Rating: 
Summary: This is the best Little Women by far
Review: Little Women has been made time and time again, but not as great as this. This movie is a classic and Katherine Hepburn is perfect as Jo.
Rating:
Summary: Katharine Hepburn is Great
Review: one of my favorite movies. Katharine Hepburn is awsome. So is everyone eles. Lines from the actual book are included in the movie.
Rating:
Summary: How in the world is this possible????????????
Review: Only 11 reviews for this beautiful, sweet, charming, genteel, CLASSIC film? ???? I can't believe my eyes.
Alcott's book was wonderful, it's also a classic, and this film is a perfect adaptation of the book. I see hundreds (sometimes even thousands) of reviews (positive ones yet!) for the most despicable, vile, repugnant movies, but this lovely movie only has 11 reviews. There are not enough words in the English language to express my contempt.
Get this great movie ASAP. You will love it, I assure you.
Rating:
Summary: EXCELLENT FAMILY FARE.
Review: The simple classic tale, warm and human (and innocent) of how four girls grew up with their good times and their sad times. LITTLE WOMEN fully captures the joy and feeling of the classic 1868 classic by Louisa May Alcott. Katharine's playing of Jo is vibrant and she captures Jo's tomboy qualities yet also delicately projects the beauty and intellect of Jo as a woman and budding writer. Paul Lukas made the German professor both manly and tenderly lovable. Spring Byington, as Marmee, is the only one who seems to have stepped out of an old-fashioned Sunday School book - she's unmistakably smug, and proud of it. Highly episodic, the movie focuses on the characters without slavishly following a plot. The very young Joan Bennett is terrific as Amy, who's ever scheming for the "good life" and Douglass Montgomery has the boundless energy needed in his playing of Laurie. A must-see for the fans of Alcott and Hepburn while others will find it enjoyable as a family film.
Rating:
Summary: Hepburn heads cast of best film version of "Little Women"
Review: This 1933 version of Louisa May Alcott's Civil-War era classic remains the best film version of "Little Women." After all, it offers Katharine Hepburn as Jo March, whereas later versions have offered June Allyson, Meredith Baxter Birney (for TV), and Winona Ryder in her place (Although Claire Dane's deathbed scene in the 1994 version is magnificent). But the entire cast of this film is superb from top to bottom: Joan Bennett as Amy, Jean Park as Beth, Frances Dee as Meg, and Spring Byington as Marmee, with Paul Lukas as Professor Bhaer, Douglass Montgomery as Laurie, and Edna May Oliver threatening to steal every scene she is in as Aunt March. Hepburn won the Cannes International Film Festival award as Best Actress of 1934, and it seems reasonable to suggest that her performance in "Little Women" helped Hepburn win her first Academy Award for "Morning Glory," which had come out the previous year (much as Diane Keaton was helped by having done "Saving Mr. Goodbar" the same year as "Annie Hall" when she won her Oscar). "Little Women" was nominated for Best Picture that year, because the team behind the camera of this RKO film was equally as strong. The film was produced by David O'Selznick and director George Cukor was nominated for an Oscar as well, although surprisingly none of the actors received nominations. The film's one award went to Y. Mason and Victor Heerman, who most deservedly won for Best Screenplay Adaptation. This is arguably Hepburn's best performance in her first dozen films, although some dismiss it as being too close to home for the actress. It would be decades before critics decided that when Katharine Hepburn played herself no one could equal her, and "Little Women" certainly foreshadows her later successes. It would be nice if at least the sound on this 67 year old film could be restored, but if you can get past it being in black and white this is the "Little Women" to show your children. Note: Interesting that this video tape is not currently available by itself, but it is as part of a three tape set of Hepburn films. Hmmmm.
Rating: 
Summary: The Ultimate Jo March
Review: Yes, once you have seen this 1933 version of "Little Women", you only ever see Katharine Hepburn in your mind's eye as you re-read the novel. I've seen this one, of course, as well as June Allyson's, Susan Dey's, and Winona Ryder's, and a PBS one years ago which featured an extremely pouty gal with a protruding lower lip as Jo. Interestingly enough, though, one evening I rented both Kate's and June's and played them back to back to determine how each measured up against the other. While Kate brings a quality of haplessness to the role that June doesn't, I found to my surprise that OVERALL I preferred the June Allyson movie. Why? Better film quality, color as opposed to black and white (shouldn't make a difference, but it was attractive), and a cast better known to me from other pictures than Kate's; the 15 years between the pictures makes a great difference for more modern audiences in that respect--imagine, Elizabeth Taylor as Amy!. For more on the June Allyson version, see my full review treatment there. Back to Kate for now. As I mentioned, Kate's haplessness is right out of the book, one of the overriding characteristics of Jo March. Like many of Selznick's earlier pictures (see "David Copperfield"), there is an antique quality to the movie and some of the acting is a wee bit too dated and histrionic. Depending on whom you watch the movie with, that may matter. The first half of the movie, prior to Jo's moving to NY, is the better part. I have always loved the scene where she is being chased over the hills and fences by Laurie with Max Steiner's score cheerily bouncing away, only to come upon her sister Meg trying to be so dignified with her beau Mr. Brooke--Jo's realization that their childhood days are coming to an end with Meg's changing interests and reproof of Jo's tomboy antics. Edna May Oliver gets my vote for the best Aunt March yet--I suppose she really only ever plays one part in every movie you see her in, but that's what can be so effective about character actors and typecasting. Incidentally, I wish ALL versions would drop the playacting sequences--I've always been bored out of my mind by those scenes, even though I realize Alcott devoted a lot of time to them in the book. This "Little Women" is a classic and nobody should reach the age of 30 without having seen it at least once!
Rating:
Summary: The Ultimate Jo March
Review: Yes, once you have seen this 1933 version of "Little Women", you only ever see Katharine Hepburn in your mind's eye as you re-read the novel. I've seen this one, of course, as well as June Allyson's, Susan Dey's, and Winona Ryder's, and a PBS one years ago which featured an extremely pouty gal with a protruding lower lip as Jo. Interestingly enough, though, one evening I rented both Kate's and June's and played them back to back to determine how each measured up against the other. While Kate brings a quality of haplessness to the role that June doesn't, I found to my surprise that OVERALL I preferred the June Allyson movie. Why? Better film quality, color as opposed to black and white (shouldn't make a difference, but it was attractive), and a cast better known to me from other pictures than Kate's; the 15 years between the pictures makes a great difference for more modern audiences in that respect--imagine, Elizabeth Taylor as Amy!. For more on the June Allyson version, see my full review treatment there. Back to Kate for now. As I mentioned, Kate's haplessness is right out of the book, one of the overriding characteristics of Jo March. Like many of Selznick's earlier pictures (see "David Copperfield"), there is an antique quality to the movie and some of the acting is a wee bit too dated and histrionic. Depending on whom you watch the movie with, that may matter. The first half of the movie, prior to Jo's moving to NY, is the better part. I have always loved the scene where she is being chased over the hills and fences by Laurie with Max Steiner's score cheerily bouncing away, only to come upon her sister Meg trying to be so dignified with her beau Mr. Brooke--Jo's realization that their childhood days are coming to an end with Meg's changing interests and reproof of Jo's tomboy antics. Edna May Oliver gets my vote for the best Aunt March yet--I suppose she really only ever plays one part in every movie you see her in, but that's what can be so effective about character actors and typecasting. Incidentally, I wish ALL versions would drop the playacting sequences--I've always been bored out of my mind by those scenes, even though I realize Alcott devoted a lot of time to them in the book. This "Little Women" is a classic and nobody should reach the age of 30 without having seen it at least once!
|
