Probably because I'm a male,I enjoyed little men much better then little women.I always found the character from the second book much more interesting,Nat,Dan,Nan,great characters all around.How did this film lives up to the book?Well its a bit of a hit and miss sort of film but a charming one.This can be considered a lighter version of the book,the story moves at a much quicker pace then the book and a lot have been taken out so there is much less character development for the secondary character of the story.The film,for the most part resolve around Dan,it really is Dan's story from the book put front and center in this film. This is not a bad thing as Dan is a great character and the actor who played him in the film was perfect for the role,great little actor and it's a shame he has stopped acting because he carried this film on his shoulder beautifully. The best way to describe this film is light fluff,if you are looking for a complete adaptation of the book,look somewere else but if you are looking for a nice piece of heartwarming entertainment, this film will do the trick.It's the perfect film for a rainy Sunday afternoon at home.The negative points would be the choice of actress for Jo,no offense to the actress but she failed to convey the tomboy- ish quality of Jo but its a minor grip as the film concentrate more on the children.About the kids,their acting varied from being poor to great but Nat and Ran are the main two kids and both of them were good in the roles,so,again,minor grips.The biggest issue is that the film feels like it ends to quickly,I was a bit sad it all ended and was wishing for an adaptation of the third book ,Joe's boys ,by the end of this one,to spend more time with those characters,to conclude,a sweet and short version of the book that require you to be heartless not to enjoy in some degree.

A family film bold enough to treasure the inherent goodness of all children and to celebrate the virtues of nonviolence, honesty, and compassion. Loved it James Welch Henderson, Arkansas 2/21/2021

As said in my review for the 1940 RKO film, '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.

So far this reviewer has only seen two adaptations, this and the 1940 film, and while this does have flaws it is the far superior adaptation and film. Sure there are omissions, changes and merging of characters, the characters' personalities are not quite as interesting and it doesn't really convey the essence of the book, but there is much more of the original story and spirit here whereas the earlier adaptation, which was terrible as an adaptation and mediocre at best on its own merits, was almost unrecognisable.

'Little Men' looks very nice, simply but cleanly and beautifully photographed with elegant and evocative costumes, sets and scenery. The music score is understated, lilting and soothing, never overbearing, too low-key or inappropriately jaunty. There is much more of the gentle tone, subtle social commentary, charm, poignancy without being too maudlin and gentle humour without being corny or too slapstick-oriented than in the 1940 film, though there are parts that are a little stilted and don't flow as well as they could have done.

Much of the story is wholesome and charming, with a very heart-warming ending. There are a couple of crucial scenes, like the death of John Brooke, that don't have the impact and are clumsily done, and there is a choppiness and skippy nature to the storytelling giving a sense of incompleteness. The film tries to solve this by getting narration to fill in the gaps, but the narration is rather unnecessary and distractingly over-explains at times.

With the acting, some are better than others. The children fare far better than the adults, with the standouts being Michael Colaz and particularly Ben Cook, who is superb and the best thing about the film. The adult actors are disadvantaged by the adult characters being too much in the background and underwritten. Chris Sarandon is a bit too rough and stern as Bhaer, though admittedly it is preferable to having Bhaer played stiffly like he has been. More problematic is a far too bland and subdued Mariel Hemingway as Jo, who has lost her spirit, tomboy-ish charm and spunk and reduced to a paper-thin cut-out.

All in all, a long way from perfect but watchable. As an adaptation, it's still less than ideal but it's much better than the 1940 film. 6/10 Bethany Cox