I due avventurieri

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.

'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

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".

Though I wasn't a big fan of the original and the countless remakes of the original Little Women, for some odd reason I really enjoyed Little Men, though the title is a bit misleading, there's only one 'little man' to speak of, he's the one growing up in this movie, But I'm guessing this continues where Little Women left off?? I know the character Jo from Little Women (I began to watch Little Women, but I didn't finish it, so excuse my ignorance), I guess she has her own private school for kids now. They're of various ages. The plot involves a Father who gets into one shady business deal after another who decides to send his adopted boy to school to legitimately educate him. However, the way the boy was brought up and the way the school operates don't exactly add up. And also, the school is wowed by the Father so much to trust him with the school finances (something, well, I find a little hard to believe), and oh yeah, the school is seriously running arrears of it's bills! So there's all these little things happening, but it's not too overly difficult to follow what's going on, and even the kids will enjoy this movie.

Best moment: when Jo and her new student go into the barn, Bessie the cow volunteering to go in with them and starts mooing VERY loudly.

Though Louisa May Alcott's Little Women is definitely the superior book by most standards, Little Men certainly has its supporters and like Little Women it has seen many filmed versions. This particular one from RKO in 1940 starring Kay Francis as the now grownup Jo March is probably the best known.

Jo's a woman now and married to that visiting professor guy played by Carl Esmond here and they're running a school now, the Plumfield School where they try to make young gentlemen out of spirited boys. Back in the day girls were not considered to need an education, but they're kind of snuck in anyway.

George Bancroft and sidekick Jack Oakie stop by one day and deposit Bancroft's son with the school, Jimmy Lydon. Esmond who's not a worldly sort is so taken with Bancroft that he gives him their savings to invest. For all his pretensions Bancroft and Oakie are a pair of amiable grifters.

Oakie gives the best performance in the film, he steals whatever scene he's in. In fact he's the guy who comes up with a unique solution to everybody's problems in the end.

Jo March was one of Katharine Hepburn's earliest film successes back in 1933. If Kate had still been with RKO it might have been interesting to see her naturally age into the part again. As it is Kay Francis does well by Jo.

Little Men also reminds so much of a 19th century Boys Town so much so you keep waiting for Mickey Rooney to pop up. He also would have been a natural for Jimmy Lydon's part.

This version of a timeless literary classic still holds up well and is great family viewing.