Little Women (1933) User Reviews

Wonderful film with a glorious performance from Hepburn

[gaityr · 8/10 · 3 September 2002]

LITTLE WOMEN is quite possibly the one book written post-Shakespeare that has the most number of film adaptations to its credit. Louisa May Alcott's novel, after all, offers a fine host of roles, particularly for women--of the March girls alone, there's the eldest sister Meg; the frail but saintly Beth; spoilt baby of the family Amy; and last but most certainly not least, spunky tomboy Jo. (This is not to forget the smaller, but still integral, supporting roles of Laurie, Mr Lawrence, Professor Bhaer, and of course, Marmee March.) The story is an engaging one too, following the lives of the March sisters--in particular Jo--as they grow and deal with change, with love, and even with death. Even though the story itself is tied to a particular setting in the 1860s (and even then the historical setting is almost peripheral), the characters and their relationships with one another--siblings, parent/children, friends and lovers--are simply timeless. That's probably why the novel has seen as many attempts to have it committed to film as it has.

I hate to make a snap judgement, having not seen any more versions of Little Women than the 1994 one, but I believe that this version, made by RKO studios and starring a delightful Katharine Hepburn as Jo March, has every right to be considered the definitive film version of the Alcott novel. The writing, for one thing, is exceptional. Although never quite the novel's substitute, it condenses the book marvellously, sketching the characters and relationships of the girls quickly and efficiently, and never skipping over the best parts of the book (for example, Laurie's profession of love for Jo). Of course the screenplay will never measure up to the book--it is rare that a film could surpass the wealth of detail and beauty of description available from the written word. But nothing's perfect, and this screenplay, by Sarah Y. Mason and Victor Heerman, is as close as an adaptation can get while retaining its own distinct flavour as a film.

As for the casting, I have very few complaints about it, since Hepburn--all angles and attitude, all loud-voiced and tomboyish--is perfect as Jo and is ably supported by Frances Dee as Meg, Henry Stephenson as the sweetly paternal Mr. Laurence and Douglass Montgomery as Laurie (though he plays the role a tad too fey for my liking). Special praise must be reserved for both Jean Parker (Beth March) and Paul Lukas (Professor Fritz Bhaer): Parker for bringing an impossibly sweet and lovely character to life, and making the audience genuinely grieve for Beth when she takes her leave of her family; Lukas for managing to avoid making Professor Bhaer a hard, frightening man with whom the audience simply cannot imagine Jo being in love (as is *my* impression from the book). I was rather disappointed with Joan Bennett as Amy, and that is of course partly attributable to the fact that the character isn't particularly sympathetic in the novel either, so it isn't really fair to expect a miracle from Bennett. Still, Bennett seemed to me to be the most lifeless of the sisters--one might think this an unfair judgement, since anyone acting opposite the powder keg that is Katharine Hepburn could easily be deemed lifeless if he or she weren't able to hold his/her own against her. Still, the arguably less well-known Frances Dee and Jean Parker had no problem with it.

In the final analysis though, there is no doubt that this film, however 'ensemble' the cast, belongs only to Hepburn. Her performance, although somewhat mannered and brassy at times (not necessarily simultaneously, thank goodness!), is nothing short of brilliant. She's sad, she's funny, she's touching, and as she does in her best roles, she transcends her own (pretty formidable!) character to breathe life into Jo as only she can. Witness the simple scene in which Jo breaks down, alone, at night, after having sold her hair for her mother's travel expenses... or the scene when Jo truly believes that scarlet fever is going to take Beth from her, and she trudges up into her own attic, the weight of the world on her shoulders, and collapses into tears. There is also nothing more charming than Hepburn as she gallops down the stairs in a frock which she burnt by leaning against the fireplace, or when she runs like a free, untamed spirit through the woods when chased by Laurie. Strange, sweet, funny Jo--this complex combination of jealous child and strong woman, stubbornly refusing to relinquish the familiar while adamantly placing her family above her own interests always... it really is a role that seems to have been written for Hepburn, just as she seems to have been born to play it. It is perhaps for LITTLE WOMEN as much as for MORNING GLORY (released in the same year) that Hepburn won her first Oscar in 1933. Nobody photographs Hepburn as flatteringly as her good friend and director George Cukor either, so some of the close-up shots of her in LITTLE WOMEN are simply breathtaking in having managed to capture her beauty, her youth and her personality all at once.

Nothing about this film is perfect; after all, perfection is too high a standard to be applied to adaptations (and most other films!). But LITTLE WOMEN really does have a little something to offer everybody--a sweet, timeless story about love and growing up and family. It's something that everyone can relate to, and that's probably more than enough.

