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

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.

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").

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.

What a fantastic cast! Everyone has their favorite of the numerous film versions of Louisa May Alcott's classic and this is mine. From LeRoy's breezy direction to the beautifully subdued Technicolor this movie resonates. The true draw, however, is the cast. Two of the classic screen beauties, Janet Leigh and Elizabeth Taylor juxtapose nicely opposite the ultimate girl-next-door June Allyson and television legend Margaret O'Brien. All of them are very young here and incredibly charming. Allyson leads as Jo March. Her interpretation is as sensible, no-nonsense, tomboyish and, ultimately, womanly as you can hope. Allyson pulls it off without the coolness Katharine Hepburn displayed in the 1933 version. Her Jo is very accessible and entirely sympathetic. That is not to say I do not enjoy Hepburn's Jo as well. It was a near flawless portrayal and technically superior to Allyson's. I did, however, prefer the warmer Allyson version. Janet Leigh (one of my favorite starlets) doesn't have a lot to do with her character as, in the movie, Meg mainly functions as a catalyst for and example of Jo's feelings regarding love and marriage. Still, Leigh is perfectly poised and has great chemistry with the other little women. Elizabeth Taylor makes a bit more out of her juicier role of the seemingly superficial and selfish Amy. Taylor is delightful and brings a lot of laughs as she fusses over food, glamour and sensibilities, all the while mispronouncing the five dollar words she loves to work into her conversations. O'Brien plays the role of Beth with all the delicate vulnerability needed for the character. Lawford is charismatic as Laurie and Watson is appropriately annoying as the meddling Aunt March. I highly recommend this (and the 1933 version) for a warm and touching adaptation of the book.

The cast of this film reads like a who's who of MGM studio: C. Aubrey Smith, Harry Davenport, Mary Astor, Leon Ames, June Allyson, Janet Leigh, Elizabeth Taylor and Margaret O'Brien... The accumulation of all of these stars is a super-treat for fans of the films of the 30's and 40's. And - oh, yeah - they all deliver stellar, memorable, poignant performances! But this film is deserving of the designation of "classic" and is superior to the 1933 version primarily because of the performance of June Allyson. Every time she exclaims, "Christopher Columbus!" it seems very natural. In fact she makes all of her difficult dialog (including the oath, "bilge!") seem very natural. This ability to appear completely comfortable and natural stands in stark contrast to the delivery of Katherine Hepburn in the '33 version. These words never seem to be Jo's own, when spoken by Hepburn; whereas, they are indeed Jo's when spoken by Allyson. They are glaring and obtrusive in Hepburn's dialog, and a seamless part of Allyson's. Hepburn is an actress losing a struggle with uncomfortable dialog; Allyson embraces it. This alone makes Allyson the definitive Jo, and makes this 1949 version the definitive "Little Women." Allyson's Jo is real flesh-and-blood, while Hepburn's Jo is a melodramatic character.

In "Little Women," Liz was given a chance to play comedy, and as the selfish, flighty Amy who loves to eat and who misuses big words, she's a delight Mervyn LeRoy's version has one advantage over its illustrious predecessor: as Amy, the trivial and dizzy vixen and the most engaging of the tear-stained March sisters, Liz has much more spirit than Joan Bennett… Her part is a charming respite, a light-hearted version of the women in love who were the chief ingredient of her upcoming ingénue period "Little Women" was sweet and sentimental… It was the familiar story of four Massachusetts girls who during their father's Civil War absence learn to grow up and find direction in their lives… The film has the requisite portions of frivolous comedy and soap opera heart emotions; Margaret O'Brien suffers nobly, Janet Leigh smiles sweetly, June Allyson tries valiantly, and what more could be asked of Louisa May Alcott's long-lasting perfumed account? The film marked an end to Taylor's child-woman phase… Part foolishly teenager, a flighty girl who looks at life from the angle of a Victorian romance, part incipient flirt, coquettishly but kindly stealing Laurie away from older sister Jo, her Amy is a pleasing mixture of the Taylor innocent and the Taylor minx

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.

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

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.