A Little Princess (1986–1987) User Reviews

True to the novel, even the end

[Lori S · 9/10 · 15 February 1999]

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.

The Best Version, wish it was on DVD

[AmaranthaTierra · 9/10 · 30 May 2006]

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.

I played Becky in this adaption so had to give it a seven

[natalieabbott-73910 · 7/10 · 12 March 2022]

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 :)

Why is THIS the one that's overlooked?

[oleander-3 · 10/10 · 30 August 2000]

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).

A faithful adaptation of the book. True to characters and story.

[stheffner · 10/10 · 27 June 2005]

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.

Fine old story compellingly and attractively told; Where' the DVD?

[doslobos · 10/10 · 31 January 2005]

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?

An Inspiring Tale

[BobbyMotwani · 10/10 · 11 June 2004]

Frances Hodgson Burnett's "A Little Princess" is one of the most fascinating and beautiful tales I have ever read;every scene has been wrought to delicately add meaning to the story and brings us to a deep appreciation and understanding of that unique character Sara Crewe whom we follow during her sojourn at Miss Minchin's Select Seminary for Young Ladies,in 1880s London.

For nearly four years Sara Crewe was distinguished as the "show pupil" at Miss Minchin's,a time in which she was materially provided for with the finest extravagances, as she had been accustomed to in India.Having lost his wife during his child's birth, the wealthy Captain Crewe had prodigiously indulged his daughter, affording her a life of luxury.Despite her awareness as to her station,Sara was kind and generous,ever considerate to those less fortunate than herself.She was quick to befriend Ermengarde,a pariah amongst the other pupils because of her academic dullness, Lottie,the spoilt baby of the classroom for whom she became a surrogate mamma,and the ill-treated scullery maid Becky,who had never been shown a drop of kindness in her wretched life.Then,on her eleventh birthday, the fateful news arrived that her father had died,having lost his entire fortune in a speculative investment.Bereft of her only family and almost all her possessions,Sara found herself reduced from being the privileged pupil to an ill-used skivvy at the seminary.Nevertheless,she strived to bear her hardships and remain a princess on the inside.

As a complement to the book I recommend the 1986 TV-adaptation, which visually brought to life the characters of the story and the feeling of the epoch.The cinematography pictured plainly but effectively the conditions of living in Victorian London,depicting the crowded marketplace and murky lanes littered with paupers and street urchins who spoke cockney and scraped a living off the streets, in stark contrast to the higher society whose children rode in carriages and promenaded in the parks on clear days. And even details such as the houses, the seminary, and the view from the garret window,whence the howling of the bitter winter wind on the rooftops could be heard,were quite as described in the book.The screenplay also followed the book closely, adding new details,leaving out many others, but most importantly,never contradicting the story and nature of the characters as portrayed by Burnett.

The casting was picked to match,as closely as possible, the characters' descriptions in the book. Amelia Shankley was absolutely wonderful as the dark haired,contemplative Sara Crewe:not only did she look like Sara,but interpreted the part with such conviction, as if she were truly living the character, enduring her adversities with the complexity of a myriad of emotions that swelled in her young heart and pictured clearly on her sore-plagued face.But her eyes lit up immediately when she was approached by Lottie or Ermengarde,or any one she thought a kind soul, partly out of the comfort it gave her, partly because her proud little spirit would refuse to have it otherwise, but mostly because of her consideration towards others' feelings:she knew, because of her own craving for it, what the warmth of a kindly smile could do to kindle and cheer a lonely heart, and thus she afforded them with a conscious good will.

Maureen Lipman as the unaffectionate Miss Minchin was excellent as well-I couldn't have envisioned a better interpretation.Her authoritative nature,absolute conviction in herself, business-like mind, made her the unchallenged captain of her ship; she was a born leader, and relished conducting her crew with the correctitude she deemed right.She would ceremoniously give a speech to "her young ladies", as on Sara's birthday or before the Christmas dispersal of the pupils, and characteristically clear her throat when effectuating what she considered a rather jocular statement intended for the younger girls, as she did before announcing in an incidental manner her message from Father Christmas.A great touch that I thought went just right with her character.

My commendations go the rest of the cast as well,who did a wonderful job.All I can say is that I wish you share my good fortune in being able to experience for yourself this enchanting adaptation of one of the most inspiring,heart-warming classics.

Sara Crewe is a singular character, rare as one can imagine,yet close to all of our inner beings;I recognise in my childhood-self her musings as to chance being responsible for who we are, her notions of inanimate objects having feelings of their own, her wistful conceptions of the thoughts of others -strangers she viewed during her daily outdoor errands to whom she gave descriptive names and mentally befriended. She was extremely intelligent,haughtily aware of her superiority though she never behaved in a condescending manner which would manifest her superior status -rather,she assumed it as a responsibility.She was ever judgemental of her own actions lest they should hurt another's feelings.A proud little soul, during her tribulations we repeatedly read in the pages of the book how her determined mind curbs a fit of pique, or accommodates her bodily wants and her emotional grievances through fanciful imaginings of better possibilities, so that destitute as she is she still gives freely from her heart , even if all she has to give are dreams and reveries, as we see in the successive visits she receives from Lottie and Ermengarde in her garret.It is the least a princess can do. She swallows her pride when Guy Clarence(actually Donald)offers her his sixpence out of charity, so convinced is he that it will provide for her forevermore; she gives a beggar girl most of her buns when she herself is weak with hunger, for she sees in her a poor waif -one of the populace- hungrier and colder than herself; she worries about the suffering of the Indian Gentleman nextdoor and prays for his well-being, despite her own forlorn situation. And she wishes for his sake that the father of the Large Family, on his way to Moscow, finds the little lost girl.And her wish came true.