All Hepburn in this early rendition

[SimonJack · 7/10 · 17 September 2012]

Few would deny the powerful presence of Katherine Hepburn in any movie she ever made. In this first screen adaptation with sound of Louisa May Alcott's famous novel, Hepburn IS the movie. That is to say, her part, her lines, her camera time seem to surpass the combined times of all the rest of the cast. While that may be as one would expect for many stories – a star or hero being the focal point of a whole work, this film, based on this book, was supposed to be about several "little women." So, most of the rest of the characters in the film – save a neighbor male friend, really get short shrift. For that reason, and a few others I'll mention, I think this rendition falls short of the interesting story told in the book.

I would like to have seen more development of the sisters than this film has. The later remake – 1949's MGM production, does flesh out all the characters more. The problem with the overly heavy emphasis on the one character in this first movie is that the audience doesn't get much of a sense of who are the rest of the members of the family. So we can't so readily experience the ups and downs, the emotions, the tragedy and love felt between the sisters and their mother.

Hepburn does a very good Jo, but not great. I think her efforts to be the tomboy were overdone in a few instances, which only drew my attention to this aspect of her role. She didn't seem to come by it naturally. One example was when she spoke a couple of times, acting and deliberately mimicking a deep-throated guttural voice for a man. At other times, she seemed to push it a bit and overact in flamboyance of tom-boyish behavior.

There were no other notable performances by other cast members. Paul Lukas as Professor Bhaer and Douglas Montgomery as Laurie were good. Most of the rest were just OK or non-descript. One member was just not right for the role of Marmee. Spring Byington brought no depth or real feel to the role that the viewer could sense. But, then, the film just seemed to glide over the lesser roles.

"Little Women" is a good story in the American library, and this film is enjoyable to watch. But, for a much more involving and endearing film, be sure to see the 1949 rendition by MGM.

Supremely well made, but very sugary stuff. Watch for K Hepburn's great role.

[secondtake · 7/10 · 10 April 2010]

Little Women (1933)

A fairly lavish affair, with one of my favorite directors, George Cukor, making the most of his growing fame as a "woman's director." Of course, the leads here are four girls and their mother, among the children the rising star, Katherine Hepburn, in her second film (after Bill of Divorcement, also by Cukor, and a better film in many ways).

The standards here are high, the acting solid, the sets uncompromised. The plot is very goody-goody, for lack of a better word. There is a lot of family sweetness, growing young love affairs, charity to the poor, and a feeling of life being simply terrific, whatever its worries (worries like the Civil War, raging quietly in the background, never seen and rarely felt).

Cukor makes the most of Alcott's novel, I think, and Hepburn is wonderful, with all the hints of her real greatness on screen to come. The basic structure of the plot (or plots) is how each girl matures, overcoming personality flaws to become truly admirable people. It might be frustrating that human flaws are simply to be overcome, but we shouldn't resent a little optimism, and reaching higher goals, now and then. A heartfelt and really well made American drama. And I admit freely, I cried several times. That's better than any words.

Satisfying Adaptation With a Strong Cast

[Snow Leopard · 17 November 2004]

This satisfying movie adaptation of "Little Women" features a strong cast and a production that was quite solid for 1933. While a glance at the story outline might give the impression that it is simplistic or childlike, that is far from the case. The novel offers well-defined characters and many situations that bring out worthwhile insights into the characters and into life in general. While neither this nor the other movie versions of the story have the same thematic depth, this version effectively presents enough of the material in a thoughtful and entertaining way.

Katherine Hepburn heads the cast, and gives plenty of life to Jo. Naturally she gets the main focus, but the other sisters and the secondary characters also get some good moments, and most of them get a chance to steal a scene or two. Henry Stephenson and Douglas Montgomery get a number of good scenes as the March family's neighbors. Edna May Oliver is well cast, and it's only too bad that she did not get a couple more scenes. Paul Lukas makes Professor Baer come alive. By no means least are Jean Parker, Frances Dee, and Joan Bennett as Beth, Meg, and Amy.

It is often easy to tell when the movie was made, most especially because of the sound. But actually the production is better technically and artistically than are most movies of the early 1930s. Several of the sets are particularly well done, creating just the right atmosphere for their scenes. Director George Cukor puts it all together nicely.

This is the kind of movie that is generally out of style at present, because it lacks the kind of self-indulgent material and the self-absorbed style that so unduly impress many of today's movie fans. But the only genuine weakness is that it has a few technical limitations, most of which are common to many films of its era.

What this adaptation does offer is a sympathetic and sometimes insightful look at the lives of some ordinary but strong persons, who are brought to life by a good cast and a director who seemed himself to care about the characters.

