Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours Aspect Ratio: 1.33:1 Audience Rating: NR (Not Rated) Binding: DVD EAN: 9780790745893 Format: Black & White, Closed-captioned, DVD-Video, Subtitled, NTSC ISBN: 0790745895 Label: Turner Home Ent Manufacturer: Turner Home Ent Number Of Items: 1 Publication Date: November 06, 2001 Publisher: Turner Home Ent Region Code: 1 Release Date: November 06, 2001 Running Time: 115 minutes Sales Rank: 14509 Studio: Turner Home Ent Theatrical Release Date: November 16, 1933
Amazon.com essential video: Louisa May Alcott's beloved story is one of the most-read novels ever written. It has also proved popular film and telefilm fodder (at least six versions plus a TV series). In addition, Little Women is one of those rare literary projects that can truly be done well on screen. This, the 1933 version, chronicles the lives and loves of sisters Jo, Meg, Amy, and Beth (played, respectively, by Katharine Hepburn, Frances Dee, Joan Bennett, and Jean Parker). It's a superior rendering to the amiable, perky 1949 version with June Allyson, Janet Leigh, Elizabeth Taylor, Margaret O'Brien, and Peter Lawford, and comparable to the beautiful, feminist Gillian Armstrong 1994 take. Douglass Montgomery's Laurie isn't nearly as dreamy as Christian Bale's (1994), but the lack of chemistry between him and Hepburn's Jo is perfect for the story, in which Jo loves him like a brother. Jo's real love she offers up to perhaps the finest Professor Bhaer (Paul Lukas). Character actress Edna May Oliver is at her indignant best as Aunt March. Director George Cukor's vision is elegant, warm, and as true to the original source material as 117 minutes allows. This Little Women was a huge box-office hit, and broke all the records to that time. --N.F. Mendoza
Digital Life Reviews
Customer Reviews
Average Rating:
Rating: - Some Comparisons
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 ... Read More
Rating: - Good for it's time, but the acting just doesn't hold up.
I just borrowed this one from the library. For the most part it is a very faithful adaptation of the beloved novel (which I finished reading two days before viewing this version). Unfortunately, some parts are too faithful - like the first fifteen or twenty minutes. This part is almost verbatim from the book and was soooooo slow! I was worried that the entire movie would be this way and be six hours long. Thank goodness the screenwriters began condensing after this long opening sequence.
The actresses playing the four March sisters did a good job but they all looked approximately the same age leaving no room for age progression throughout the movie. The acting was okay for its time - but by today's standards it comes off as very melodramatic. Hepburn was a suitably tomboyish Jo but even she had her unintentional laughable moments - particularly the "swoon" as Prof. Bhaer was playing the piano and singing. ... Read More
Rating: - Little Women (1933) - still young and beautiful
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 ... Read More
Rating: - Melodramatic, slow, bad acting... but a beautiful Hepburn
A couple of old friend were practically slobbering over this version of Little Women, so I finally decided to watch it. I was really taken aback. People here on Amazon really liked Kate as Jo, and they're entitled to their opinions, but she looked like she was trying too hard. Some of her facial expressions look glued on.
The Beth in this version looked way older than she should have been, and neither the actress's face nor voice expressed the personality she was supposed to portray. Elizabeth Taylor's Amy was more real and believable than this one, and more articulate... though Liz looks horrible with blond hair and thick black eyebrows. The father in the movie looked like he should have played James Laurence, the grandfather. But Laurie took the cake. The actor was very small, unlike the tall Laurie in the June Allyson/Elizabeth Taylor version. His acting was horrible and overstated, and he lacked the charm ... Read More
Digital
Life Shop
George Cukor items subject to availability. Some restrictions
may apply. DVD
Little Women (1933) presented by digi2005.com Digi2005.com is
an Amazon.com
Associate
Digital Life Music News:
Apple faces a rebellion over iTunes
CNET News - ... striking back against?," said Ken Hertz, an entertainment lawyer who represents artists like Beyoncé and the Black Eyed Peas ... Silicon Valley woos interns Photos: Iconic computer innards as art SAP: Our downloads were 'inappropriate' Extra: Weaving ...
more News
- Good for it's time, but the acting just doesn't hold up.
- Little Women (1933) - still young and beautiful
- Melodramatic, slow, bad acting... but a beautiful Hepburn
