User reviews

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?

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

Louisa May Alcott's novel is not only a beloved American classic but is also well-known in Britain, so I need not repeat the plot here. Suffice it to say that it concerns the adventures of four sisters growing up in a small New England town during the Civil War, in which their father is fighting. The novel has been filmed a number of times but I have not seen any of the other films apart from the 1994 version starring Susan Sarandon and Winona Ryder, and as that was many years ago I will not attempt a direct comparison.

During the forties and early fifties, many films set in the Victorian period were made in black- and-white, "Dragonwyck" being an example. MGM, however, decided to make "Little Women" in Technicolor, and I think that this decision paid off. Like the British "An Ideal Husband", also from the late forties, the film can be seen as an early example of the "heritage cinema" style of film-making. Although it was filmed in a studio rather than on location, there are loving recreations of Victorian interiors and costumes, all shot in warm, rich colour. There is an emphasis on dark reds and greens, possibly because these colours were felt to be particularly appropriate to Christmas, the season during which much of the action in the first half takes place.

My main complaint about the film would be its often eccentric casting. I never thought it would be possible to make the gorgeous teenage Elizabeth Taylor look unattractive, but here as Amy, in a blonde wig and too much make-up, she looks very odd indeed. As in some of her other early films the London-born Taylor struggles with an American accent, but at least she does make an effort, unlike the former England cricket captain Sir C. Aubrey Smith, who makes no effort at all and simply plays his character, old Mr. Laurence, as an upper-class British gentleman. (This was Smith's final film; he died before it was released. Professor Bhaer is played by the Italian actor Rossano Brazzi, which explains why this German professor speaks not only English but also his native language with an Italian accent and believes that his country's greatest poet had the surname "Getta". Lucile Watson makes Aunt March seem too unpleasant, and the kind heart which Aunt March is supposed to hide beneath her gruff exterior remains too well-hidden.

The worst piece of miscasting, however, is that of June Allyson as Jo, probably the most important character in the story. Jo is supposed to be a teenager- her date of birth is given as 1846- so why was the 32-year- old Allyson cast in the role? Allyson was a decade older than Janet Leigh, who plays Jo's supposedly older sister Meg, and only eleven years younger than Mary Astor, who plays her mother. Jo, an independent and free-spirited girl, is often hot-tempered and impetuous, but we can forgive her because these are the sins of youth and because we admire her spirit. At least, we can forgive the Jo of the novel. Allyson's Jo is much less forgivable, if only because it is all too obvious that she is no longer in her first flush of youth, and she can come across as petulant and sharp-tongued, and also rather cruel in her treatment of her admirer Laurie. Allyson's harsh accent didn't help matters either. Taylor seemed rather weak as the vain, self-obsessed Amy, but I felt she might have made a better Jo.

Leigh is better as Meg, but she is not given a very big role in this film; the best of the sisters is Margaret O'Brien who makes an endearing Beth, here played as a child although in the novel she is older than Amy. Astor is also good as "Marmee", as is Smith if one can overlook his accent.

The film keeps reasonably close to Alcott's plot although there are a few minor changes. Although there are references to the Civil War, for example, the causes of that war are never mentioned. I suspect that this change would not have pleased Alcott, who held strongly anti-slavery opinions, but Hollywood producers, with an eye on the Southern box- office, were always wary of making films which might be seen as advocating the Northern cause too strongly. Overall, the film should please lovers of the novel, but I felt that it would have been improved by more appropriate casting. 6/10

An odd coincidence. When I read the book, many years ago, I was amused that Jo's first boyfriend (whose real name is Theodore Laurence) was called "Teddy" and her second "Bear", which is how Professor Bhaer's surname is pronounced, and what it means, in German. As the expression "Teddy Bear" did not exist in Alcott's lifetime this would not have struck her original readers as odd in any way, but I wonder if this was why Theodore is never referred to as "Teddy" in the film.

I've seen other versions of Little Women and this is by far my favorite. The only problem I had was with the actress who played Marmie....it was just too fake. I read some of the other comments about O'Brien's performance and her whimpering voice. Quite frankly I think she is/was the best child actress of her or any time. She played timid Beth to perfection. She may have hammed it up a bit, but her melodramtic style was mirroring the style of the times. In order to judge a film you have to take in account the times in which it was made. I have no problem with the Ryder version being more feminist. I had no problem with everything being on a set. For some reason it made it seem more like watching a painting come to life than a movie. Perhaps I got that feeling from Lawrence's voyeurism. My favorite quote is "Be elegant or die". It's my hope that one day June Allison will be known for capturing perfectly the spirit of Jo March rather than depend commercials. Elizabeth Taylor's selfish, vain Amy was hilarious. I love this movie and watch it every x-mas. It's a definate holiday classic.

