Little Women (1933)
|
List Price: Our Price: $18.99 You Save: $0.99 (5%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $8.38 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Little Women (1933)
Movie Review: Some Comparisons
Summary: 4 Stars
The most interesting thing about the three film versions of "Little Women" is comparing them to each other or comparing each of them to Alcott's book.
What makes them so difficult to choose between is that the casting of the four title characters is the critical element, and each film featured at least one actress whose performance was clearly superior to her character's portrayal in the other two films.
This all star cast would include Jean Parker (Beth) in the 1933 version, Janet Leigh (Meg) in the 1949 version, and Winona Ryder (Jo) in the 1994 version. The 1994 version also had the best Amy, if only because they wisely split the role into a younger Amy (Kirsten Dunst) and an older Amy (Samantha Mathis).
Since Jo is pretty clearly the most important of the four sisters (to the story), the 1994 version gets my nod as the best of the three films. The 1933 version pulls in as a close second as Joan Bennett and Katherine Hepburn are the second best Amy and Jo; and Francis Dee's Meg is as good as Trini Alvarado's. Neither Margaret O'Brien nor Claire Danes come even close to Parker's portrayal of Beth.
The biggest casting problem all the productions had was in the age of the actresses. With the exception of Beth, all three characters must span a five year period. The casting process typically addressed this by selecting older actresses and getting them to play (with varying degrees of success) much (June Allyson was 32 years old) younger versions of themselves during the first half of the film.
At least the 1994 versions managed to get the birth order right. The 1933 version had some problems in this area, as Hepburn was two years older than Dee and Bennett five years older than Parker. While this still causes many Alcott fans to cringe, it is nothing compared to the 1949 version where Allyson was ten years older than Leigh and Elizabeth Taylor was five years older than O'Brien.
Taylor should have played Jo, which would have saved viewers from Allyson's embarrassing portrayal and from Taylor's attempt to pass as a blonde. Few actresses (even in black and white) were less suited to a light hair color. While Taylor's portrayal of Amy is painful, she would have been well suited to the Jo role.
Critics frequently point out that both Hepburn and Allyson were much like Jo in real life, so there is a certain irony that Ryder's portrayal of the character (one so dissimilar to herself) was far superior. But Ryder and Jo have a similar level of intensity so maybe it was not as much a stretch as it seems.
Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
Movie Review: Refreshingly Sweet
Summary: 4 Stars
Without comparing this version of Little Women to the 1994 remake I grew up with, I can heartily endorse it as fun-loving, wholesome family entertainment that does justice to a story we hold dear. I suppose one has to develope a taste for these older movies, however . . . and I'm not thinking about the black and white. There are so many parts where it's hard to keep up with the diolog, probably because I'm used to newer movies where they always zoom in on who ever is speaking. Katherine Hepburn did good acting, there is no doubt . . . but looked too old for a teenage role, and she oddly resembled Lucy ("I Love Lucy"), giving me a weird feeling about her through the first half of the movie. The potrayel of her sister/brother relationship with Laurie was brought out better in this movie than in any other, in my opinion. In the 1949 one Laurie seemed to be sweet on her to begin with, and that wasn't the way it was in the book. In the 1994 one with Christian Bale and Winona Ryder, their relationship was playful, but in the book they also "quarreled" a lot, and the 1994 version didn't bring that out enough to explain Jo's rejection of his suit. The Laurie in this 1933 version, however, looked way younger than Jo, and a bit frail. And, too, his facial expressions were sometimes nerdy, and sometimes cute, making me edgy. The Beth they had was PERFECT, as was the Amy, but Meg's character was a bit flat, as she wasn't given many lines, and I only remember one scene which Mr. March was in. John Brook was also a side character. Mr. Lawrence and Aunt March were given big parts, though, and were highly entertaining. The Marmee they had gave a sincere effort, you could tell, and truly seemed the warm, caring mother of four girls from Alcott's novel. I would reckon that most of her acting career was on the stage, however, because it shows in her overworked gestures, facial expressions, and intonation. (Stage actors had to be overly dramatic in a time before the magic of fancy camera work.) Jo's Proffessor from the 1994 movie is and will remain my die-hard favorite. The new version did the best with Jo and the Proffessor's romance. My favorite thing about this movie was the quiet, unforced reverence it radiates. Marmee and her girls are shown praying at different times and even sing "Abide With Me" as Beth plays the piano, and the March girls are rightly concerned about fashioning their characters as best they can. Very wholesome stuff. This is one good movie, and I'd reccomend it to anyone.Movie Review: Kate wins the day again
Summary: 4 Stars
There are some stars from the classic era of Hollywood who were able to almost single-handedly take a mediocre project and turn it into a tour de force. Katharine Hepburn was one such luminous personality, and as if by sheer force of will she took this popular story and infused it with her incredible energy, making it a joy to watch even 70+ years later. Also it's a pleasure to watch a simple story of a family living in the Civil War era without being confronted with controversies, politics, racism, etc.; just a story about a family that loves each other and is trying to get their four daughters from adolescence into adulthood with minimal trauma.
