All The 'Little Women' Movie Adaptations, Ranked

Directed by Mervyn LeRoy, the 1949 version of Little Women prettiest of the Little Women films — filmed on lavish sets and in eye-popping Technicolor — but it is astonishingly stilted and stiff in its retelling of the classic Louisa May Alcott story. It may have been a result of watching the 1949 Little Women immediately after the 1933 version, but LeRoy's retelling is baffling in its choices to hit every story and dialogue beat from the 1933 film and do it worse. Unbearably slow and lifeless except for a hilarious Elizabeth Taylor as the spoiled Amy March, this is the Disney live-action remake of Little Women adaptations. LeRoy's Little Women is nearly a shot-for-shot remake of the 1933 film, with much of the exact same line delivery, except more sluggishly paced and with added scenes of the characters simply spouting exposition while standing handsomely in their beautiful costumes against painted sets. The 1949 Little Women is the stereotypical idea of a classic Hollywood period costume: sentimental and stuffy.

How accurate is it? The strangest choice of the film is the portrayal of Beth, the second youngest March, as several years younger than all the other sisters — despite Amy's spoiled, childish ways being well-preserved by Taylor's scenery-chewing performance. Like the 1933 film, it leaves out some of the harsher moments of the story — Amy's burning of Jo's manuscript, Amy's fall through the ice — though it doesn't quite have the charitable overtones of the first film. One deviation it takes from the 1933 film is to have Amy almost get caned by her teacher at school, only to avoid punishment (unlike in the book, where she does get hit). Jo and Laurie (a terribly dull Peter Lawford) also aren't portrayed as particularly close.How little are the women? Beth is the littlest of the women — portrayed by Margaret O'Brien as an actual child, unlike her other sisters who are clearly young adults. Elizabeth Taylor is the standout as Amy, livening up the film with her comedic antics, while Janet Leigh is dutifully graceful and responsible as Meg. June Allyson's Jo is probably the biggest disappointment, though it's not necessarily her fault — her aw-shucks demeanor just can't hold a candle to the fiery portrayal by Katherine Hepburn.

Perhaps the most somber of the Little Women adaptations, George Cukor's 1933 film came during the height of the Great Depression, and reflected some of the anxieties of the time. The 1933 Little Women amps up the social reform and conservation aspects of the story, giving more attention to Marmee (Spring Byington) and her charitable deeds. But the little women remain at the forefront of the story, particularly Katherine Hepburn's indomitable Jo March. Though other Little Women movies are ranked higher, Hepburn is the purest embodiment of Jo — boisterous and intelligent, with a sensitive streak — and the silver screen legend perfects her hysterical pratfalls during this early-career film. Hepburn's chaotic energy permeates the entire film, and though the rest of the cast doesn't quite live up to her level — though she and Douglass Montgomery's Laurie have a wonderfully scampish dynamic — their performances would form the template for big-screen adaptations of Little Women to come. While film is a little frontloaded, it's a lovely, easy-going adaptation.

How accurate is it? Jo and Laurie's first meeting doesn't come at a party, but in a house visit after the Laurences send food over to them after witnessing their charitable deed. The film doesn't portray Amy's caning, nor does it show Amy burning Jo's manuscript or Amy's fall through ice. Amy and Laurie's romance takes place entirely offscreen, with Jo's story taking over the latter half of the film. The film seems to take a more rosy approach to the early childhood aspects, avoiding the harsher elements except for Beth's sickness and the impoverished conditions of the poor people that Marmee cares for.How little are the women? Not little at all (in their performances). I've raved about Katherine Hepburn, but let me rave some more. She's absolutely sensational as Jo March, a fiery force of nature who would eat up Winona Ryder's more romantic take and even Saoirse Ronan's more modern version. The girls have a wonderful chemistry between them: Joan Bennett is delightfully snooty as Amy, while Frances Dee's Meg is charmingly insecure. Jean Parker's Beth is not as memorable as the other girls, but still a solid player, especially in the severe way she snaps at Amy when she becomes sick.

Greta Gerwig's adaptation had a lot of expectations riding on it: not only would it have to live up to the much-beloved 1994 film, it would have to live up to the monumental expectations for the Lady Bird director after her Oscar-nominated second film. And it far exceeded those expectations. Featuring the most stacked cast of Little Women adaptations yet, Gerwig's Little Women is a stirringly soulful realization of Alcott's rich and vibrant world. Gerwig plays with storytelling structure in her Little Women, with two parallel timelines playing in harmony — one in the warm glow of childhood, the other in the stark grays of adulthood. But it's more than a storytelling experiment that makes the film so great: the stellar cast and sharp writing give the characters rich interior lives and the film a modern edge. Where past films cast Jo as the tomboyish heroine of the film, Gerwig's Little Women gives a fuller depiction of all the women, especially the oft-ridiculed Amy, who gets a fantastically sensitive and funny depiction thanks to a scene-stealing Florence Pugh. The romance between Amy and Laurie (an unspeakably beautiful Timothée Chalamet) finally gets the sweeping portrayal it deserves, playing in congruence with Jo's own sweet interactions with Fred Bhaer (Louis Garrel). But while Gerwig's Little Women may have the most traditionally romantic love stories, it also lets the characters have their own dreams outside of love, whether they get fulfilled or not.

How accurate is it? Except for its unconventional storytelling structure, jumping across time in a non-chronological order, pretty accurate. But Gerwig's biggest changes are in the modern characterizations of the characters, especially Amy March, who is expanded from the vain simpleton to a practical and emotionally intelligent woman who presents the perfect foil to the headstrong Jo March. Jo is a little more vulnerable too, at one point ranting about her own loneliness in an Oscar-worthy speech from Ronan.How little are the women? Nothing is little about these women, with Gerwig assembling the best all-around cast yet to play the March sisters. Ronan gives a jagged edge to her Jo March, Eliza Scanlen gives more depth to the usually beatific Beth, and Pugh is the MVP as the hysterical, complex Amy. The littlest performance may be from Watson, who mostly spends her time reining in her accent and gazing mournfully at silks.