ClassyWas Excellent, smart action film.

ChampDavSlim The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Cooktopi The acting in this movie is really good.

Lachlan Coulson This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

cstotlar-1 This is Hepburn's film, no question about it. Her sisters are there merely for decoration or to play up her role. The novel itself is quite episodic which doesn't always make for an easy adaption to the screen, running from one plot element to the next without stopping for breath. When it does stop on occasion the sentimentality of the day (the early Thirties of the film) is often cloying for today's tastes so the rhythm is often out of step. And it was hard to distinguish the personalities of the other sisters and how they developed. Even their names were hard to catch.The fact that Selznick fought for its right to be made and seen speaks well for him and was instrumental for the movies of the period.

MartinHafer 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.

befred8 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.

ashley-m-koonce This is one of my first black and white films to watch and I really enjoyed it. Mostly, because I was able to see the queen differences that time has taken on films. Compared to other older films I have seen, the actresses and actors don't seem as "fake" and script written. The four sisters show the true interactions that my sisters and I go through. This film was completed only six years after the first "talkie" was done. And for that, I believe that this films sound came out wonderful. It's a mono with a RCA sound system. For the music, it is blended with the voices of the actors well. There are a few times where there is only a song playing while the film becomes silent. The March sisters have a few screaming spells that seem to almost burst the speakers and become very raspy. But, overall the sound quality was great. The music in the set, such as the piano, and off the set, where cued in very well together. The date of this movie explains a few mishaps during the film. There are a few "flickers" through out the film, the alternation of light and dark caused by the opening and closing of the projector's shutter. Though they are small and almost unseen, they do exist. The frame shift is usually done by fading in and out of each other. The few times that one frame ends by showing a complete black screen, the next frame usually takes a while to show, which makes that frame seem very abrupt. The beginning of the films flashes that credits over a small cottage in the distance with the well done special effects of snow. The motion of the film is normal as you can see the movement of the characters as the camera viewed them during the shooting of the film. Camera movement if used seldom. Each frame is usually shot still, head on, facing the set. Some sets are seen from up to three angles. In the beginning of the film when Jo is trying to sneak out of her retched aunt's house, the camera is obviously rolled backwards away from Jo as she approaches the unseen door that you think is directly behind the camera. The camera does a few scenic swipes but nothing drastic. Since the film is older the camera shots aren't very creative and towards the end they become dull because you are tired of only being able to see the head on shot. In the scene where the two younger sisters are staring into the ball room watching the grown ups dance, I became eager so see what else was around the corner. But, the camera angle never moves and you have to imagine what is around the corner as you seen a couple dance by the open doorway every now and then. The lighting of the film caught me off guard as well. There would be candles lit in the March's house but the tops of all the girls head would be beaming with light. The film was well lit for being a black and white but the beaming light from the girl's heads gave it that "old timely" look. But, I do keep in mind that not every invention and adjustment that we have made in film making up to this point had been discovered during the production of LITTLE WOMEN. I assume that the men acting in this movie were wearing make up to help their features stand out. This is one of the ways in which they better improved the visual of black and white films. At times when the camera would shoot a close-up the characters seem to glow, giving off a halo shimmer around their heads. This film was done by Radio-Keith-Orpheum Corporation, RKO, founded in 1928, making this one of its first films. They did a great job by incorporating sounds from the actor's voices whether they were singing, talking, whispering, or screaming. Also, by having music come from the piano onset at the March's house, cued in my backstage instruments, or singing. The lighting always set the mood. When Jo was crying over her ill sister Beth in the upstairs attic like room, the only light seemed to appear from the moon light coming in through window, which gave a gloomy and sadden scene. Also, when the eldest sister was getting married everyone glow in white and there was no darkness. The morality of the movie reflected the hard times during the war which was over popular in all movies and novels during this time. But, I feel as though LITTLE WOMEN stood out because the plot and ending was not the fairy tales as most others are. It won an Oscar and showed many talented actors, directors, and composers.