Watch Little Women For Free

Truly Dreadful Film

Fantastic!

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

I wanted to use "Christopher Columbus!" as my title, but I knew to check first to see if someone else already used it cause I knew there was a good chance of that and by golly, I was right. I have counted how many times Katharine Hepburn says it in this film. This was a sweet, old fashioned film. So was the 1940s version with June Allyson, but I never saw the 1990s version with, wasn't it Wynoda Ryder? I'm sure it wasn't the same as the 2 Golden Age versions. Nothing more modern is. I am a true fan of old films. I love Katharine Hepburn and find her one of the most skilled diverse actresses from that era. Other Golden Age films of hers I love are "Morning glory", "Bringing up baby", "Undercurrent", and "Philadelphia". I also love her later on 1970s films ''The corn is green" and "On golden pond". This old fashioned country Civil War era film has a lot of passion and a good story of 4 girls who live with their loving guardian mother figure Spring Brightin, who's very good at those mother nurturing roles. Jo (Hepburn) and her 3 siblings live through the different highs and lows as they work at getting along, working together, and having fun together while the father is off fighting the war. Spring works in a clothing store, and we see her kindly big heart as an elderly gentleman tells her about how his sons have either been casualties of war or very ill. Spring is very taken aback and feels a real emotional pain for the man. One of the sisters Amy is in school in class being made by the strict headmaster to sit in the old fashioned dunce chair up front holding the 'I'm a bad student'' sign, and narrowly misses a turn of the old schoolhouse corpral punishment. Jo starts falling for the good looking boy next door, we get another of that theme just like in many other films such as for example "Meet me in St. Louie"' with Judy Garland, who sings the song "The boy next door". The boy next door to Hepburn in this film lives in a nice big classy house, noticeably more affluent than her house, with the tough yet caring father. Jo's Aunt March, long narrow faced Edna A. Oliver plays another of her unhappy uptight roles. Another of the sisters Beth, who is also considered the sweetest of the girls, comes down with scarlet fever and gets quite ill. We get a really poignant emotional moment when the father returns from war and Beth gets up and starts to walk towards him. Very moving and a tearjerker. This film has several tearjerkers. Another beautifully sweet scene was when Spring and the girls are about to sit down to a good hot meal and then decide to make themselves second and takes the food to an even poorer family with a baby. Could you imagine anyone now in the 21st century doing that, even if they were well off and could easily afford to do so? We then see the grateful family eating with Beth feeding the baby while on her lap. A little while later, we learn the baby dies. That really did bring out a tear in me, and I believe would to anyone but the hard hearted. Back in those days, there were more saintly people around that cared and had faith. Beth, as her illness continues to progress, mentions how she is not scared anymore because she knows that she will be going to heaven. I could definitely relate to her. I'm a believer too.

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.

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.

The oft-filmed Alcott novel received its first lavish production in this 1933 version and it's quite good-looking. Hepburn is fine if sometimes overly expressive as the headstrong Jo March and Lukas makes a good impression as Professor Bhaer, but much of the acting is rather stagy and melodramatic. Montgomery makes a very effeminate and wimpy Laurie. Cukor made some fine films through his long career but his early efforts, including "Dinner at Eight," also from 1933, leave much to be desired. He also has a tendency to make things schmaltzy, not helped by the sappy performance of Byington as the mother. The film also goes on perhaps a bit too long.