User reviews

Take heart, fans of this very true-to-the-novel movie version, the new American channel Pax TV shows this movie sometimes, but unfortunately has cut about 50 minutes from it, making it about an hour and 45 minutes long. Still, it is heartening that this detailed version is faithful to the novel's setting of 1880s London, and the premise that Sarah's father has truly died, altho his "dear friend" finally finds the long-lost Sarah in the end. I would have liked more exterior scenes, but good acting by all.

An interesting note - the novel started as a short story called "Sarah Crewe, or What Happened at Miss Minchin's" in the 1880s, serialized for a magazine. Response was so positive, that after the author Frances Burnett had adapted it for the stage at the turn of the century and called it "A Little Princess," she re-wrote the book version, adding length and detail, and calling it "Little Princess" as well. The latter is what most know about and what you will find in the bookstores, but both versions are available on the internet to compare texts.

I know it is dated but thought I would share why I think it is so faithful to the book unwittingly.

I have just found out through ancestry that my gg grand parents died in 1866 from cholera on the banks of the river Thames. I had no idea when I played Becky in 1987 that 100 years previously my family had been put into service. One of my gg aunts was only 11 when she went to work in a huge house in Kensington as she was an orphan. She didn't make 23 and the others didn't make 28. I just thought t was interesting and maybe why a low budget series was so close to the story(as people have said) rather than the brilliant Hollywood adaption in 1995. Just a thought :)

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).

This is one of the best adaptations of a book ever done. Amelia Shankley captures the character of Sara with a marvelous performance. She maintains her dignity and her natural kindness in spite of the most difficult circumstances. Maureen Lipmann's performance as the selfish, conceited head mistress is also very good. In fact, all of the performances are really very good. And best of all, for once the writers of the screenplay did not feel compelled to significantly change any of the story. The scene with the starving little girl in front of the bun shop is very well done and true to the book. This is a wonderful movie and I am hoping that it will soon be available on DVD.

I first encountered this version of A Little Princess, by far the best, on a PBS station in the Pacific Northwest. It must have been new then.

It was shown during a holiday season station fund-raiser and promoted by ghastly comments by an attractive — physically — woman who made the sorts of comments I would expect a rather silly grandmother to make to someone else's grandchild.

I was somewhat insulted, but when the film began settled for enchantment which was sufficiently strong to keep me around when the second installment (I think there were only two, but this was 20-odd years ago) came along next night, when I also learned that the picture would be replayed throughout the promo which allowed me to make a tape of it.

Although the script does not slavishly repeat every bit of the Burnett novel, it completely mirrors it, changing some situations and condensing in some areas. Most of the minor deviations from the plot I assumed — still do — were because Sara had to be shown growing up and the story had to fit within length restrictions. Amelia Shankley was superb as was her nemesis, played by Maureen Lippman. Seldom mentioned is her companion, scullery maid Becky, or many other fine characterizations.

Parts of the film are sad and, because we (viewers) have become fond of Sara, a little frightening at times. We wish, sometimes, that Sara in her times of trial would be more defiant but realize, too, that she must submit to survive and also to protect her friends.

As intended, Sara comes across — this mood is set even before the situations are defined — as a true heroine, when adversity befalls her. She remains compassionate toward and grateful to those who are her friends, including Melchizedek (you have to know the story) toward whom she is also a benefactor.

Shankley, the costumers and makeup artists, surmount the challenges of a growing and changing girl who eventually displays some signs of illness (scurvy perhaps?).

Sara and her story remain compelling and attractive after a lapse of more than 100 years and this filmed version remains so after 20 years, but can we not find so compelling a version of what is perhaps Francs Hodgson Burnett's finest tale childhood?

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 have to admit it: I watched this over and over when I was a little girl. It's not often that a story with such a clear moral message is this entertaining. Anyone out there who has kids, especially girls, should find this series and get it for them, they'll love it. The Shirley Temple version can't hold a candle to this one, if you were wondering. The realism is striking, especially in scenes which depict illness or poverty, and the tenderness in the relationships between the characters (or the harshness in some cases) is a feat not often achieved in family television drama. I'd recommend this series to anyone who likes Harry Potter, Pollyanna, Annie, Heidi, Anne of Green Gables, The Secret Garden, Labyrinth, Gilliam's Adventures of Baron Von Munchausen or pretty much anything by Hayao Miyazaki. The protagonist of "The Little Princess" is a heroine in the tradition of the girls in all of these stories -- imaginative, patient, courageous and self-sacrificing. You'll love her, and your daughters will too.

