MovieChat Forums > Little Women (1994) Discussion > IT can't hold a candle to.....

IT can't hold a candle to.....

posted 12 years ago by Nikistx
12 replies | jump to latest

'Little Women' 1949.

This summary from a viewer on the Little Women 1949 page sums it all up beautifully:

"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."

Nor can the 1933 version with Hepburn hold a candle to it.
The 1949 version beats them all. Hands down.

.

[–] stayprettystockholm 12 years ago

Most people dislike that one. I liked it (except for Liz being in it, and playing Amy) but this is definitely more entertaining. Athough the '49 one had the very best Jo and Beth, no contest.

IMDb is not a fansite, contrary to popular opinion!

[–] g_dekok 11 years ago

June Allyson was WAY too old to play Jo.

[–] thbryn 11 years ago

I wouldn't argue with a viewer who feels all performances are better in '49. It's pointless. Let's just say Ryder likely came close to an Oscar (we'll never know).

'49 doesn't look anywhere near as good as '94. I realize that's a technology thing but this is a visual medium and it does make a difference. Part of '49 has that soundstage look. I know what Concord looks like. This looked like Ma (even though it was B.C. I think).

Kisskiss, Bangbang

[–] stayprettystockholm 11 years ago

Lol, I didnt know I said all the performances were better (in fact if you'd read what I said, you'd plainly see I said "except for Liz" who was a very overrated actor). But I guess I can't argue with you 90s fans, it's pointless. especially that poster who won't quit reiterating that JUNE ALLYSON WAS TOO OLD.... you know, unlike Winona, Claire, Trini, ad probably more of the classic stars too. But hey, only June counts because that poster wants her too. I mean, they sure made one compelling argument!

If you really think Winona is a better actor when she overacted as Jo (which I dont blame her entirely for, she was just doing what she was directed to do), I agree it's definitely pointless to "argue". And there's no need to be randomly rude about it, if you were. Classic stars just tend to be better is all (and no, I dislike many of their actors too).

Though you're dressed in rags, you wear an air of queenly grace

[–] shadaif 11 years ago

I saw the '49 version and I think it's the worst adaptation of LW. None of the key actions took place on screen. The ages of Beth and Amy were changed to where Amy was older. The '49 version was full of big names (only Ryder was well known in 94), but the 94 was definitely the best adaptation.

[–] yajji 10 years ago

Agreed. Regardless of time and cast, the '94 version is the winner of all of the adaptations. I'm not being biased because it's the most modern version, simply because it was a more enjoyable and rewarding film experience.

[–] notspecial 9 years ago

You wrote this post years ago but June Allyson's version was the best. The 1949 version has ALWAYS been my favorite. I think there's a lot of people who haven't even seen it yet still say the 1994 version is better. The 1949 version was the first one I saw. Maybe that's why I have an attachment to it. I really did start to watch the 1994 version objectively, without bias. The same way I did with K.H. version. I just liked the J.A. version the best. To me that's a classic, this newer version isn't .

[–] aafleming 9 years ago

I've seen all three versions and I feel the 1994 version is by far the best. It is the most realistic version, but more than anything I feel that Winona Ryder did a great job with the character of Jo. I found both Hepburn's and Allyson's portrayals made Jo seem very obnoxious. Her scenes with "the professor" are far more touching, and the ending is the best. She says "I'm not married!" as if she were saying "I love you!" and I find it very moving.

[–] bookwormdreamer 9 years ago

I have not seen the one with Katharine Hepburn so I can only make comparison between the 1949 version and the 1994 one. I liked the 1949 version until I saw this one and I far prefer it to the 1949 one. Now I can't picture June Allyson as Jo at all after Winona

I agree too the scenes with the professor are far more touching.

And who knew that Laurie would one day be The Batman!

[–] liscarkat (16530) 5 years ago

I like the 1949 version. June Allyson was good, but she was thirty and I wish she had done the role when she was several years younger. The 1994 film is the best. I can't stand the Hepburn film.

[–] MNRebecca (750) 5 years ago

Only good part of 1949 version was Margaret O'Brien's Beth. Hated June Allyson's Jo.

[–] ProFromDover (272) 4 years ago

[deleted]