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".

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.

LITTLE MEN (RKO Radio, 1940) directed by Norman McLeod, marks the second screen adaptation to the 1871 Louisa May Alcott novel, a sequel to her novel success of "Little Women." Being a long-awaited sequel to the studio's own LITTLE WOMEN (1933) starring Katharine Hepburn (Jo March) and Paul Lukas (Professor Bhaer), the first screen version to LITTLE MEN (Mascot, 1934) followed, featuring Erin O'Brien-Moore and Ralph Morgan to the leading characters of Jo and Professor Bhaer. Six years later, this latest installment, which could have been a scene-by-scene remake, bears little resemblance to the 1934 release. The major characters of Jo and Professor Bhaer, now enacted by Kay Francis and Charles Esmond, still manage a farming boarding school for children, encountering new situations and new characters while struggling to pay off their mortgage to keep their school open.

Set in Connecticut some years after the Civil War, the prologue begins with Major I. I. Burdle (George Bancroft) a confidence man, whose friend, Willie, the Fox (Jack Oakie) arrives with the news that their friend and fellow crook, Teddy, has died, leaving Burdle his orphan son, Danny, to raise. Burdle, who is not fond of children, decides to leave the year old infant on the doorsteps of a state orphanage. Unable to follow through his plan, Burdle has a change of heart and raises the boy as his own. Twelve years later, Burdle has raised Danny (Jimmy Lydon) to become a chiseler like himself, selling medicine bottles that cures alcoholism to suckers who buy them. Advised by a truant officer to give Danny a normal childhood by going to school, Burdle takes her advise against his own judgment. Reunited with Willie, who had escaped prison and left for dead, Burdle and he both take Danny to Plumfield Boarding School run by Jo (Kay Francis) and her Swiss husband, Professor Bhaer (Charles Esmond). Because the school is in desperate need of $5,000 before their lease expires, Bhaer, believing Burdle to be an investment broker, entrusts him his life savings of $2500 for he to invest and double the funds. While living a natural environment with the other boys and girls, Danny hates the place and longs to be with his father. Now on their own, Burdle and Willie continue selling medicine bottles. Burdle loses Bhaer's money to the Omaha Bank that has failed. To save Danny from disgrace, Burdle must come up with a miracle to honestly regain the money and save the school from closing.

The supporting cast consists of Ann Gillis (Nan); Richard Nichols (Teddy Bhaer); Casey Johnson (Robby); Johnny Burke (Silas); Lillian Randolph (Asia, the Maid); Schuyler Standish (Nat, the violinist); William Demarest (The Constable); Sterling Holloway (The Reporter); Lloyd Ingraham (The Judge), Isabel Jewell (Stella), and a cow named Elsie, introduced in the credits as "The moo girl of the New York World's Fair," playing Buttercup.

An average production that mixes sentimentality and family values in the similar fashion to BOYS TOWN (MGM, 1938) starring Spencer Tracy and Mickey Rooney. It is Jo who takes in every wayward child into her wing, including her own and sister's children as well. Those who remember Jimmy Lydon as the comical teenager in the "Henry Aldrich" movie series for Paramount (1941-1944), will get a glimpse of him in a serious role. That of a troublesome teen who becomes a problem to others. Of the major characters here, Jack Oakie comes off best as the bank bandit with amusing one-liners and amusing situations definitely not existent in the Alcott book. Ten minutes longer than the 1934 edition, LITTLE MEN, at 84 minutes, is satisfactory entertainment.

A public domain title, over the years, this 1940 edition of LITTLE MEN has become available on both video and DVD formats, with frequent showings on public television in the 1980s. There were limited broadcasts on cable television, such as CBN in 1987, and Turner Classic Movies (TCM premiere: April 16, 2007) as well. The premise of LITTLE MEN was retold again in 1998, first as motion picture and then a short-lived television series. Whether it be LITTLE WOMEN or LITTLE MEN, Louisa May Alcott's stories of family values are quite relevant today. (**1/2)

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