AboveDeepBuggy Some things I liked some I did not.

Ploydsge just watch it!

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

dmbiber 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!

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.

hhy203 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.

Leahcurry 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