If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

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.

I will always have a soft spot for this film, and to me it is the best version of the three versions I've seen so far of Little Women(1994 and 1949 were the others, and I liked both of them very much). The sound here is a little too tinny, and the Laurie of Douglass Montgommery is too fey for my tastes. However, it still looks beautiful, the costumes and hairstyles are well suited to the period, the sets are sumptuous and the film is very handsomely shot. There is also a stirring score from Max Steiner, making it sound appropriately nostalgic, the script is faithful and warm-toned, it is directed with great taste by George Cukor and the story has all the warmth and poignancy of the book, which is one of my favourites of all time. Apart from Montgommery I loved the acting, Edna May Oliver here does what she did best, more than convincingly play sharp-tongued spinsters, and Henry Stephenson is a dear Mr Laurence. Paul Lukas is an unexceptional but romantic Professor Bhaer, an improvement on the wooden and too-Italianate Rosanno Brazzi in the 1949 film, and Spring Byington a Marmee of real sincerity. The four March girls Meg, Jo, Beth and Amy(aka the Little Women of the title) are what drive the story, and all four really shone here. Joan Bennett is appealing as Amy and leaves room for character growth from a vain little girl to an elegant young lady. Jean Parker is a very sweet and moving Beth, and Frances Dee is beautiful as Meg should be. Best of all is the Jo of Katharine Hepburn, who is perfectly cast in a role she was born to play. All in all, truly lovely and the best version to me. 9/10 Bethany Cox

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.

Little Women (1933), directed by George Cukor story of March family, four beautiful loving sisters and their Marmee, is an early adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's beloved 1860s classic and certainly one of the best. This is the movie that I believe should be universally loved and praised because it is a cinematic triumph. Everything is perfect in it. The clothes, the hairdos, the sets, cinematography, the musical score by Max Steiner and the brilliant script that brings to life the timeless story -together they take you effortlessly to the Marches' world where you feel their true love and caring for one another, and follow their dreams, theirs hopes, and their heartbreaks. This is the film that made me jealous of the girls who have sisters by showing what treasure the sisters' love is. This is the movie which I want to watch with my Mom during the Mother's day and to tell her how much she means to me. This is the movie with very young, very talented, strong willed, independent, and excellent Katharine Hepburn, perfect as Jo March, the character that Alcott could've written with her in mind. Yes, the film is sentimental, so what? Made 75 years ago, it is young, beautiful, heartwarming, and radiates love, kindness, and goodness.