A Little Princess
A Little Princess
| 01 January 1986 (USA)
A Little Princess Trailers

Sara Crewe is the pampered darling of her father, an army colonel, and the Victorian London girls' school where he places her. But when her father dies, penniless, Sara becomes a skivvy in Miss Michin's school, befriended only by the scullery maid, Becky, her friends Ermengarde and Lottie, a little monkey, a lascar, and the mysterious man next door.

Reviews
Karry Best movie of this year hands down!
Ehirerapp Waste of time
Mjeteconer Just perfect...
GazerRise Fantastic!
eirian_uk For everyone who ever fell in love with Frances Hodgson Burnett's beautifully written classic novel, this is without doubt the best version of it to see. I was totally enthralled by it as a child when it was first broadcast in Britain in 1986, and despite not seeing it for twenty years, the theme tune and certain key scenes have always stayed with me.This 1986 Amelia Shankley version remains faithful to the book and its characters, and unlike the 1939 Shirley Temple version and the 1995 Liesel Matthews version, it feels no need to add cinematic tension by fabricating a police chase, an elopement, an impromptu musical number, or by bringing Sara's father back from the dead with amnesia – none of which occur in the book. Nor does it make Sara into the kind of child who would tip coal dust over people to get her own back. (However, if you prefer your films to be like "Home Alone", perhaps that won't bother you.) Sara is more as described in the book – dark-haired and solemn – though clearly cast as the 13 year-old Sara from the end of the book rather than the 7-year-old at the beginning of it. The rest of the cast is also excellent, in particular Maureen Lipman (as the materialistic, heartless Miss Minchin), and Natalie Abbott (as the worn-out scullery drudge, Becky). It does suffer a little, visually, from having been made in the eighties with a non-Hollywood budget, but the rest of it is so well done, it more than makes up for it! To the reviewer who states that the "film" is too long – as a television serial rather than a Hollywood film it was never intended to be watched in one sitting – although I have to admit I've been known to do this on several occasions.It was originally broadcast in the UK in 1986 as six 25-minute episodes, and then later in the US with various different edits - some of them shorter, and some longer. The version that has just been released on DVD in 2009 appears to be the original UK six-episode cut which I saw as a child. Comparing it to a 180min VHS tape of the US edit that I managed to hunt down last year, I noticed quite a few differences between the two. Several scenes are present in this UK version and not the US - and also vice versa. Similarly, many scenes and conversations are longer in one version than the other. A warning to the hard-of-hearing… the dialogue on this DVD can be a little difficult to make out in places – particularly at the start, where the picture is also a bit shaky. Whilst this can usually be overcome by putting the subtitles on, unfortunately the subtitles have not been done well on this DVD and don't always make sense. For example, "A surfeit of lampreys" becomes "a surfeit of lamb curry" (students of Henry I please take note!), "Hello Martha!" becomes "Hello Mother!" (surely an odd thing for a motherless child to say?) and "The Captain is Sir Gerald's son" becomes "The Captain is Sir Gerald Sutton" (then why does everyone call him Captain Ralph Crewe?). This made watching the DVD with my slightly-deaf mother something of a perilous adventure!In reply to an earlier review: I assure you that this DVD version is the *original* UK version – the dialogue in it has not been adapted to an American audience. Ermengarde really does call it a "playroom" in the book (although the adults call it a "sitting room") and it's a perfectly valid British expression. The "Ralph Crewe Home for Waifs and Strays" was never in the book at all. I know people *do* get attached to the first version they see as a child - and I suspect that it is because the extra scenes were so charming that they were put back in for the US edit, even though in places it muddied the storyline (particularly when other things were removed to make room for it). Most of the "differences" between this edit and other versions have actually made it closer to the original source material. For me, this DVD edit clarified quite a few things that had bothered me about my VHS. Although there are some very nice scenes from the VHS that are missing (we don't get to see as much of Sara's storytelling), there is more of an emphasis on continuity in this version, so that comments don't simply come out of nowhere. For example, if you listen carefully to Carrisford in the opening scene, you'll understand why he wanted the statue of Kali. In particular, the VHS had edited the ending so heavily that the climactic scene with Miss Minchin in Mr. Carrisford's house made no sense - if Miss Minchin has not been told about Sara's recovered fortune, why would she want Sara back? However, this DVD has that scene in full - and we also get to see the effects of Sara's letter to Ermengarde on the pupils next door, and on Becky, just as it is in the book. Lastly, the original ending, with the lady in the bun shop, has been restored.
kkrabby89 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.
akaamericanangel 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!!!!!!!!
coreywhitcomb 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.