A Hepburn tour de force - in hindsight, not one of her best films.

[movieman-200 · 7/10 · 15 June 2005]

Little Women (1933) is the first film to be based on Louisa May Alcott's novel of four young girls and their maturing in an age of affectation and Victorian sensibilities. It stars Katharine Hepburn in one of her early defining roles as Josephine 'Jo' March; the central protagonist. She's very much a defiant tomboy in petticoats, defying her Aunt March (played to perfection by the crotchety Edna May Oliver), cutting off her long tresses to pay for her father's train ticket, and always, 'always' usurping any and all interest to fall into the trap of becoming some man's noble wife…at least for a while. Despite the fact that Alcott's novel is very much an ensemble piece about four girls growing up, this film is very much the story of Jo. Other roles are rounded out by Joan Bennett (as the vane and snooty, Amy), Paul Lukas (Prof. Baer), Jean Parker (in the thankless role of Beth) and Francis Dee (as the impetuous, Meg).

Clearly with the goal of generating star interest in Kate Hepburn, director, George Cukor uses up the bulk of his running time to extol the idiosyncratic quirks that make Jo March tick. He delights, for example, showing us Jo sliding down the banister at her Aunt March's home, or throwing snowballs at the young master of the adjoining maison, Theodore Lawrence (Douglas Montgomery). Cukor, known throughout the industry as a woman's director, side steps Alcott's novel on more than one occasion to satisfy his own artistic vision. That said, overall then, the film is faithful to Alcott and a veritable lush and lovely cinematic experience in the vein of golden Hollywood film making.

The transfer from Warner Bros. has been considerably cleaned up for this DVD presentation. The B&W picture elements from RKO were in very poor shape. While certain scenes continue to attest to this lack of initial preservation, most look quite marvelous and will surely please. There is a bit of digital edge enhancement that crops up now and then and distracts one from the otherwise sterling picture, but these are fleeting moments of distraction at best. Blacks are generally solid. Whites are generally clean. Contrast and fine details are as they should be and film grain, with minor exceptions, is kept in check. Extras include a music only selection of score that has been nicely remastered, as well as extensive notes on both Hepburn and Cukor; good stuff for both the heart and the mind. Bottom line: this is a great golden oldie that will surely warm the heart. But it's not definitive Alcott. For that one has to jump seventy years into the future for Gillian Armstrong's masterful remake, starring Winona Ryder.

A Timeless Piece Of Americana

[mpofarrell · 10/10 · 10 June 2002]

From the opening titles displaying a snow covered Curier and Ives - like print underscored by a melody played on a tinkling spinet, this 1933 version of Louisa Alcott's beloved novel holds one in thrall. A Civil War era tale of a New England family's joys and tribulations centers on the March household : mother "Marmee" and her four daughters; Meg, Amy, Beth and Jo. The screenplay centers on each girl's commitment to "showing her father proud", father being a minister gone of f to war to meet the spiritual needs of the Yankee soldiers. Buoyed by their mother [ the ever perfect Spring Byington ] the girls learn the meaning of giving and sacrifice with a jollity that may be off-putting to 21st century viewers; but stick with it, for what this picture offers is nothing less than real life at its most joyful and painful. After a series of seemingly inconsequential events, the girls' placid lives are disrupted when a sibling takes ill. This section of the movie is riveting, due to the superb direction of George Cukor and Katherine Hepburn as the tomboyish Jo. The scene where Jo retreats to the attic, worried sick over the fate of her ill sister, is gut wrenching. Hepburn was just hitting her stride as a movie actress when this film came out. Not the typical glamour girl of the time, her odd beauty and diction translated into a strange alchemy when projected on a movie screen : she is unforgettable. The other actresses acquit themselves beautifully but the picture belongs to Hepburn. Lest you think all is dour and dull, this movie offers so much that is truly entertaining : a heartwarming homecoming scene; the March girls presenting a "play" in their living room to the consternation and delight of invited neighbors and several moments involving a cantankerous but lovable aunt [ the ubiquitous Edna May Oliver ]. The movie is properly accoutered with lovely interiors and authentic production design and costumes [ gabled houses and ivy covered porches; hoop skirts and muffs ]. The entire production is like a gift wrapped edition of the novel turned to celluloid! The icing on the cake, so to speak, is Max Steiner's spare, evocative music score, employing Beth's piano playing for family get togethers, parties etc., and orchestral "commentary" for dramatic, comic and action sequences. Only six years had passed since sound recording had revolutionized the film industry, but this "early talkie" uses the new technology very adeptly; although camera movement is minimal, the editing is very fluid. The sound, courtesy of old Western Electric, is fine, especially on the recent DVD release, where both aural and visual elements have been restored, assuring a great presentation. When a movie has the power to reach out over a span of seven decades and touch jaded hearts in another century, that is a sign of a classic. LITTLE WOMEN is a great American film.

