonderfully captured that viewers one hundred years from now will feel that they time tripped to that age so long ago. With the brutal civil war as the backdrop to the play, the movie tells the sensitive and gentle story of four young sister's on the homefront. Each sister is defined and likeable. Brought to life brilliently by June Allyson, Janet Leigh, Elizabeth Taylor and Margaret O'Brien. Each actress captured fully the innocents, decency and depth of their roles, imprinting forever the definitive characterizations that would have made Louisa May Alcott proud. I love this most beautiful work of cinematic art so much that I never tire of watching it. It is a treat for the eyes, the heart and the soul and at the end when the camera pans back to view the sky festooned with a glorious rainbow your emotions leap for joy that a movie can so utterly express the simple elegance of human decency and goodness.

Out of all of the versions of "Little Women" that I've seen, this one is the only one that I've really enjoyed. I think I first saw this one when I was about 10. There isn't any one particular aspect of the movie that I like, the whole thing is marvelous. Acting, cast, costumes, you name it. I watched it again for the first time in years the other day (13 years from the first time I saw it) and it is just as good as ever. "Little Women" in my opinion, is a classic. It's a great movie for all ages. Probably not a movie most guys would want to watch being a chick flick, but great for a bunch of girlfriends hanging out, or sleepovers (that's where I first saw this version of "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.

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?