Little Men

'Little Men' is a charming, entertaining and heart-warming book. If you like the more popular 'Little Women' and 'Good Wives', 'Little Men' won't disappoint as it does have much of the ingredients that make those two books so good. The main reason why there is a personal preference towards the other two is to do with that 'Little Women' and 'Good Wives' are stories I've known and loved since childhood whereas 'Little Men' was introduced to me quite some years later.

While this 1940 adaptation of 'Little Men' didn't do much for me, it does have virtues that prevent it from being a complete disaster. Visually it is quite handsomely mounted, with sumptuous black and white photography, elegant costumes and evocative sets and scenery. Roy Webb's score complements beautifully, and it is a lusciously orchestrated and rhythmically characterful score in its own right, never feeling too twee or overly-jaunty. A couple of performances are good, with very funny Jack Oakie and lively George Bancroft coming out on top. Jimmy Lydon does well, and his reform does provide the one moment in the film where a tear really is brought to the eye. Elsie the Cow is also very cute.

Sadly, the rest of the cast are not particularly memorable and struggle to bring life to characters that are just not interesting. Even though Jo is much older than the spirited yet hot-tempered youthful Jo seen in 'Little Women', Kay Francis is far too subdued, disadvantaged by how blandly as a result of being mostly stripped of that liveliness and spirit Jo is written. Charles Esmond is also much too stiff as Mr Bhaer, and rather too buffoonish and naive too. The other children don't generate much spark, only Dan shows any signs of development.

It's not their fault though, because they don't have much of worth to work with, which would have been far less problematic if the film had stuck more to the book. Speaking briefly about how 'Little Men' fares as an adaptation, out of all the film adaptations of Alcott's books it is by far and large the weakest and most uninspired. Although none of the other film adaptations of Alcott's work are completely faithful to their source material and there are significant alterations and omissions in some, this is the only one to change the original story beyond recognition to the extent that if the title and characters' names hadn't been left intact it would have been something else entirely.

Judging films and adaptations as standalones this reviewer has always found a fairer way to judge, but apart from a few good things 'Little Men' is pretty mediocre on its own terms. The script is rather messy, the subtle social commentary and gentle tone is predominantly replaced by overused and increasingly idiotic slapstick, maudlin sentiment, mostly teeth-gritting humorous moments (Oakie does have some very amusing moments though admittedly, just that the more repetitive ones suffer eventually from being overly-absurd) and dialogue that takes one completely out of the time period and setting.

Didn't find myself particularly engaged by the story in 'Little Men' either, with the first half-hour being particularly slow-going with a lot of dialogue but not much going on in the story-telling. Due to so many changes and omissions, which hurt the energy and flow, it's also rather limply paced, dramatically dreary, can feel choppy and just everything that made the original story such a lovely read is not present here.

Overall, a few merits here but mediocre and disappointing as an overall film, while faring terribly as an adaptation. 4/10 Bethany Cox

Jo March and her husband Professor Bhaer operate the Plumfield School for poor boys.

When Dan, a tough street kid, comes to the school, he wins Jo's heart despite his hard edge.

And she defends him when he is falsely accused.

Dan's foster father, Major Burdle, is a swindler in cahoots with another crook called Willie the Fox.

When the Plumfield School becomes in danger of foreclosure, the two con men cook up a way to save the home.

It's not a bad movie. Starts out very funny but then drifts away into schmaltzy.

Elsie the Cow Before you watch this 1940 version of "Little Men", you should be aware that it is only BASED on the Louisa May Alcott story. So much of it is a creation of the studio that at times, it's almost unrecognizable from the source material. I really wanted to see the original, but the story I did see was still pleasant.

The story begins with a baby being dropped in the lap of a film-flam man (George Bancroft). Not surprisingly, the child, Dan, grows up to be a smaller version of his dad--full of the devil and way too old for his age. However, after years of traveling the country selling patent medicine and lying up a blue streak, it becomes inevitable that Dan should go to school. So, he's placed in the boarding school run by Jo (the main character from "Little Women") and the boy fits in about as well as a stripper at a Baptist Bible college!! In addition, Jo's husband unwisely believes Dan's father is a decent man and industrialist and entrusts them with the home's assets. What happens next? See the film.

The emphasis in this "Little Men" is clearly on Dan as well as on laughs. Now the film was quite enjoyable--the acting was nice (especially Kay Francis as Jo) and the script nice. It just wasn't "Little Men"!

Not a faithful adaptation of the Louisa May Alcott book. Plumfield, originally in Maine, is now apparently in the south or a border state? Jo has lost all her spunk and vitality, and the professor (a Ph.D., for that matter) takes all the money he has and gives it over, without a thought, to charlatans because they are "good investors"? What has happened to the wise, lovable Fritz Bhaer of the earlier novel?

Nothing happens at Plumfield, except Bessie the Cow gives birth and Danny, the new boy, gets into fights. Instead, the main emphasis is on the non-Alcott material: the charlatans who sell snake oil to the masses and who crack some interesting jokes along the way. It's watchable, but not a good movie. And it's certainly not an adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's "Little Women".

I was a little disappointed in this one as it didn't live up to my expectations. It was not nearly as good as Little Women - also written by Louisa May Alcott.

Part of the problem was the poor quality of the film itself on TCM. It had lots of scratches and white spots, as well as a soundtrack that dragged at times (especially noticeable during music). There was also frequent jumping to the film which was distracting.

I wonder the reason they replaced Katherine Hepburn's character, Jo March, with Kay Francis? Hepburn made the character so spirited - whereas Francis played it like milquetoast. The only resemblance was when Jo says the familiar "Christopher Columbus!" exclamation.

Jo March is married now with children. Her and her husband run Plumfield School Boarding school for children. George Bancroft plays a former shyster, Major Hurdle, who is "bequeathed" a baby boy, Dan, from a former hoodlum who was murdered. He grows fond of the boy and tries to live straight. When he is finally made to enroll Dan in school, he takes him to Plumfield.

There is one scene that was meant for humor - but I didn't find it at all funny. Hurdle's crooked buddy that visits the school with him gets his coat stuck in the school safe when he accidentally opens it. They go on and on with him trying to get it unstuck, finally cutting his coat loose, then trying to even the coat up - yawn, yawn, yawn.

The best thing the film has going for it is an adorable boy named Teddy (Richard Nichols) and Elsie the cow, who has the biggest, most expressive eyes. Apparently she was quite famous from the New York World's Fair and Borden milk ads.

Overall, I found the plot boring and the pace extremely slow. Not much to see here - unless you are a huge fan of Alcott and want to complete more of her film adaptations.