Litttle Big Women

[wes-connors · 7/10 · 21 August 2007]

The film might be more accurately titled "Little Woman", with Katherine Hepburn seizing the lead role, and never letting go. Otherwise, it's the story of four "Little Women" growing up, and finding love's direction. Hepburn (she's Jo) is sister to Joan Bennett (she's Amy), Jean Parker (she's Beth), and Frances Dee (she's Meg). Of their suitors, Douglass Montgomery (he's Laurie) gets the most action.

Ms. Bennett steals the actual acting honors with a performance that is natural and consistent; her voice and mannerisms are appropriately girlish, young womanish… and, selfish. Ms. Hepburn plays girlish like she's had too many cups of coffee; additionally, she never looks even remotely "tomboyish"; looking, instead, like a ravishingly made-up MGM movie star. Ms. Parker rises out of her sick bed like a zombie, but is okay in other scenes.

Watching Hepburn being romanced by Mr. Montgomery and Paul Lukas is unnerving. The story does have some reasons to watch, however. The production is obviously top-of-the-line. Hepburn may not be in her best role, but it's not awful; she slows down and gets better after her character grows older. The script has well-written characters - Jo, Amy, and Laurie - who illustrate a sweet story of family, love, and friendship.

******* Little Women (11/16/33) George Cukor ~ Katharine Hepburn, Joan Bennett, Douglass Montgomery, Paul Lukas

What a truly lovely film!

[TheLittleSongbird · 9/10 · 4 June 2012]

I will always have a soft spot for this film, and to me it is the best version of the three versions I've seen so far of Little Women(1994 and 1949 were the others, and I liked both of them very much). The sound here is a little too tinny, and the Laurie of Douglass Montgommery is too fey for my tastes. However, it still looks beautiful, the costumes and hairstyles are well suited to the period, the sets are sumptuous and the film is very handsomely shot. There is also a stirring score from Max Steiner, making it sound appropriately nostalgic, the script is faithful and warm-toned, it is directed with great taste by George Cukor and the story has all the warmth and poignancy of the book, which is one of my favourites of all time. Apart from Montgommery I loved the acting, Edna May Oliver here does what she did best, more than convincingly play sharp-tongued spinsters, and Henry Stephenson is a dear Mr Laurence. Paul Lukas is an unexceptional but romantic Professor Bhaer, an improvement on the wooden and too-Italianate Rosanno Brazzi in the 1949 film, and Spring Byington a Marmee of real sincerity. The four March girls Meg, Jo, Beth and Amy(aka the Little Women of the title) are what drive the story, and all four really shone here. Joan Bennett is appealing as Amy and leaves room for character growth from a vain little girl to an elegant young lady. Jean Parker is a very sweet and moving Beth, and Frances Dee is beautiful as Meg should be. Best of all is the Jo of Katharine Hepburn, who is perfectly cast in a role she was born to play. All in all, truly lovely and the best version to me. 9/10 Bethany Cox

Too Saccharine to Bear

[evanston_dad · 6/10 · 31 December 2017]

I'm probably not the target audience for this movie, so take my review with a grain of salt. I've also never read Louis May Alcott's novel, so I can't speak to how good an adaptation this is. But as a stand alone movie, George Cukor's 1933 version of this classic story is just too saccharine to bear.

To modern audiences, Katharine Hepburn is obviously the draw, and this was one of two movies released in 1933 -- the other, "Morning Glory," featuring the first of her record four Oscars -- that vaulted her to stardom. It's easy to see why -- her fiery, take no prisoners screen presence immediately places anyone else she happens to be in a scene with under her shadow. But Cukor would have done well to reign her in a bit in this film. Her Jo is a frantic, spastic creation at first, and Hepburn's performance is all over the place when trying to portray her as a young woman on the cusp of adulthood. As Jo matures, Hepburn settles down and her performance becomes more assured. But even without that, the story is just so maudlin and sentimental, and all the characters so goody goody, that I don't think a better lead performance would have made the movie any more enjoyable for me.

"Little Women" won the Oscar for Best Writing-Adaptation at the 1932-33 Academy Awards, and it also won nominations for Best Picture and Best Director (Cukor). Bit of Oscar trivia: 1932-33 was the last year the Academy split the award year over different calendar years. Beginning with the 1934 awards, the eligibility period would run from January 1 through December 31 as it does now. But in order to correct the schedule, the 1932-33 eligibility period ran from August 1 of 1932 through December 31 of 1933, meaning a whopping 16 months worth of films were eligible, the only time in Oscar history when an eligibility period was longer than 12 months.

