one of my absolute favorites!

Good concept, poorly executed.

It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

I'd not seen this version before , but found it to be very faithful to the storyline. It's much more realistic than the 1940's version, which took extreme liberties with the story.

"C"-grade picture companies managed to compete against the majors by offering product in three main areas: Exploitation pictures (which the majors generally considered beneath their dignity); westerns and other cheaply-produced action and comedy pictures designed to appeal to less sophisticated rural audiences; and rip-offs of major successes — of which this is a perfect example. Mascot was doubtless inspired by the box-office success of RKO's "Little Women" to hurriedly bring out this version of Miss Alcott's sequel.And what a pot-boiler it is! To say the script does a disservice to the book is the understatement of the year. The action of the film consists of such exciting happenings as some egg money being stolen and the wrong boy accused. Admittedly, there is a rather jolly five minutes near the end in which Gustav von Seyffertitz makes an unexpected (and uncredited) appearance, but generally direction (Phil Rosen) and photography (Miller and Nobles) are pedestrian and production values negligible. The "musical setting created by Dr Hugo Riesenfeld" is equally as inept as those created by Harry Grey or Frank Sanucci. The sound recording by Lambert Day is not the sharpest, and the sets are drab and unimpressive (there is no credit for either art direction or set decoration, so it is a good bet the sets were standing).

This version is the best rendering of Ms. Alcott's story, "Little Men." The acting was believable, especially from the young stars. Frank Darro was an excellent choice, having that "rough look" but a tender side as well.Although Darro was in his late teens, he still was able to capture a youthful boy, a downfall in his career. Having seen Darro in other movies, this is one of his better performances, as we can see a tough kid, versus the softer side with the littler boys (helping them). The more remade this movie got, the worse the acting was. This is the perfect version because the acting was pretty good, not overdone. See this one first, then the others.