A Little Princess

This move was extraordinarily faithful to the book. The characters were for the most part convincing (Amelia Shankley and Nigel Hawthorne especially) and the music and direction were great.

I do have a few problems with the film. The main one is that the second tape (it's on three separate cassettes) contains the last 10 minutes of the first tape, which is really horrible editing. Other complaints are that the commercials before each tape are too long, and some of the background noise could be better edited (the group of kids murmur too early or giggle too much, making it appear more low- budget).

I was particularly impressed with the loyalty the movie had to the book, and the sympathy you feel for the main character. The scenery was done well and the acting, even in the little parts (the cook's boyfriend, Captain Crew's Indian servant), was excellent.

Overall a wonderful film to "curl up" with on a rainy day.

This Little Princess is actually realistic to the book. The 1939 version is annoying and predictable, and Shirley Temple makes Sara seem mean and snotty instead of kind and solemn. And the 1995 version is too modernized. It's good that Liesel Matthews can sing, but what's that got to do with the story? New York? Mr. Randolph? All these details made it hard to concentrate. But this one was was the best out of the three. Amelia Shankely seemed just right for the part of Sara, even looking like her. This movie was sad, but that was the way it was supposed to be, A Little Princess isn't a comedy, although the other two versions though it was, making it too light, while this drama was smart and robust. Everyone did remarkable work.

This is the best movie distributed by Wonderworks I have ever seen. The original version in 1939 was cute, and Shirley Temple is cute too, but cutely annoying! In the 1995 version,cool stuff happened, but it almost followed a totally different story! This follows the story with great anticipation, and I think that every actor or actress was picked perfectly for their part. Amelia Shankley did the best job of portraying Sara that I've ever seen. She acted marvelously, and sunk so deeply into the role that you almost forgot she was Amelia. I was never really into classics, until I got A Little Princess for a novel I had to read back in the eighth grade. This may not be very popular, but is definately a movie you gotta own. I would suggest deeply searching amazon.com (that's what I did) because otherwise it would be impossible to find since it went out of business a few years ago. Bottom line: WATCH THIS, YOU'LL LOVE IT!!!!!!!!

I rented this movie at least 10 times when we had it at our local library. It was wonderful! Unfortunately, it is listed as "lost" now. Wish I was the one it was "lost" to. I was disappointed in the newer version, it wasn't true to the book and while visually beautiful didn't have the depth that this version has. The only very little complaint I have is that Amelia Shankley seems older than the Sara I imagined. This is excusable because Sara was supposed to seem quiet and older than she really was. I haven't seen this movie in years but it has stuck with me for more than 10 years. The only place I've been able to find it is eBay and Amazon. I'm not sure if you can buy it new but I really would love for Wonderworks (or whoever they are now) to re-release it on DVD.

If you read the comments for the '95 version, many people seem to say (in more or less words) that THAT version has been sadly overlooked. But even sadder, here's a version ('86) that is far better, and few people know it exists. (Just read some professional reviews on the internet, and they'll only mention two ones--the '39 and '95). Perhaps that's because quite a few haven't read the novel, or just because it's a classic, dismiss it as "boring" and "irrelevant" to today's society. But for those of us who have read the novel and loved it, this is by far the best movie of "The Little Princess" made. It doesn't rely on special effect interludes, like the '95 one, or cute little song and dance sessions like movie of '39. Here we just get the story as it is with all the characters presented in exactly the way the novel depicts them. Amelia Shankley did a wonderful job as Sara Crewe. She looked dark, thin and solemn, just as described in the novel, and acted quiet and wise as well. In fact, all the actors and actresses did a good job. Even if Lottie didn't look quite the way as described, she acted it out so well that it didn't matter at all. And that goes for everybody else who's in this. I watched this with my mother and she agreed that it was very well done, and that all the children were quite appealing. As well, the sets and costumes were not too bold, like in the '95 version (can you tell I didn't like that one?). Sara's surroundings are SUPPOSED to look drab and grey. If you've never seen a version of "The Little Princess" or read the book--obviously read the novel first, then see this one. But if the thought of Frances Hodgson Burnett's lovely story doesn't appeal to you, then by all means, see the others. In general, I love BBC productions of novels, because of their faithfulness to the original stories, and because of their length. (My favourite BBC miniseries of a novel would have to be the 1978 "Wuthering Heights"--exactly like the novel, to the T. Make every possible effort to see that if you've read the book).