Little Men (1940) User Reviews

It should be retitled "

[planktonrules · 6/10 · 15 January 2013]

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"!

Big Moo

[wes-connors · 5/10 · 7 July 2008]

This one compares relatively well with the other old "Little Women" and "Little Men" movies. It boasts an evenly keeled performance from Jimmy Lydon (as Danny), who handles the material particularly well. Other Louisa May Alcott adaptations err by casting older, and far too cutely made-up, stars as Alcott's young characters. Possibly, due to his relative youth, Mr. Lydon gets less than "star billing". Higher-billed veterans Kay Francis (as Jo March) and George Bancroft (as Major Burdle) provide strong adult support. Ms. Francis' portrayal of an older "Jo" rings true. However, Jack Oakie (as Willie the Fox) has the most enjoyable role. In black-and-white, Nick Musuraca photographs Darrell Silvera's sets quite nicely. Still, the total effect sometimes too cute for comfort.

***** Little Men (11/29/40) Norman Z. McLeod ~ Jimmy Lydon, Kay Francis, Jack Oakie, George Bancroft

Good cast and production values, but a plot to make Alcott cringe!

[JohnHowardReid · 6/10 · 7 November 2013]

Having been beaten to the post by Mascot in 1935, RKO finally got around to making a sequel to their 1933 "Little Women" in 1940. The only characters carried over from the original were Jo and Bhaer and this time they are played by Kay Francis (who bears as much resemblance to the original tomboyish Jo as a window dresser to a lumberjack) and Carl (here masquerading as "Charles") Esmond whose sole qualification for the part seems to be his foreign accent.

However, George Bancroft is a delight as the mellifluous-talking swindler Major Birdle and Jimmy Lydon is appropriately surly as his son. (The script bears some resemblances to the 1939 movie "Boys Town"). Jack Oakie has some amusing moments as an inept bank robber, though his confusing a donkey for a fox is a little difficult to accept, and its use as a running gag is unfunny.

A fair bit of money has been spent on the film in giving it a period flavor with appropriate sets and costumes, but the standard of studio craftsmanship, whilst efficient, is not high and credits, including direction, are merely serviceable. The old-fashioned plot is not particularly interesting either, but at least the film in all departments is a considerable improvement on the Mascot version.

CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS, Jo's All Grown Up

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 25 June 2008]

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.

Louisa May Alcott's "Pocketful of Miracles."

[lugonian · 7/10 · 25 April 2022]

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)

Terrible as an adaptation, and apart from some virtues mediocre on its own terms

[TheLittleSongbird · 4/10 · 29 April 2016]

'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

Good Schmaltz

[arfdawg-1 · 7/10 · 3 April 2014]

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.

Not written by Louisa May Alcott

[michellek10 · 3/10 · 24 July 2017]

From the beginning of this film I was puzzled as to why Louisa May Alcott, whose main character in "Little Women" is set straight on her own writing career by being told to write what she knows, would follow up that story with a crazy yarn about some sleazy con artists. Further, I wondered why she would water down her own most vibrant character Jo into a staid, boring matron, and turn her gentle, wise professor husband into an inept fool.

The answer of course is that she didn't. Apparently the studio felt that the title and a few characters were all it needed from the book. While I haven't read the book, I can say having seen the movie that the studio should probably have stuck to the book. The story they came up with is lackluster and has none of the strong character development of LM. I am a Kay Francis fan, but she has too few opportunities in the script to make anything of her Jo. On its own merits, the film is mildly entertaining, but ultimately forgettable.

Dreadful adaptation

[godblossom · 2/10 · 21 October 2012]

The only thing this film has in common with the charming book by Louisa May Alcott is the title and a handful of character similarities. The plot is entirely different from the one in the book. In this film, Uncle Fritz and Aunt Jo are in danger of losing Plumfield and get involved with a suspect financial investment to save it. Wait, what? The new plot has none of the tender interactions of the book and fails as an adaptation. Taken as a film on its own, its just not good entertainment. The addition of the two new characters, coupled with the dreadful acting on almost everyone's part means this is only interesting in an "oh my, isn't this hilariously bad?" sort of way. For that reason, it gets the extra star.

Pass the popcorn, and give me the book.