This is definitely the best version of "A Little Princess" that I've ever personally seen. Unlike that crappy 1995 one set in New York or the one with Shirley Temple making me want to slap her, the PBS version had a Sara who looked like Sara as she was described in the book. Not only that, she *acted* like the Sara in the book, not like a whiny, boring little snot. All the acting was very good, especially Miss Minchin's sister (Miriam Margolyes) and the other schoolgirls. The screenplay was excellent. Without relying on copying the actual words and phrases of the book (although crucial plot moments were often almost word-for-word), it was very true to the spirit and intention of the book and didn't offend people who have loved and re-read the story. This is unusual for a movie based on a book. Also, the cinematography showed the dreariness of Sara's life and world very clearly with its rainy, muted colors.

All in all this was a completely wonderful movie. See it if you possibly can, although since it was broadcast on PBS at least ten years ago it's probably hard to find .

Originally a six part television series, this is perhaps one of the better versions that's been produced on film. The Little Princess is a wonderful story of love, dedication, and determination despite the tragic events that may try to interfere with individual lives. It simply shows that just a little kindness to the people we meet will make a difference in our own lives someday in the end. On a more personal opinion, it's just a shame Amelia Shankley didn't get much of a break in her acting career. Her performance in this film is simply wonderful!

I've always supported this movie all my life as the most faithful production. The Brits really are the best when it comes to "cinematic reproductions of literary masterpieces",(as I like to call them). If you're looking for this movie I suggest either ordering it through amazon.com or check out your local library. I've owned this movie ever since I was a little girl. It was the first movie I ever owned and so I am greatly attached to it.

Let me first say that I like "The Little Princess". I adore both the 1939 and 1995 versions, but this one was just too long. They could have cut out much of it and still been faithful to the book. Nothing much seemed to happen, it was so long! Most, but not every actor was convincing (Nigel Havers and Amelia Shankley were excellent). Shirley Temple, Liesel Matthews and Amelia Shankley (this version) are all convincing as the kind-hearted but strong-willed Sara, which was exactly what Sara was. Forget the separate nuances, that Shirley Temple was too "cute" or snotty (she was never that). No movie has to be "completely" faithful to its book. But if you feel it has to be, you'll be disappointed more often than satisfied, and that's unnecessary. But too much length is bad for any movie. The film was well-executed, and the sets were realistic but mostly unattractive. I would have given it a much higher rating if it wasn't so long. 4/10

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.

Thank God I recorded this film when PBS broadcasted in 1987. I did this for my two girls, then 5 and 7, they absolutely loved this movie. They are now 27 and 25 and this VHS cassette tape is now my treasured possession...

About 2 months ago, a cable station broadcasted a 1995 version of 'A Little Princess' which I have never seen before, I watched it and thought the content was a little different; therefore, I took out my recorded copy from PBS and wanted to compare the difference. It was 20 years ago that I watched this film. Twenty years of busy life will make anyone forget certain details about any movie, but one thing I remember vividly is that Sara's father was not alive at the end.

Yesterday was a rainy day in California so I decided to watch this movie while my memory of the 1995 production is still fresh. I have to say this to the readers, if you haven't seen the 1986 version yet, you are missing a lot! I was in tears for at least 3 to 4 times. I have not read the book nor seen the Shirley Temple version. I do not intent to because I have already seen the best; but will read the book when I find time so to confirm what everyone have said.

My comment to writer 'hhy203': I strongly recommend you watching this movie again (after 20 years). I am sure you will agree with what I wrote. I am, like everyone else, longing for the DVD to come out and will be disappointed if it does not. I sincerely hope that the comment 'Linda' wrote about the splicing of the scenes will not be repeated on the DVD production. I am glad to have at least a completely perfect version to watch because I dubbed it from the PBS broadcast, but VHS will not last forever and I would like to own a DVD copy for my grandchildren someday...

