Little Women (1933)

Louisa May Alcott's beloved story is one of the most-read novels ever written. It has also proved popular film and telefilm fodder (at least six versions plus a TV series). In addition, Little Women is one of those rare literary projects that can truly be done well on screen. This, the 1933 version, chronicles the lives and loves of sisters Jo, Meg, Amy, and Beth (played, respectively, by Katharine Hepburn, Frances Dee, Joan Bennett, and Jean Parker). It's a superior rendering to the amiable, perky 1949 version with June Allyson, Janet Leigh, Elizabeth Taylor, Margaret O'Brien, and Peter Lawford, and comparable to the beautiful, feminist Gillian Armstrong 1994 take. Douglass Montgomery's Laurie isn't nearly as dreamy as Christian Bale's (1994), but the lack of chemistry between him and Hepburn's Jo is perfect for the story, in which Jo loves him like a brother. Jo's real love she offers up to perhaps the finest Professor Bhaer (Paul Lukas). Character actress Edna May Oliver is at her indignant best as Aunt March. Director George Cukor's vision is elegant, warm, and as true to the original source material as 117 minutes allows. This Little Women was a huge box-office hit, and broke all the records to that time. --N.F. Mendoza Amazon.com essential video

Little Women (1933) - still young and beautiful

Little Women (1933), directed by George Cukor story of March family, four beautiful loving sisters and their Marmee, is an early adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's beloved 1860s classic and certainly one of the best. This is the movie that I believe should be universally loved and praised because it is a cinematic triumph. Everything is perfect in it. The clothes, the hairdos, the sets, cinematography, the musical score by Max Steiner and the brilliant script that brings to life the timeless story -together they take you effortlessly to the Marches' world where you feel their true love and caring for one another, and follow their dreams, theirs hopes, and their heartbreaks. This is the film that made me jealous of the girls who have sisters by showing what treasure the sisters' love is. This is the movie which I want to watch with my Mom during the Mother's day and to tell her how much she means to me. This is the movie with very young, very talented, strong willed, independent, and excellent Katharine Hepburn, perfect as Jo March, the character that Alcott could've written with her in mind. Yes, the film is sentimental, so what? Made 75 years ago, it is young, beautiful, heartwarming, and radiates love, kindness, and goodness. May 13, 2008

Melodramatic, slow, bad acting... but a beautiful Hepburn

A couple of old friend were practically slobbering over this version of Little Women, so I finally decided to watch it. I was really taken aback. People here on Amazon really liked Kate as Jo, and they're entitled to their opinions, but she looked like she was trying too hard. Some of her facial expressions look glued on.

The Beth in this version looked way older than she should have been, and neither the actress's face nor voice expressed the personality she was supposed to portray. Elizabeth Taylor's Amy was more real and believable than this one, and more articulate... though Liz looks horrible with blond hair and thick black eyebrows. The father in the movie looked like he should have played James Laurence, the grandfather. But Laurie took the cake. The actor was very small, unlike the tall Laurie in the June Allyson/Elizabeth Taylor version. His acting was horrible and overstated, and he lacked the charm and strength that the other Laurie had. Okay, and he lacked LOOKS! There, I said it.

If you hadn't read the book, you wouldn't know what's going on a lot of times. June Allyson's expressions and dialogues were very helpful and entertaining, while Katharine's were either too overstated or too understated. I highly recommend the 1949 version of Little Women. If you want vaudeville, look no further. The Katharine Hepburn version is as melodramatic as it gets. And the movie is slow enough that you could go to the bathroom and come back and not worry about missing much. The ending was quick and cheesy. And oh yes, how many buckets will we need to collect all the tears shed in this movie? (By the characters, NOT me! *yawn*)

I think I've said enough; I'm just glad I rented this from Netflix and didn't buy it.
April 2, 2008

Marvelous classic!

This is a great classic about the March family during the Civil War!
After winning an Academy Award for Best Actress in 1933's "Morning Glory," twenty-five year-old Katharine Hepburn went on to play Jo in this marvelous classic. Little Women re-teamed Katharine Hepburn with director George Cukor whom she would go on to make many more movies with. He said Katharine Hepburn was "born to play Jo." She was incredible (out of all the versions, she is my favorite Jo)! I didn't care for the Laurie in this version as much (Peter Lawford was better in the 1949 film)though. Spring Byington (In the Good Old Summertime, Presenting Lily Mars) played Mrs. March and Joan Bennet did a great job as Amy.
Both the 1933 and 1949 versions are very similar as far as the screenplay and everything goes. I recommend both of them very highly!
March 22, 2008

Huyen

This was a wonderful movie. It was well played out. I thought it followed the book really well too. It did not leave much out which made me very happy. Jo makes this movie comes alive with her wild personality. Laury and his funny attitudes also made this movie lovable. Out of all the characters in this movie. Jo and Laury were my two favorites. I love the book and the movie too. The book was BETTER.

Laury and his boyish looks, Jo and her tomboyish personality, Meg and kind works and personality, Beth and her quiet ways and Amy and her spoiled ways, all thess characters made this movie come alive with fun, laughter, warmth, kindness. It was a great movie to watch on a cold winter or snowy day. Makes you want to be a part of the kind and happy family. December 2, 2007

a beautiful early film with Katharine Hepburn and a stellar cast.....

I actually saw this 1933 version of LITTLE WOMEN after I had watched the 1994 adaptation, directed by Gillian Armstrong and starring Winonah Ryder (among other fine actresses). This, the first of many attempts to bring Louisa May Alcott's book to the screen, is nothing short of lovely. Directed by George Cukor, and starring Katharine Hepburn, as Jo, with Frances Dee (Meg), Jean Parker (Beth) and Joan Bennett (Amy), this film is engaging and well captures the beauty of the story. Based on Alcott's formative years, spent in Germantown, Pennsylvania, we see the strong bond amongst the four March sisters and their mother, Marmee March (Spring Byington), as they await the return of their father from his time spent as chaplain in the Union Army.

Though, some have criticized this version, I love and appreciate it for its beauty, sensitivity and warmth. This was just the beginning of a brilliant career, for (then) twenty-five year old Katharine Hepburn. Don't miss out on this one! August 30, 2007

More reviews at Amazon.com ...