Alicia I love this movie so much

ScoobyWell Great visuals, story delivers no surprises

2freensel I saw this movie before reading any reviews, and I thought it was very funny. I was very surprised to see the overwhelmingly negative reviews this film received from critics.

Twilightfa Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

Game Ovais There are so many areas that A Little Princess succeeds like no other fantasy feel good movie.At the centre of this movie is a little princess who despite so many things going badly wrong for her, remains ever joyful. Liesel Matthews delivers a performance beyond her years and for some reason is overlooked when discussing greatest child acting performances.The supporting cast are superb in their roles too. Eleanor Bron, Liam Cunningham and Vanessa Chester give performances that match the quality of the movie.The picture is vivid and in tune with the theme of the movie. The music score whilst not one you would listen to regularly, matches the movie perfectly.If you haven't seen A Little Princess, you're missing out. It's a wonderful family movie.

weatherburn55 I first watched this film when I was 9, maybe 10 years old, and I can remember crying uncontrollably as Sara crossed the wooden board into the neighbor's house, and then at the reunion with her father. Nothing has changed. I've watched it at least 10 more times in my life, and I still cry in it, even now, because it really is a powerful story line, with amazing camera techniques and filming expertise, especially considering that this film was released nearly 20 years ago now. It's not just the emotions evoked from watching this film that make it worth seeing, though. It is a children's film, and as a child I was inspired. It encouraged me to believe in magic and the power of the imagination, and it's because of this film that I now write creative stories, book-length, and filled with fantasy. I want people to acknowledge that this is an incredible film, and whilst critics may argue that it's not entirely accurate on some points, my response to this is: it's a children's film. It teaches about the hardships of war and the social segregation of the class system of this time, as well as including racism and slavery. To make all of these subjects applicable in a children's film, it has to have a happy ending, and it has to make the "baddie" end up in a bad situation, because whilst being educational, it's a film, and it's not supposed to be real.Instead, it's inspiring, amazing, and I can honestly call it my favorite film of all time.

Left-Handed_Liz I hesitated in seeing this film for a very long time. I wasn't aware of it when it was in theaters, and I adored the book so much, and the BBC-produced miniseries starring Amelia Shankley, that I didn't want to ruin my image of the book by seeing a Hollywoodized adaptation, even into my teens. However, I'll try anything once, and the number of fans that it seems to have made me think that it might not be so bad. And it really isn't. Compared to a lot of live- action "family entertainment," which can be obnoxious and formulaic, it's exquisite. The cinematography is lush and warmly lit (perhaps a little too warm, when it comes to depicting Sara's somewhat gloomy life in poverty), and what the studio was able to do with such a small budget is more than some people could do with ten million to spend on a movie- ironic, considering the theme of wealth, or lack thereof. I found myself really warming up to the film's focus on the relationship between Sara and her father as they struggled to carry on in the midst of two very different sets of trials, as well as the emphasis on Sara's childhood in India, such as the "Ramayana" fantasy sequences, and the sitars reverberating alongside the more classical instruments on the soundtrack. The acting was at least passable throughout, though it sometimes veered into community theater-level skill. Even Liesel Matthews gave an endearing performance as Sara- certainly less stoicism and solemnity than the original, but thankfully with none of the dimple-faced pouting of the 1937 Shirley Temple film, which I couldn't stand for more than the first 30 minutes. At least Matthews's Sara is a real storyteller, and has the presence of one, rather than arbitrarily pretending things for her own amusement. The bad news is that, while a significant improvement on the aforementioned Little Princess "adaptation," this movie is nonetheless an Americanized version of a classic British children's novel, and its roots definitely show as a stereotypically Hollywood effort. Namely, since the screenplay resets the story in America- I suppose to make it more relatable to stateside audiences- it also deems it necessary to put "spunk" into a character who is supposed to be tenacious, but reserved, even having her occasionally talk back and pull pranks. Thankfully, this never goes into Home Alone territory, but is very uncharacteristic of someone who strives to behave like a princess. Finally, there is the much-maligned happy ending pulled straight from the Temple version, which I only had a problem with because it was too over-the-top, where most of the time, the movie had the sense to pull back and have an occasional reflective moment.To make a very, very long story short: Not my favorite, has no nostalgia attached to it for me, but I can accept it, and even enjoy it.

ironmn I just wanted to say, that i enjoyed this film a lot, but at the end i was fuming mad and shouting at the TV. i was livid that all that Sarah went through it would have been fantastic that as her father was hugging her she turned just as the miss minchin was walking away Sarah turns and shouts she has stolen my locket and then the police go inside and find it and on opening it you see the fathers picture, and then the police drag the screaming miss minchin away in front of the rest of the school. then it would be a satisfying end, i would been shouting, yes you rotten cow now you will get what you deserve. So just wanted to vent this as I've just finished watching it.