Grade: B-

"What richness!"

[marcslope · 10/10 · 16 July 2003]

George Cukor said once that he had always assumed Louisa May Alcott's classic to be "a book that little girls read, like 'Elsie Dinsmore'," and he was pleasantly surprised by how solid and adult its themes are. He was right -- it's about falling in love with the wrong people, summoning the moral strength to overcome great obstacles, and accepting the responsibilities that come with maturity. His discovery and enthusiasm are wonderfully conveyed in this unfussy, honest adaptation. The scale and design are just right -- the March household isn't prettied-up as in later versions, you can see how much the family is struggling. Max Steiner's music is as simple and sweet as a Whitman's Sampler. And the casting, while not ideal, is inspired in the major roles. This was the first instance of Katharine Hepburn embodying all the feisty-New England qualities we associate with her, and it's as though lightning struck or something; she's truly inspired, lit from within. Watch her body language, how she matures from a gawky, hoydenish tomboy into a pensive and irresistible young lady. (Winona Ryder was a diligent and hardworking Jo in 1994, but she doesn't have Hepburn's... inevitability.) She's partnered splendidly by Douglass Montgomery, who's a more ardent and virile Laurie than you'd expect. Paul Lukas loads on the Continental charm as Professor Baer, making him seem an ideal match for Hepburn. And, of course, Edna May Oliver was born to play dour old Aunt March.

Spring Byington is a sugary, unpersuasive Marmee -- how did Jo inherit all that backbone, anyway, with such a wispy parent? -- and Jean Parker is both too old and too passive to convince as Beth. (She was good years later, in "The Gunfighter," in about as different a role as can be imagined.) But it's a measure of this film's overwhelming rightness that, over 70 years later, it can still move grown men to tears. It's dated in some of its particulars -- a stilted line here, a clumsy transition there -- but not in its generosity of spirit or depth of feeling. Few movies from 1933, in fact, still play as well.

classic

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 30 August 2019]

It's Concord, Massachusetts in the American Civil War. Marmee (Spring Byington) waits for the return of her husband. She has four daughters; tomboy Jo (Katharine Hepburn), beauty Amy (Joan Bennett), Meg (Frances Dee), and Beth (Jean Parker). This is the first talkie adaptation of the classic novel. It's a literary classic, an American classic, and a Hollywood classic. The production is impeccable. Hepburn and Bennett act the heck out of the roles although they are the best roles. The one major issue is the age of the actors. They are too old to play teenagers but the characters do get older over time. It is a problem when the women aren't so little. Otherwise, Hepburn is full Hepburn. It's a perfect role for her if only talkies had come along five years earlier.

Great version for the performances of Hepburn and Lukas

[Dr. Cumin · 10/10 · 17 December 2000]

See this version of course, for the definitive Jo March in Kate Hepburn. She is all angles, awkwardness and tom-boyishness, while gradually becoming this graceful young woman. It's my favorite performance of hers, and that's saying something. The screenplay is first-rate, winning the Oscar that year, and most of the actors are just fine, with Spring Byington a notable exception as Marmee. (Director George Cukor did not want her in the film, and he knew what he was talking about.) But the wistful, gentle Beth of Jean Parker and Edna May Oliver's crotchety Aunt March are awfully good . I've always been especially taken by the performance of Professor Bhaer in this version. Portrayed by an utterly charming Paul Lukas, he embodies the professor with a three-dimensionality that Louisa May Alcott didn't seem to want to bother with. His scene where he is criticizing the writings of Hepburn's Jo is extraordinary in how subtly it changes tone--from critic , to would-be suitor. It ends with a look of longing from Lukas, that only a director like Cukor would hold so long. Not like the 1994 version with a far too handsome Gabriel Byrne showing none of the uncertainty that an older poor scholar should show while falling in love with a young woman. Great stuff. Great director. Just a shame that the sound quality isn't up to the rest of the film.

Wonderful! Wonderful!

