Hitchcoc
This, for me, is the best rendition of the classic story which has been done very well in other years, including the Winona Ryder production a few years ago. Katherine Hepburne plays Jo, the most dominant of the sisters. She rules the family when their mother is away. They perform plays, make things, do whatever they can to keep themselves balanced in tenuous times. Of course, there are all the typical problems of the time. Men are fascinated with them, but they are still very particular. Especially, Jo, who is so idiosyncratic that she becomes sought after. But she has big dreams. There is also illness and poverty that they must face every day. There are touching scenes and hilarious ones. I would recommend seeing this film first if you are a fan of the book. Being a male, I didn't read it until it became a choice for my ninth grade students. Some put it down for being too sentimental. Yes, it is, but in the most wonderful way.
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.
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.
kenjha
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.
AD