Nonetheless, of course, there is trauma. It's handled with as much melodrama as one would expect from a film of this era. Remember, talking pictures had only been in existence for about five years, so the art form was still transitioning from the age of emoting to the age of verbal communication. It shows in some places here, so this first film version of "Little Women" doesn't completely hold up all these decades later. Regardless, once one gets past the first 15 to 20 minutes of exposition the story picks up and flows quite nicely, especially when Ms. Hepburn is front and center, which is often.
There's nothing quite like her scene portraying playwright/actress Jo portraying an evil mustachioed villain and then quickly changing costume to portray a handsome romantic leading man. Obviously this isn't a film top-heavy with the melodrama, there are quite a few good laughs and just general feel-good moments. Very sweet story.
Recommended for all ages; after all, this is a classic for the ages.
Movie Review: Faithful adaptation of Little Women
Summary: 4 Stars
This 1933 Hollywood adaptation of Little Women is lavishly produced and a true classic. The story itself is a family drama, centering on the lives of the March sisters - Meg [Frances Dee], Jo [Katharine Hepburn], Beth [Jean Parker], and Amy [Joan Bennett] who live with their mother, Marmie in a New England town during the time of the Civil War, whilst their father is away fighting.
Of all the movie adaptations, this 1933 version is the most faithful to the novel and though not my personal favorite [I love the 1949 version with June Allyson the best], I still love it for Katharine Hepburn's performance as the feisty, independent-minded Jo March who harbors dreams of becoming a published author. The actresses who play the sisters are all quite good, but somehow pale in comparison to the latter versions [I liked Elizabeth Taylor's performance as Amy in the 1949 version, and Claire Danes' performance as Beth in the 1994 adaptation.
The actor who portrayed Laurie was the weakest of all the adaptations. Apart from the lack of good looks [seeming almost girlish in some scenes], he also lacks stature and credibility in his portrayal of Laurie. Other than that, the production details are convincing and well-done, and I also like this version for staying as true as it could to the novel by Louisa May Alcott. This version is worth owning for Little Women fans and fans of classic Hollywood dramas.
Movie Review: Great
Summary: 4 Stars
I think it is indeed the best version of little women. The movie is mostly loyal to the book. Hepburn makes the best Jo possible, and the excellent cast adds a magnificent Laurie. I enjoyed it tremendously, since the director and writer indeed understood that these are the characters on which the plot is standing, and if you get them, you got everything.
I do have one problem with the movie, and that the sisters are acted all by adults. I haven't a bad word for the casting of Hepburn for Jo, but to get a 20+ years old girl to act an 11 years old one, is odd. I do understand it is the spirit of the time, however, they got kids for other parts, wh not for the main ones as well.
nevertheless, it's an amazing version of the book. I laughed, I cried and I enjoyed every minute. If you want to buy a Little Women movie version, and you'd be able to convince your kids that inspite the fact that it's old, it's worth watching, you'll get yourself a great movie for the entire family, worth watching over and over again.