[slytherins_queen2 · 7/10 · 15 February 2008]

I saw this film for the first time today after searching forever for it. And I was not disappointed like I was with the 1949 one with Elizabeth Taylor and Margret O'Brien. I am a great fan of the book and as such there were some things that irked me about this film. First off, there was heaps of Amy story lines and dialogue the most apparent being how she burnt Jo's written work and books, and then later nearly drowned (only to live after Laurie and Jo saved her) were left out which made me slightly mad. Also the fact that the actress was too old to play the younger Amy (but nonetheless played her very very well) was also slightly distracting though didn't nearly as bother me as much as the missing 'book burning scene'. Secondly some things were hastily rushed into and/or not really explained or came out of nowhere like how Amy and Laurie were suddenly married, with out much back story to it. Katherine Hepburn one of the most talented actresses of all time, shines as Jo in her tom boyish ways. She literally stole the show with her acting and it was truly a joy to watch, her scenes with Laurie were the most wonderful as you could really sense their 'fun and childlike' plays. She picked up Jo's character in a way no other actress could. It seemed like the character 'Jo' and 'Katherine Hepburn' were made for each other. It's rare to find that.

When I first heard Frances Dee was playing Meg I thought, 'What?? She's more of a Beth!' but nevertheless she surprised me and was absolutely wonderful in her role. The actress who played Beth was astounding, her scenes were so well done, she was such a dear and you really care for her while you're watching. I loved Douglass Montgomery as Laurie he played Laurie very well and very true to the character. Not the most perfect adaption a lot has been changed and left out, but one of the best, most beautiful films you'll ever see in your life time. Heart warming and lovable, a real classic.

the first and the worst

[crispy_comments · 5/10 · 13 March 2007]

I admit I haven't seen this movie for years, and I suppose I should give it another chance one of these days. But I'm left with a strong impression of revulsion over Katharine Hepburn as Jo. I know that places me in the minority since her performance is apparently so acclaimed. But, speaking as someone who's read "Little Women" countless times and would be very hard to please with any adaptation of a beloved childhood favorite, Hepburn just didn't live up to my idea of Jo at all. The way she delivers the line "Christopher Columbus!" is enough to make me want to smack her.

I don't care if others find the MGM version too "glossy" - THAT film is perfectly cast. June Allyson is a much more lovable Jo (and a more natural actress than Hepburn who can be very over-the-top and grating). Janet Leigh as sweet-but-prim Meg, Elizabeth Taylor as spoiled, vain Amy, and Margaret O'Brien as fragile Beth...why, they BECAME those characters - or perhaps their personalities were already suited to the roles! And who could be a better Marmee than Mary Astor, I ask you? She perfectly embodied maternal warmth and wisdom (Spring Byington isn't exactly known for playing women of intelligence!)

None of the other actresses in this 1933 version made an impression on me. I realize that Jo is the most beloved character, but the other March sisters deserve a little more screen time. I dislike the fact that "Little Women" was turned into a star vehicle for Katharine Hepburn, and unfortunately, she dominates the proceedings. If you want a more balanced telling of the story, where all the characters get a chance to shine, I'd recommend the MGM version. I can't gush enough about how ideal June Allyson was as Jo - there's a reason she got more fan-mail over that performance than any other! I'd even recommend the Winona Ryder version of "Little Women" over Hepburn's (although Ryder is too pretty for the role)

great fun with the Marches

[didi-5 · 14 June 2000]

Having grown up with the Technicolor version of the 40s with a young Liz Taylor and a perky June Allyson, I was pleased to find this was just as good a version, better in many ways. Katharine Hepburn, as you might expect, is wonderful as the tomboy Jo March, who finds responsibility after a lifetime of woe for the family. Other cast stand-outs include Edna May Oliver as Aunt March. Laurie is a bit of a wet fish though. Both early versions are much, much better than the Winona Ryder one of the 90s, which was a sentimental Hollywood nostalgia trip which just didn't work. I'm still split between the two early ones but this is a definite favourite and I'd highly recommend it.

Fine reading of a classic

[jjnxn-1 · 7/10 · 30 April 2013]

Good if dated version of the Alcott perennial. The story is faithful to the book but some of the acting and filming techniques show signs of the film's age. Still if you're a fan of the book there is much to like here. Hepburn of course is ideally cast as Jo, perhaps one of the classic examples of an actress and a part completely suited to each other. Frances Dee and Jean Parker acquit themselves well as Meg and Beth respectively but those two sisters, even with Beth's tragedy, are the two blandest characters in the book. Joan Bennett is sulky and kittenish as the selfish Amy filling the part but she really wasn't to come into her own as a presence that registered on the screen for about five more years when she switched from blonde ingénue to brunette woman of mystery and usually danger. The great Edna May Oliver scores as the salty Aunt March and Spring Byington is strong as Marmee although her role is somewhat diminished from the book. It's interesting still to see her here as a tower of strength and rectitude considering her long career as a chic but usually addle-pated society woman. The men however are a totally different matter. Douglass Montgomery as Laurie is simpering and bland. Also while it isn't his fault his makeup is so heavy that it is completely distracting whenever he is on screen. John Davis Lodge who plays Meg's husband Mr. Brooke suffers the same fate. Cukor as always directs well. He hated the term woman's director but he really was one of the absolute best at bringing out high quality performances from his actresses, not just the stars but the supporting players.

CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS, a classic

[bkoganbing · 10/10 · 8 October 2008]

Katharine Hepburn's fourth film and first after her Oscar winner Morning Glory is an adaption of the Louisa May Alcott classic Little Women. Kate becomes the quintessential Jo March in this film and CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS she does a bang up job.

I can't see George Cukor doing this with anyone else. In a sense Kate isn't acting, she really is a 20th century version of Jo March. Like Louisa May Alcott and her family, Kate comes from that Puritan New England background and in the 19th century she could have been Jo March. It would not surprise me in the slightest if back in the day Kate's grandparents from either or both sides hobnobbed with the Alcott clan.

Little Women is set during the Civil War and it was a time for sacrifice on the battlefield as well as the home front. The March family patriarch Samuel S. Hinds is now engaged in the 'irrepressible conflict' answering to a higher law than the Constitution. That was a day when people put themselves on the line for their country and what they believed in.

Spring Byington made her screen debut as the mother of four girls who in real life were not too much younger than the woman they called Marmee in this film. Hepburn, Joan Bennett, Frances Dee, and Jean Parker bring to life the distinct personalities of all the March girls under the careful guidance of George Cukor.

Like Louisa May Alcott in life, Jo March loves her dad, not just as her father, but also for what he stands for. Alcott's father Bronson Alcott was a noted abolitionist and so was Louisa May. She leaves no room for doubt that the Union and the abolition of slavery is a righteous cause in Little Women. Alcott was a feminist and a suffragette as well, she wanted to do more for what she believed than provide warm home and hearth for some man who happened to believe as she did.

Hepburn as Jo is developing as a human being and she realizes she wants the same thing and she also knows there's more out there than New England and its mores. Small wonder that visiting scholar Paul Lukas is who eventually wins her affections.

By the way, one ought to either read the further Alcott novels on these characters and/or see the film Little Men with Kay Francis and Francis Lederer as older versions of these same characters to see how they've developed.

Besides Lukas and Hinds the three other prominent male characters are Douglass Montgomery as the dashing young neighbor next door who first sparks Hepburn's attention and later Bennett's, John Davis Lodge who pairs off with Frances Dee and Henry Stephenson, Montgomery's stern father with a broad eye twinkle.

And of course we can't forget the ever imperious Edna May Oliver as Aunt March who rules the roost whenever she makes one of her visits to the household. Oliver like Hepburn also had a New England background, she's as New England as Paul Revere and the Boston Red Sox.

With an excellent recreation of New England both in look and style George Cukor created an enduring masterpiece in Little Women. And probably even more than Morning Glory, it's the film that young Katharine Hepburn is most identified with.

Too Much Sweetener

[alfiefamily · 7/10 · 17 August 2012]

"Little Women" is a good, early '30's adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's classic tale about the March sisters and their mother as they struggle without their father/husband, who is off fighting in the Civil War.

There is certainly plenty to recommend about this film. The look of the film, costumes, sets and overall "feel" of the film is quite genuine and fine. The acting is terrific from all involved. From Katharine Hepburn to Joan Bennett, Spring Byington and Paul Lukas.

The problem is that, in my humble opinion, it is an incredibly hard film to watch, due to the extreme sweetness and, at times, corny dialog that is spoken. Now I know that being the early '30's, this is what many, during the depression era needed to make them feel warm and secure. But this is laid on way to thick. As I said, it was very hard to get thru this film. I'm glad I've seen it, but I would not watch it again.

A Basket of Kittens.

[Tony-114 · 9/10 · 10 January 2004]

I think it can easily be said that this is one of Katherine Hepburn's finest, richest performances -- it would be cliche to say that she was born to play Jo March, but only if it weren't so true. Yet as a film entire, it's one of the best period pieces I believe I've ever seen. The clothes, sets, cinematography, Max Steiner's charming score and the brilliant script combine to make you feel you are truly there in the Marches' world, civil-war Concord. (Of course, this is not to slight the grand performances of the cast in any way -- how else would it be so alive?) It is truly a fascinating work, firmly in George Cukor's hands (though with Selznick hovering behind). "Little Women" casts a spell over you just like watching a basket of kittens, the illness remedy Jo brings Laurie that is the basis of their 1st meeting: it is not so much cute and cuddly (and sharp!), but seeing them (inter)act as full-blooded, alive, natural creatures. It's precisely this quality that the 3 subsequent remakes ('49, '79 (TV) and '94) simply didn't have. You feel -- and ARE -- a better person after having seen this film than you were when you sat down to watch it.

