Watch Little Women For Free

Powerful

A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

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.

Louisa May Alcott, a notable American novelist, wrote one of the most beloved novels about an American family. The setting of the story was the 1860s while the country was experiencing the horrors of the Civil War. The novel was autobiographical. The Marsh family is at the center of the drama. This was a second version of the novel on the screen. The more successful adaptation was the 1933 film directed by George Cukor with an amazing performance by Katherine Hepburn as Jo Marsh.The second production of the novel was directed by Mervyn Leroy. This Technicolor version was a departure from the first one, but it lacked Mr. Cukor's vision. The casting of June Allyson as Jo Marsh has its good moments, but she is completely out of her league as the scene changes to New York where she has gone to try her fortune. Ms. Allyson was effective, notoriously on the first part, playing the tomboyish girl.The cast assembled was excellent. A young and ravishing Elizabeth Taylor as the pretentious Amy. Margaret O'Brien appeared as Beth and Janet Leigh made an impression as Meg. Mary Astor and Leon Ames were the parents of the Marsh sisters. A dashing Peter Lawford was effective as Laurie, the rich boy next door. Rossano Brazzi shows up as Professor Bhaer, the man that saw the possibilities in Jo. C. Aubrey Smith and the excellent Lucille Watson were also on hand in supporting roles.

GLSILVA wrote: "After all the hype I had heard about the Jane Austin novel and different film versions of the book I found myself very disappointed with the movie."GLSILVA-- Your review contains a glaring error which discounts your thoughts. LITTLE WOMEN is a Louisa May Alcott novel, not a Jane Austen work. If you missed this essential point, I am afraid you missed the gem of the story Ms. Alcott delivered via this particular version and lovely film adaptation of Alcott's classic.Margaret O'Brien captures the essence of the sweet, good Beth. Her final scenes with Jo left me weeping. Laurie was one of my first literary crushes. As handsome as Peter Lawford was, I do wish they had casted younger for his role. June Allyson plays it younger than her years and is believable as the angst-filled, wild-eyed, young at heart, asked to grow up before her time writer Jo.I hope watching this movie inspires people to read LITTLE WOMEN. Now THAT'S a story-- a film on paper. No actors needed. Alcott breathed these characters to life via words. I love watching the movie but there is nothing like this book if you want to experience a full-scale "cinematic" experience.

The book "Little Women" is one of my favourite books of all time, it is funny, moving and just makes me warm inside while reading it. This 1949 film is very delightful and charming with some good performances, lush cinematography and visual detail and lovely music. However, as I am sure people have pointed out, it is very loosely based on the book. Beth is now the youngest, Laurie goes off to war here and there are bits cut out. The latter is understandable though because the book is quite long. Putting all that aside, this is still a delightful film. It looks lovely, with lush cinematography and colourful costumes and scenery. The music is also gorgeous, I particularly loved hearing "None But the Lonely Heart", that is one of my favourite songs and never fails to bring tears to my eyes. The acting in general is very good, Janet Leigh isn't given that much to do but she is very rosy-looking as Meg. You may argue that June Allyson was too old for Jo, in some ways that is true. However Allyson still manages to give a warm and tomboyish performance. Elizabeth Taylor is wonderful as spoilt, selfish Amy, Taylor is not the lovely woman she is in "Ivanhoe" or the seductive "sex on wheels" character she is in "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof", she is Amy and plays her very convincingly, making the most of some of the film's best lines. That leaves Margaret O'Brien, a very cute and appealing child actress, and she was very convincing as Beth, Beth's vulnerability in the latter half of the film is genuinely affecting. Out of the supporting actors, Mary Astor comes off best, sticking to the benevolent and sincere Marmee of the book, and C.Aubrey Smith is splendid as Old Mr Laurence, his scenes with Beth are quite heart-warming. Peter Lawford is charming as Laurie, and Lucille Watson is quite detestable as Aunt March. Rossano Brazzi as Professor Bhaer looks handsome, but I wasn't entirely convinced by him. He started off wooden, and I also felt he was too Italian for the role, Professor Bhaer is supposed to be German. Still, "Little Women" despite its flaws is still a delightful and charming film. 8/10 Bethany Cox