Does not star Danny DeVito

[Spuzzlightyear · 8/10 · 7 December 2005]

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.

Not an Adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's book

[takegoodcare · 3/10 · 12 March 2020]

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".

Not nearly as good as Little Women

[PudgyPandaMan · 4/10 · 18 February 2009]

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.

Very poor version

[g_dekok · 1/10 · 10 April 2019]

Please skip this movie, and see the previous version. This strays so far from the story, and is badly done.

Way Too Cute

[gallenm1 · 3/10 · 27 June 2003]

This film is cute to the point of being saccharine sweet. It tells the story of a too good to be true school mistress and her pupils, and of a rough and tumble young boy whose life they touch. The treatment of the youngsters is improbable given the time period the film takes place in, and the film has a trite ending that ignores the realities of the situation the boy is in. Finally, the film features the original Bessie the Cow; that fact alone makes it too cute.

Likable but saccharine adaption of a lesser-known follow-up to "Little Women".

[mark.waltz · 5/10 · 27 December 2011]

Seven years after David Selznick produced a lavish version of Louisa May Alcott's popular story "Little Women" at RKO, the studio produced a less posh sequel. Gone are Marmee, Aunt March and Jo's sisters, and instead of Katharine Hepburn as the spunky Jo, we have Kay Francis as an overly cheery Jo. Now running a boarding school for "Little Men", Jo and her husband (Charles Esmond) face bankruptcy when they are unintentional swindled by a medicine man (George Bancroft) whose adopted son (Jimmy Lydon) is one of Jo's students. Lydon goes from troublemaker to lifesaver, reformed in a scene where Francis has him strike her on the hand with a switch to show him that "When you hurt others, you hurt yourself even more".

This well-intended tale of early Americana is pleasant to watch, with adequate but not outstanding performances. Francis, fresh from her nasty wife role opposite Cary Grant and Carole Lombard in "In Name Only", is too patient with the trouble-making Lydon while lightly nagging husband Esmond over his ability to manage their finances. A light comic storyline has Borden's Elsie the Cow (as Buttercup) who keeps getting away from her pen to visit the neighbor's bull, and ends up a mother. Lydon's weepy reform is never believable, and he sneers as much as Mickey Rooney did in "Boy's Town" to show his toughness. Bancroft and Jackie Oakie do over amusement as the con-artists who raised Lydon from the time an unseen criminal handed him over to them. Oakie's line about reserving the bridal suite for him and Bancroft in prison is a real eye-opener, even if it had an innocent meaning.

Films like this are always pleasant to watch, even if one dimensional in their views of a perfect "Old America". The set includes a very nice backyard for the school and fine art decoration for Jo's house. The same year as this, RKO produced an equally American (actually Canadian) view of life with "Anne of Windy Poplars", a sequel to another RKO Classic. William Demarest and Clarence Wilson are among the familiar character actors in the film, while young Richard Nichols would be seen the same year as Bette Davis's cute charge in "All This and Heaven Too", and later as Greer Garson's youngest child in "Mrs. Miniver". As Jo would say, "Christopher Columbus!"

Has nothing to do with 'Little Women'

[HotToastyRag · 2/10 · 2 July 2021]

Little Women fans might not like the sequel Little Men, because the main reason why the original was so charming was because of the relationship of the four sisters. Little Men only focuses on Jo, with Meg, Marmee, Laurie, or Amy never making an appearance. However, fans of the novel Little Men might like to see the movie.

Starring Kay Francis, who says "Christopher Columbus!" almost ten times throughout the film, she and her husband Professor Bhaer (played by Carl Esmond) run a boarding school. They're constantly breaking up squabbles and trying to keep the noisy rabble quiet. When a conman enlists his rowdy son, Jimmy Lydon, they have quite a handful on their hands. Jimmy learns good values and makes friends while he's there, but he's still loyal to his dad and hopes for his return.

I found this movie incredibly boring and irritating. I'm not a Kay Francis fan anyway, but she didn't do anything to inhabit the character of Jo. She was just Kay Francis. The story itself had absolutely nothing to do with Little Women, and had I not known it was actually penned first by Louisa May Alcott, I would have wondered what the writer was thinking to create such a departure.