One of the major film interpretations of the semi-autobiographical American novel written by Louisa May Alcott, this version of Little Women is known to fans as "The June Allyson," because she is the actress who portrays Jo(sephine) March, the main character. This movie shares much in common with the 1933 film. We'll see why, in a minute.

This is the story of the four March sisters -- Meg (Janet Leigh), Jo (June Allyson), Beth (Margaret O'Brien) and Amy (Elizabeth Taylor). We see what draws them together and what pushes them apart. We witness their special devotion to their mother, whom they call Marmee (Mary Astor). The story is set mostly in Concord, Massachusetts, in the early 1860s; and the main action centers around the most independent girl, second daughter Jo. Their father, Mr. March (Leon Ames), is away from home and is involved in the war effort. The Marches were once well off but now have to make do with what they have. And yet, they're mostly happy. Every once in a while, they get a visit from their stodgy but rich relative, Aunt March (Lucile Watson), who dishes out a lot of judgment; but who also, reluctantly, doles out a few dollars to keep the household running. And then there's the boy next door, known as Laurie (Peter Lawford), who lives with his wealthy grandfather, Mr. Laurence (C. Aubrey Smith). They both become good friends of the March family. Jo and Laurie hit it off right away. Will their friendship become something stronger? Watch and find out. As the film rolls along, we see four young girls (who in theory start out at 16, 15, 13 and 12 years old) indeed turn into little women.

This version of Little Women is in truth a thinly-disguised remake of the 1933 film. Yes, this one was shot in color instead of in black and white; and it cast contemporary actors in the roles. But the same exact theme music is employed for both. And the same kinds of scenes are portrayed in both, with only minor new changes in the dialogue (that don't always make sense). As a result, the action again focuses mostly on Jo and not on the rest of the girls. It's no wonder that the two movies are so similar when you look at the credits. The screen writers listed here are Victor Heerman, Sarah Y. Mason and Andrew Solt. The first two were the award-winning writers of the 1933 film. So what MGM do, 16 years later? Take RKO's script and hire Andrew Solt to make a few updates? Did no one go back and read the book for context and clarity? Probably not. The new changes seem random and don't correspond to Alcott's book at all. The 1933 film is more faithful to the book.

The new cast is decent enough, overall. June Allyson makes a pretty good tomboy for Jo. Young Elizabeth Taylor is quite believable as a selfish and snobby Amy. C. Aubrey Smith is great as the gruff but lovable neighbor, Mr. Laurence. Italian-born actor Rossano Brazzi does a good job at portraying Professor Bhaer, who is supposed to have a German accent, or at least, a European one. My only quibble is with Peter Lawford. He puts a far more serious spin on Laurie than the merry Douglass Montgomery did in the previous film. He doesn't look like a fun guy to hang out with at all. Because of his behavior, he makes it almost too easy and too believable that Jo would want to keep him as just a friend. Nevertheless, it is interesting to watch Lawford as a much younger actor than we usually see or remember him in films.

The real-life Alcott home, Orchard House, is replicated accurately here, both inside and out. In fact, the team of Cedric Gibbons, Paul Groesse, Edwin B. Willis and Jack D. Moore won an Academy Award for color art direction and set decoration for this Little Women. At times you can tell that the landscape backgrounds are painted. But they were painted well. You can successfully suspend your disbelief as the characters interact in front of the scenery.

The bottom line is that when you watch both the 1933 and the 1949 Little Women, the older one comes out on top. If you're curious, sure, go ahead with "The June Allyson." It's just not different enough to appreciate it as a fresh approach to the story. And if you know Miss Alcott's book inside and out, you may not like this version at all. At least someone tried -- sort of -- to give the post-war public something new.

The Little Women of 1949 has been followed by other movie versions, including the Susan Dey (1978), the Winona Ryder (1994), the Maya Hawke (2018) and the Saoirse Ronan (2019). None of them duplicated scripts from one another. And if you want to know the full story, you should always return to Louisa May Alcott's original work. No 122-minute movie can cover it all.