Very enjoyable! Two thumbs up!

[akaamericanangel · 16 April 2002]

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!!!!!!!!

She never thought she was a princess, she only tried to behave like one.

[catbus23 · 10/10 · 9 September 2005]

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.

True to the story, not to pop culture (yay!).

[Techie-6 · 10/10 · 30 January 1999]

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 .

Great story for family viewing!

[dmbiber · 7/10 · 2 June 2018]

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!

Only the best "Little Princess" Ever

[coreywhitcomb · 10/10 · 18 June 2000]

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.

Hurray, it's on DVD!! ..Except...

[hedra8 · 7/10 · 25 December 2009]

I have mixed feelings about this particular DVD release. I have watched this particular version of A Little Princess every Christmas for 10 years, so I know it by heart. It's my adult guilty pleasure. Originally, I had a cherished, recorded-from-the-TV version in 3 parts, and then a few years ago I bought a second-hand copy of the VHS. The only difference was that there were no recaps at the start of each chapter, like on my original recorded version. (I admit that I sort of missed them.. )

I was thrilled to discover that this childhood favourite was FINALLY on DVD. I ordered it as soon as it was available, thinking I could finally replace my worn out VHS copy. Imagine my surprise when scenes I had never seen before began to appear in this DVD version. I thought it must be the original version as broadcast in 1986, as it was in 6 parts instead of 3. I was very excited at getting to see new material of this wonderful classic - until I realized to my dismay that some scenes were also cut out! For example, the scene where Sarah tells Lottie about heaven. Removed. And the scene where young Donald Carmichael goes to cheer up Carrisford, and the latter offers him some orange cordial. Gone. I know that it's only 30 or so seconds here and there, but those were two of my favourite scenes. And even though they've added new scenes that change the storyline slightly here and there, the scenes that they cut out would not have conflicted with the "new" material at all!

Even the dialogue is ever so slightly different in places. No, it's not brand new voice-overs, it's like they originally recorded two versions of some scenes and aired one set on TV, but used the other set for this DVD. The DVD somehow seems... less British. Example: Ermengarde asks about Sarah's "playroom". In my VHS version, she asks about Sarah's "sitting room". Not to mention that the ending is changed quite a bit.. there is no longer any mention of the Ralph Crewe home for waifs and strays.

Why would they chop stuff out and change it like this? I guess I'll have to continue hanging on to my old used VHS copy and occasionally watch this new version and see if I grow to accept it too. I hope another DVD is released with the version I know and love. One with these unfamiliar scenes added in bonus features.. or if this IS the original, then please put back the removed scenes as bonus features!

To sum up: Hurray it's out on DVD. Hurray for new scenes that add more depth to my experience of this version of A Little Princess (though I would have preferred them as bonus features). Boooo to cutting out some really charming scenes and changing the dialogue for perhaps a more American audience (i.e. for no apparent reason).

Way Too Long

[Leahcurry · 4/10 · 1 June 2000]

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

Not the best Wonderworks movie, but close to it

[kkrabby89 · 6 April 2003]

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.

one of my favorite when growing up

[hhy203 · 9/10 · 26 April 2005]

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.

Best childhood film even for grown-ups!

[jchang1868 · 10/10 · 11 November 2007]

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...

Loved the adaptation

[the-hunings · 10/10 · 20 December 2004]

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.

The best version of 'A Little Princess'

[TheLittleSongbird · 10/10 · 2 July 2017]

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

VERY GOOD

[jewelch · 9/10 · 16 March 2021]

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

An Underrated Drama

[iwantsofia · 9/10 · 8 September 2008]

A British widower living in India with his daughter invests 100,000 pounds in a diamond mine with an old friend. He sends his daughter Sara to a British boarding school for girls after they tour Europe. When he returns to India, he gets a letter from his friend saying the diamond mine was a bust, and soon succumbs to a fever. With her father dead, and no longer having money, Sara becomes a slave to the headmistress's whims. However, she refuses to give in to others who are not kind to her.

This is a very underrated drama based on the book by Frances Hodgson Burnett. It was originally shown on PBS in three parts of 55 minutes each. It may not have the quick pace of a 90 minute film, but it more than satisfies in terms of story and characterization.

Amelia Shankley of the movie Dreamchild portrays Sara, in an excellent performance. The supporting cast is good too. It should be noted that although there is a Jessica Simpson in the cast, this is not the notorious singer.

Definitive Version

[isilvalie · 9/10 · 7 April 2006]

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!

A Wonderful Film

[lindarling · 28 September 2003]

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 is possibly the best movie ever made

[beccajo · 10/10 · 24 March 1999]

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

An excellent and faithful adaptation - finally out on DVD!

[eirian_uk · 10/10 · 8 July 2011]

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.