A Little Princess (1986)

best movie i've ever seen.

A Masterpiece!

Blistering performances.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

Sara Crewe (Amelia Shankley) has lived with her father in India since her birth. Now, the two are going back to England, to enroll Sara in a well-respected boarding school. Captain Crewe is going off to South Africa to invest in diamond mines. The school, run by stiff Miss Minchin (Maureen Lipman) is glad to welcome Sara, because she is so rich. Miss M even makes exceptions in allowing Miss Crewe to keep her private Hindi nurse. The other girls are hardly friendly to Sara, even though the new pupil tries hard to make pals. When her fellow students shun her, Sara, dubbed "The Little Princess" reaches out to the overworked servant girl, Becky, who returns her attentions and affections. But, alas, just as Sara is having an elaborate birthday party, word comes that her father has died, penniless. Miss Minchin inwardly has a fit but realizes she can't just throw Sara onto the street. Therefore, Sara is made a servant girl, like Becky. What a calamity for Sara, who must now live in attic quarters with no heat, eat scant meals, and do a heavy load of work each day. By chance, Sara makes friends with an English gentleman and his Hindi servant who live across the alley. Can these men help Sara, in any way, to recover some of what she has lost? This classic tale by Frances H Burnett has long been a favorite. It is a touching story and has wonderful character-building lessons as well, for Sara never resorts to the anger and cruelty that is given to her from the others. Instead, she makes the best of her situation and treats others with respect and kindness, showing the nature of a "true princess" in word and deed. This mini-series doesn't have Captain Crewe going off to the Boer War, which I believe was part of the book, but it is pretty faithful in almost everything else. Also, the sets, costumes, and depiction of a time one hundred years ago are very lovely. Even if you have seen other productions of this story, do add this one for an upcoming family movie night

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.

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?

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).