Les quatre filles du Dr March

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?

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.

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.

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").