This is one of the best of the various film versions of Louisa May Alcoot's timeless story of the March family , this one remains faithful to the spirit of the vintage book, adding some especial touches .Dealing with four sisters : the smartest June Allyson, the fragile youngest Margaret O'Brien , mischievous Elizabeth Taylor , delightful Janet Leigh and their obstinate mother Mary Astor , both of them sharing their loves : Richard Wyler , Peter Lawford , Rossano Brazzi , their sorrows and their joys . As the four teenager sisters growing up against the backdrop of American Civil War (1861/1865).

A really sentimental and enjoyable picture about 4 teen sisters finding romance and pains. Beautifully portrayed in an ordinary and solid Hollywood production that blends a seamless script with a top-notch casting , elegant period gowns and lovely photography and music . Everything about this colorful film is attractive , from the lavish period costumes to the agreeable screenplay and particularly the magnificent interpretations by the glorious cast. Special mention for June Allyson who is excellent as the tomboy , unconventional sister who is also the strongest one . A must-see for fans of Alcott and others will find it charming. Displaying a brilliant and glamorous cinematography as well as touching and moving musical score by Adolph Deutsch. The motion picture was competently directed by Mervyn LeRoy . He was a typical Hollywood filmmaker who directed a lot of lavish and successful movies as Gold Diggers 1933 , Little Caesar , I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang , Waterloo Bridge , Anthony Adverse , Devil at 4 O'Clock , Quo Vadis , Thirty seconds over Tokyo , Gypsy , Million Dollar Mermaid, Without Reservations . And this Little Women won Academy Award : Oscar 1949 Art Direction/Set Decoration .

There are several versions based on the popular novel: Little Women 1933 by George Cukor with Katharine Hepburn, Joan Bennett , Frances Dee , Jean Parker . Little Women 1994 by Gillian Armstrong with Susan Sarandon , Winona Ryder, Trini Alvarado , Samantha Mathis , Kristen Dunst, Claire Danes . Little Women 1978 by David Lowell Rich with Meredith Baxter , Susan Dey , Robert Young , William Shatner , Greer Garson, followed by a TV series , among others .

The second filmed version of Louise May Alcott's novel is a sumptuous color coordinated classic which starred June Allyson, Elizabeth Taylor, Margaret O'Brien & Janet Leigh. Having seen the original Katherine Hepburn version many years ago & the closest one of note is the '94 version w/Winona Ryder, I admit I was a little trepidatious to visit this 1949 entry but boy was I happy I did. Allyson is a fireball as Jo, the reluctant, soon to be writer who has to be the matriarch of her clan as her father serves in the Civil War & Marmee has to keep the finances on a tight leash. Feeling like a play shot on film w/the main house set large on a sound-stage w/gorgeous backdrops accentuating the ambiance, this adaptation hits all the right notes. I dare you to keep a dry eye when young Meg visits her elderly neighbor to thank him for a recent present of a piano.

Have not seen this film in years and it was great to view it again and see how young all the actors were in the Year 1949. The famous Director, Mervyn LeRoy made this a very enjoyable film which had a great deal of realism and showed how these young women grew from children to adults and moved on into the real world and faced some of its tragic events in their lives.

June Allyson, (Jo) played the tom boy in the family and wanted to become a writer and went off to New York City. Margaret O'Brien,(Beth) was a rather frail child and very timid and bashful and loved to play the piano. Elizabeth Taylor, (Amy) was a bit of snob and liked to have plenty of money and a big home to live in. Janet Leigh, (Meg) was a home body and wanted to find a man she could fall in love with and have children. Peter Lawford, (Laurie) was a rich young man and was very interest since a boy in Jo and waited patiently for the time to ask her to marry him. Charming film to show around Christmas time and a rather tear-jerker at times, use the tissue box during this film. Margaret O'Brien gave an outstanding supporting role.

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.

Once upon a time there was a house where four very nice little sisters lived, whose father had to go to war, and whose mother had to get a job to help maintain the house. This seems like the beginning of a very sound children's story, but it summarizes in one fell swoop the essence of the beginning of the most famous and most acclaimed book by Louisa May Alcott, a 19th century writer who wrote books for women and who did so according to the mentality of the time in which he lived, that is, limiting himself to romantic amenities, flirting, marriage proposals and family dramas of a certain moral nature.

Before talking about the film, allow me a small aside...