Hepburn and her sisters

[ricardojorgeramalho · 7/10 · 21 February 2023]

This is the first sound adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's classic to cinema, directed by George Cukor but clearly built under the aegis of Katharine Hepburn who assumes the lead role and a manifest protagonism leading the cast.

In a work that has already had no less than seven cinematographic adaptations, not counting television productions, this one is worth especially for the always magnificent presence of Katharine Hepburn. She is the force behind the film and her performance and charisma is what stands out of it.

The epic character of the work is somewhat limited, however, as it is condensed into 115 minutes, in which the passage to adulthood of four sisters is portrayed, each one with different temperaments and virtues.

It doesn't fall into melodrama, largely because of the always energetic and invigorating Hepburn, but it also doesn't hold back in memory, despite the alluded virtues.

Almost perfect

[preppy-3 · 9/10 · 3 July 2004]

Beautiful adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's novel about four sisters coming of age in the Civil War. They're played by Katharine Hepburn (Jo), Francis Dee (Meg), Joan Bennett (Amy) and Jean Parker (Beth). It follows them over the course of about 10 years dealing mostly with the men they fall in love with. It mostly centers on Jo--she's expected to get married to Laurie (Douglass Montgomery) but she wants a career as a writer also.

Faithful to the book, beautifully mounted and directed by George Cukor (who was always good with large female casts) and a mostly great cast. Hepburn is exceptional (no surprise there), Bennett and Dee are good but Parker isn't that good. She's not terrible--it's just she's not as good as the other three. The men are all OK but the movie isn't about them--it's about the women.

I'm giving it a 9. I can't give it a 10 because there are a few scenes that are just horrible (especially one where Parker sees her father returning from the war) and it goes on a bit longer than needed. Also the sound was hard to hear at times (but this WAS done over 70 years ago). Well worth seeing.

Christopher Columbus, this is movie fun!

[matthewssilverhammer · 7/10 · 2 May 2018]

Has there ever been a more magnetic performer than Katharine Hepburn? It's much better in its comedy than its drama, but still...pure, childlike charm.

Surprisingly fresh version of Alcott's classic.

[Hermit C-2 · 8/10 · 30 November 1999]

It's over 65 years old, but this adaptation of 'Little Women' is as lively as it is sentimental. The outstanding cast is led by Katharine Hepburn as Jo, who gives a bravura performance that actually threatens to go over the top! "Women's director" George Cukor does his usual fine job. There's a certain amount of condensing done to the story here, but otherwise it's faithful to the book (at least that's what I'm told!) Even children who blanch at the prospect of sitting through a black-and-white movie may be captivated by this one.

Victorian Dreams

[befred8 · 6/10 · 4 October 2008]

Saying I hated this film is perhaps too strong a word. Like most here I found it charming, with excellent acting and production. The problem is that I find the March family just too good to be true. I suspect the four sisters were what Victorian women wished their daughters would become and many would try. None of the sex and intrigue of modern female films is present here. I suspect it's no accident the 1933 film is generally considered the best of the film versions--the further modern society has gotten from the Victorian ideal, the harder it is for the actors to espouse it. While Katherine Hepburn may indeed have been born to play Jo March, I confess a partiality for Paul Lukas among the performers, his acting not reminding me of other roles where I've seen him.

Having missed the book and other film versions of the story, I'm glad to have seen this one but I doubt I'll be looking at the others. But I am curious whether anyone has done a good parody of this story. It seems to be crying for one.

Hard to watch....

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 9 November 2011]

Had I not seen the version of "Little Women" (1994) that starred Susan Sarandon and Winona Ryder, I think I would have liked this version from RKO. However, in comparison the older version is just pretty dreadful. Much of it is because the story is MUCH more subtle and believable in the newer film--and this is odd coming from me because I adore classic Hollywood films and would have expected to prefer the original (as I hate remakes). But, the newer one is believable and sweet--whereas the 1933 version is, at times, just awful. Now I know this might sound like sacrilege, as it was directed by the great George Cukor and starred Katharine Hepburn. But, neither was on top of their game--especially Hepburn. There's little indication in her overly broad performance here that she'd one day be a multiple Academy award winner. Here, she talks VERY fast and seems rather fake. As for the rest of the cast, they are okay--but the film lacks charm and polish. Watchable but do yourself a favor and watch the more recent one--you won't feel sorry.