- Acting of Lead Performers
- Acting of Supporting Cast
- Music Score
- Title Sequence
- Historical Importance
- Would You Recommend?
0 Member Ratings
NO REVIEWS AVAILABLE
The title has not been reviewed. Be the first to write a review by clicking here to start.
Louisa May Alcott 's classic novel
This movie was based on Louisa May Alcott 's classic novel 'Little Women'. Louisa May Alcott was born on November 29, 1832, in Germantown, Pennsylvania. Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson were family friends. Alcott wrote under various pseudonyms and only started using her own name when she was ready to commit to writing. Her novel 'Little Women' gave Louisa May Alcott financial independence and a lifetime writing career.I think that's good story.
The Sisters March!
- Raymond Banacki
Absolute perfection on every level, the type of film that made MGM famous.
little women 1949
- kevin sellers
I've always hated this movie (especially this version, with a too old June Allyson) It's kinda like "Sound Of Music" without the music. Real sentimental bilge. Give it a C minus. (Peter Lawford and Mary Astor save it from a D.)
A colourful, lush adaptation of the famous story. Allyson, Leigh, O' Brien and Taylor are the four March sisters who find love and happiness during the Civil War. The film won a Oscar for it's production design; some scenes are unnecessary, drag too long or are boring. A good adaptation with room for improvement. I give it a 3/5.
A solid 2nd time around
- David H.
Generally, remakes always invite comparisons to earlier versions and the 1949 film of "Little Women" is no exception. June Allyson is no Katharine Hepburn, but she is more than capable as the film's main protagonist. It was nice to see child actresses portraying the two youngest March sisters. A teen-aged Elizabeth Taylor is much more believable as a schoolgirl than 23-year-old Joan Bennett was in the 1933 version and Margaret O'Brien is fine as Beth, even though her character is older in the book and earlier film. The casting of Peter Lawford as Laurie and Mary Astor as the mother brings more depth to those characters. For me, this version's main determent is that most of the outdoor scenes look cheesy as they were obviously filmed on sound stages. Even when compared to the 1933 film, which was almost perfect, this version does stand on its own as a solid film that does justice to an American classic.
just can't help it !
I discovered the jewel of a movie, "Little Women", quite late in life; in my sixties. I watch both the 1933 and 1949 versions every time they air. I dearly love both films; the one with Kate Hepburn and the one with June Allyson. However, I just cannot help getting a greater kick out of the 1949 film The performances by June Allyson, Elizabeth Taylor, Peter Lawford, as well as the rest of the cast is flawless. My vote is cast ! 1949 is it for me.
I came upon this movie one Friday evening on TCM about six or seven years ago during the CHRISTmas season. I immediately fell in love. The cast is perfect and so charming. I love that it is so close to the book. I can't imagine anyone not loving this movie, especially if you're a fan of the book. This movie is a treasure and should not be missed!
I like it
I really like this movie, my first time knowing and watching it
1933 little women
absolutely the best version of this film! i have been watching this movie over and over since about 1965 (was 6yrs old). every actor and actress portrayed their parts perfectly! great casting! even named by daughter Meg after the charactor meg! FAVORITE MOVIE OF ALL TIME!
- Larry Bradford
She was the most convincing actress in this film. Elizabeth Taylor was far too shalow and Jo wasn't quite equipped for her role. The professor was perfect and the wealthy aunt soured this film. I still dont know why I liked this film, June just didn't convince me as a writer.
Nur Wer Die Sehnsucht Kennt...
Despite a few sprinkles of saccharine, (for ex., why would Peter Lawford call Mary Astor "Marmie"?) this is a very good film, and -- I agree with many others -- much better than the 1933 version. The cast is stellar, June Allyson especially. Don't fail to miss the scene later on when Rosanno Brazzi is playing the piano and singing and June Allyson comes to listen. It's pure movie magic, one of my favorite movie moments.
The 1949 version of Little Women in my opinion, is far better than the 1933 version. I have no problem with any of the casting, particularly June Allyson's version of Jo. I think she nails it. The sets and the wardrobes in this picture were outstanding!I too love the ending shot of the rainbow in this picture.Truly a classic!
It seems that Jay has a dislike for June. I have seen his reviews on almost every Allyson movie and he knocks every performance.I personally thjink this is a much better version of Little Women than the one with Kate Hepburn. It is not nearly as stiffly performed.
Little Women (1949)
Certainly the worst rendition of the three major versions of the classic story, but still not too bad, June Allyson is badly miscast, she does not have the acting ability for a role of such depth. Good costumes, great art direction.
1949 version of Little Women
I have seen this movie countless times and enjoy it just as much each time I watch it. Most of the actors in this are my favorite. This was the first book I read as a child and have always loved the story. Maybe because it takes place in MA plus the actors in this version.
Comparison to 1933 version
- Jarrod McDonald
Last night TCM showed the '33 and the '49 versions. I have to say I enjoy both versions immensely. But I'm leaning toward this one a bit more. I want to sort of discuss its so-called shortcomings. First, I don't think making the story in Technicolor worsens it. I didn't exactly buy them being so poor and downtrodden in the Hepburn version. They still lived in a great neighborhood and with the help of their begrudging aunt, they didn't seem even remotely middle class. So if the Allyson version seems a bit more opulent because it is in color, I can live with it...because I see them as industrious and prosperous regardless of their circumstances. Next, I think the casting is actually better in this version. Margaret O'Brien is very good, very fragile, vulnerable and believeable as the sick sister. She should seem youngest and most helpless, even if that's not how Alcott wrote it. So I would not say she is miscast at all. I found the Beth in the '33 version to be too mature and matronly, actually. Her death was still sad but not as heartbreaking as watching little Margaret O'Brien die. Also, I think the professor is better in this version and Ellen Corby as Sophie (renamed from Mamie in the other version) makes the New York sequence that much more solid. The end of this version doesn't drag as much as the Hepburn version. And I really like the ending with its note of hope and rainbow-infused color after the rain. It seemed like Judy Garland should've played Jo! Finally, I think June Allyson is excellent in this version. She is photographed better here than Cukor photographed Hepburn (the soft-focus closeups in the '33 version made Kate's face difficult to see during key dramatic moments). And what I really like about Allyson is the way she could come in from the opera with the professor and do a finer turn at singing than Hepburn could. Then there's the way that post-war Allyson said 'blessed boy' that just seemed so perfect and so right.
LOVE THIS MOVIE!!!
This version of "Little Women" is my all-time favorite movie. I've probably watched it at least 30 times, and seldom ever watch any movie more than once. I love everything about the movie - the cast, the music, the setting, the costumes - - everything. I will continue to watch the movie at every opportunity.
This movie is the first time I ever saw Little Women June Allyson is great! All of them were. Such a wonderful film!
- victoria delorenzo
i love this movie.