In fact, May Alcott's book has currently been criticized for its somewhat conservative stances. But what on earth did they expect from a 19th century book, written by a 19th century woman?? If you have any kind of criticism to make, grab a time machine! This is not an isolated case: a certain propensity for posthumous censorship of books, plays, music and historical figures has taken hold in so-called democratic societies based on the fact that they have done, said or written things that we do not like, but which, in the context and at the time they can understand each other. Personally, I see no difference between criticizing this book for its conservatism and editing Shakespeare's plays by changing terms, words and expressions that could hurt the "immaculate virgins" of the hypersensitive 21st century. From the tearing down of statues of confederate generals and people who had slaves to the censorship of books, we are a short distance from the dictatorships that we once fought with weapons: we are conveying an idea of history that, more serious than being partial and "in black -and-white", is highly politicized and anachronistic. Leave history to those who can explain it, understand and explain statues instead of tearing them down, understand and accept literary and cultural works instead of wanting to rewrite them!

When the film goes to the cinema, the production has two options: either it is strictly faithful to what is written there, or it makes a nicer version, with some new things, for those who want to enjoy it. This film is not faithful to the book, it changes the sisters' ages and makes a number of small changes. None of this reduces the quality of the film, which is highly recommended and well done. The direction does a remarkable job, the cinematography, with bright and vivid colors, is elegant and magnificent, the sets and costumes are well suited to what is expected of them (they deserved the Oscar for Best Art Direction) and the reconstruction of the period is quite satisfactory. The soundtrack is based on a small set of good songs that are worth listening to.

Perhaps it is in the field of interpretation that this film deserves greater attention, because it is a reunion of magnificent actresses at their highest level: it was incredible to see the talent that already existed in the young Elizabeth Tailor, who steals our attention whenever she is near, and Janet Leigh is not far behind with a courageous interpretation of a character full of strength. Little Margaret O'Brien is totally convincing in her character's fragility and shyness and June Allyson ends up being the least striking of the four "sisters". The secondary cast features equally consistent appearances by C. Aubrey Smith and Mary Astor. I also liked Lucille Watson, she is excellent as the vixen. I think the least happy ones ended up being Peter Lawford, very sugary, and Rossano Brazzi, who seems to me like a casting error and a weak heartthrob.

A miscast "Little Women", with a lot of expensive sets and photography; colorful and overproduced.

Margaret O'Brien is the best of the bunch; she can actually play a "Little Woman" believably. "Christopher Columbus!" but, June Allyson looks and sounds ghastly in this role; the "older woman cast as young girl" thing worked much better in silents, with fuzzy B&W photography. Peter Lawford's tutor looks as young as his character. And, my grandmother said, "If I ever came to the breakfast table with the make-up Elizabeth Taylor has on, I'd have gotten a licking!" They age into their roles with varying success, if you keep watching.

In my opinion, this movie will appeal mostly to followers of lavish period productions, or fans of a specific individual/filmmaker. I don't see how 1949's "Little Women" could be better than either the original book or another filmed version. And, why wasn't there room in the budget to dub in a decent "whistle" for Ms. Allyson?

***** Little Women (3/10/49) Mervyn LeRoy ~ June Allyson, Margaret O'Brien, Elizabeth Taylor, Peter Lawford

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.

As a quick rule of thumb, the success of any adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's "Little Women" can be gauged by its plausibility in handling the character of Beth -- who is not, at least in the titular novel, a plaster saint, but a shy and conscientious little girl of a type that most readers will have met. By that standard, MGM's 1949 adaptation doesn't quite work; which turns out to be a fair summary of the film as a whole.

I videotaped this a couple of days ago from a BBC broadcast, having had the fortune to see a good-quality print of the 1933 adaptation at the cinema a few months previously, which puts me in the anomalous -- and, I suspect, unique -- position among IMDb reviewers of having experienced the earlier film at a rather higher technical quality than the later one! With the playing-field levelled in this fashion the comparison becomes unfortunately straightforward: the remake hasn't advanced technically other than in the employment of Technicolor, remaining static and studio-bound (with some fairly obviously mocked-up exteriors), the script treatment comes across as a series of tableaux rather than a continuous story, and -- given that both films have reworked the plot to centre around the character of Jo -- June Allyson is simply no Katherine Hepburn. She tries very hard, but she isn't a 'natural' for the coltish tomboy part in the way that Hepburn was, and she's a good actress but not great enough to make us forget it. (And couldn't somebody at the studio have taught her how to whistle convincingly... or at least cut out the lines of dialogue requiring her to make that attempt?)