It was nice that this version followed so close to the actual book; Warner Brother's version didn't. I love this book and it was through the reading of this book that I realized "reading is fun". If you are going to adapt a classic I think you should be true to it and not mess with a good thing. This film does that and captures the heart of what the author wrote. I introduced my daughters to the movie first and later I read them the book; they didn't notice many differences except possibly the age of Sarah in the beginning. I would love to see this adaptation redone again on film instead of video so as to make it more lifelike (able to lose yourself in it without remembering you are watching a movie)and allow a new generation of children to try their hand at making Sarah Crew's story come alive. Also I look forward to the day it is released on DVD so that I can add it to my collection.

I have seen the 1995 version and it is no comparison to this version. strangely this one is not as well known, and took me a long time to find any information about it. now I have found it, I am going to try to add it to my collection. since I saw it almost 20 years ago, the memory of it is not very clear, but I do remember that the characters to be more developed than the movie version, and therefore getting me more attached to them. I also remember the little Sarah a real good actress at her young age. I can't wait to see it again, but who knows, now that it has been 20 years, I may have different feeling to it. maybe I should come back to write my comment after I see it.

Frances Hodgson Burnett's book 'A Little Princess' is a lovely read that warms the heart, and it is hard not to be touched. Or relate to Sara's trials and how she deals with them throughout the book.

Of the three versions personally seen, the others being the 1939 film with Shirley Temple, and the 1995 film directed by Alfonso Cuaron, this 1987 version is by far the best. Both as an adaptation, of which it is by quite some way the most faithful of the three in detail and in spirit, and in spirit. Don't get me wrong, the 1939 and 1995 films from personal opinion are great (the latter being a personal favourite since childhood) but they are more to be judged as stand-alones. This 1987 version is the real thing, and sadly it is the most overlooked of the three, having been lost apparently for a while.

While not as opulent visually as the other two versions, this 'A Little Princess' still looks very pleasing, being beautifully photographed and costumed and the setting of the school is as drab and austere as it should be, it's not meant to be a gorgeous-looking place. Rachel Portman does a wonderful job with the music, very understated and elegant as well as composed in Portman's unmistakable style.

'A Little Princess' is lovingly and faithfully adapted dialogue-wise, flowing naturally and delivered with sincere passion. While a long adaptation, it is not overlong, instead it is a fitting and necessary length and paced in a way that makes the storytelling nuanced but always engaging. Throughout the storytelling is heart-warming, touching (the beggar girl scene), sometimes uplifting and at other times a little frightening in a subtle way, Sara's extraordinary imagination really comes alive and her trials and how she deals with them are immediately identifiable.

Characters are all true to personality, with the truest interpretation of Sara for all the adaptations. Whether she was a little too old doesn't matter in the slightest, Amelia Shankley looked the part of Sara and acted her with dignified brilliance, not in the least bit bratty. Maureen Lipman is a suitably beastly Miss Minchen and Miriam Margoyles steals scenes as Miss Amelia.

Natalie Abbott's Becky is affecting, and Nigel Havers portrays Carrisford with sincerity. Tariq Alibai's Ram Dass is a heart-warming presence and all the other children are very well acted.

Overall, wonderful and the best 'A Little Princess' adaptation. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Awesome movie ,What helps her to survive is her idea that you don't have to be dressed like a princess in order to be one. Whether you wear beautiful frocks or rags, you can act and treat others nobly, and remain a true princess inside. highly recommend James Welch Henderson, Arkansas 3/16/2021

I have seen the 1995, 1986, 1973 and 1939 versions of A Little Princess and, of all of them, this is my favorite. The acting is much better than in the more recent 1995 version and I appreciate how closely this adaptation sticks to the book. Amelia Shankley puts in a commendable performance as a most convincing Sara, and Nigel Havers supurbly portrays the festering guilt of the "Indian gentleman". Glowing supporting cast performances, particularly the heartwarming rendition of Ram Dass, played by Tariq Alibai round out this WonderWorks production. The lavish Victorian sets and costumes provide an authentic backdrop. Like the previous reviewer, I can't wait until this one comes out on DVD!

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 movie is the only one that is true to the real story that I've seen. It's not really fancy but the story is so good and it has an awesome message