As others have observed, all the principals (save, of course, Margaret O'Brien) are too old, and Allyson not least among them. Again, in a world where teenage series are routinely staffed by actors in their late twenties, this needn't necessarily have mattered -- but the performances aren't sufficient to overcome it. Hardest to swallow for me was Peter Lawford playing a Laurie who looked almost old enough to be Beth's father: admittedly he was always going to have difficulty eclipsing the achievement of the unknown (to me at least) Douglass Montgomery, who along with Hepburn had astounded me in the earlier film, developing an outstanding character from a shy boy of fifteen through a romping youth to a mature and self-assured man in the final scenes.

Mary Astor, on the other hand, playing the mother, was an undoubted improvement on Spring Byington in 1933... playing, as ever, Spring Byington. One point that did amuse me, however, is that while the girls, in accordance with long cinematic tradition, are coiffed and made up in an unmistakably contemporary 1940s take on period style, Miss Astor's look -- as presumably felt to befit a member of the older generation -- appears to be more reminiscent of the 1920s!

Ultimately there is nothing very much wrong with MGM's post-war presentation, although I would question the casting choices for such major roles as Laurie and Jo; the trouble for me is that there is nothing out of the ordinary about it either. Shorn of the religious and moral lectures the novel takes for granted, the film fails to find any unifying shape of its own, and remains at root a set of glossy 'scenes from the classics' -- and, towards the end, fairly disjointed ones. I felt it laboured somewhat under the worthy label of "literary adaptation".

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").

If you can ignore the differences from the book (most noticeably that Amy isn't the youngest in the movie and many of the young people aren't old enough), this is a charming and lovely movie! The actors all did good jobs and I laughed a lot in the beginning of the movie. It has lovely costumes, fun times, and sweet romance. A delightful movie!

I've lived bed this book and the 1949 movie since I was a little girl so I thought there would be no reason to watch this. It pulled me in right away, and even added some elements of the story missing from other adaptations. Actually got me excited to reread the book. I thoroughly enjoyed it and thought it was well cast

Louisa May Alcott (1832-1888) was an extremely controversial woman, the product of parents associated with the transcendentalist movement, a rabid abolitionist, an early feminist, and possibly lesbian as well. Even so, between 1868 and her death she generated a series of novels for juvenile readers which were extremely popular and which continue to be read today. Easily the most famous of these is LITTLE WOMEN, first published in 1868; it has been adapted to the dramatic stage, to the musical and opera stages; and was filmed no fewer than twelve times during the 20th Century alone.

Three of these films have been particularly famous: the 1933 film with Katherine Hepburn; the 1994 film with Winona Ryder; and sandwiched in between them the 1949 version. Released by MGM and produced and directed by Mervyn LeRoy, like many films of its era it was driven almost exclusively by star power--regardless of whether the actor in question was right for the role or not--and given every bright and colorful visual possible--whether it was appropriate or not.

The story, of course, focuses on the March girls, four daughters growing up during the Civil War under their mother's care while their father, a Union Chaplin, is away at the front. Meg (Janet Leigh) is the oldest and perhaps most sensible; Jo (June Allyson) is headstrong, boyish, and very determined to be a writer; Amy (Elizabeth Taylor) is beautiful but vain and affected; and Beth (Margaret O'Brien), the youngest, is of a noble but extremely shy disposition. Mother "Marmee" is played by the always memorable Mary Astor; father Mr. March is played by Leon Ames; and the supporting cast includes Lucille Watson, Peter Lawford, and Rossano Brazzi.

The 1949 LITTLE WOMEN isn't in the least plausible: the actresses are much too different in coloring and build to be believable as mother and daughters, and although Mary Astor, Leon Ames, and Lucille Watson score extremely well in their performances, the rest of the cast tends to overplay wildly. Of the sisters, Janet Leigh is easily the most believable. June Allyson is seen here at her most brash, Elizabeth Taylor is truly jaw-dropping in a blonde wig, and Margaret O'Brien too often veers into a sticky-sweetness. And yet, curiously, the whole really does work and is tremendously entertaining, the sort of thing we mean when we talk about "a good old-fashioned fun film." Although the script leaves a lot to be desired, the story presented here is really closer to the book than the 1933 and 1994 films, and it has considerable power and authority; in watching it, you get the feeling that of all the many film versions, this is the one that Louisa May Alcott herself would have liked best. The Technicolor images are typically over the top, seeming overdone in the austere Marsh home but very on target elsewhere, and the production values are MGM at its most glossy. Mervyn Le Roy is hardly in the same league with George Cukor (neither is Gillian Armstrong for that matter), but he keeps the show moving at fast clip, and in the end it is extremely enjoyable if somewhat shallow fun. The DVD is "good" rather than fine--but whatever the case, it's a lot of fun.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer

Why was June Allyson so miscast as Jo? Jo's 15 or 16, and she was 32. Surely there were other girls who would have been a much better pick. Lawford as Teddy was ok, but also too old.