Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

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

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

Horst in Translation ([email protected]) "Heidi" is a Swiss German-language movie from 1952, so this one has its 65th anniversary this year. It was directed by Luigi Comencini and written by a whole lot of writers who adapted Johanna Spyri's famous original work. This 95-minute film here is a relatively early version of the known story about a young girl who has to move to the city but suffers because she belongs to the mountains. But it is by far not the earliest. I think one problem here is the lack of color for me. The cinematography, costumes and more from Heidi really scream for color and it elevates the material by so much and actually around that time there are already many color films out there, but this one here is in black-and-white. This is probably also one reason why I like the later Austrian version more than this one here. Another may be that the actress who played Heidi did very little for me here and same goes for the actor who plays her grandfather. It was a nice little surprise to see Theo Lingen in here, even if he doesn't have a great deal of screen time at all, but the clear standouts here were the ones who played Klara and Fräulein Rottenmeier I guess and they stayed somewhat memorable to me. Apart from that, however, nothing really did and that's why I have to give this one here a thumbs-down. It also did not feel as much from the heart really compared to other Heidi films like the one I already mentioned or also for example the very recent one starring Bruno Ganz as the grandfather. A bit of a pity, but I think you should skip this one here and check out one of these.

dspeer8 This is an all-time favorite movie of my family as kids growing up. Whenever we get together we find opportunities to use lines from the movie for various situations. For instance, when the woman frantically calls the butler, Saisamond! Saisamond! that always cracks us up. The story is just wonderful, the characters believable, and even the dubbed words are not a problem. I forgot that they were dubbed. I agree with others who have said that the Shirley Temple version pales in comparison with this version. Would love to have it. I would like to get a copy of the movie. Could someone email how I can get a copy of it. [email protected] Thanks.

writers_reign The lack of pretension, straightforward storyline and location shooting force you to judge this film as what it is, namely a fairly faithful adaptation of a children's classic with a cast of carefully chosen actors, a good central performance, solid support and lots of beautiful scenery. By now the story of the young Swiss girl living in a mountain village with her adored grandfather, being whisked off to Frankfurt and then returning home has been told and re-told on film and television, not least in 1937 when child star Shirley Temple, then at the height of her fame, made a not-too-successful stab at the role and though I haven't seen the Temple version I can well imagine how Swiss she sounded if indeed they didn't transpose it to the Rockies. This version from 1952 is both pleasant and watchable.

nellybly I haven't seen this movie since I was a child but even then I preferred it over the Shirley Temple film.The version I saw was dubbed into English. Normally that irritated me (and still does, the rare times I see a dubbed movie--nowadays they're more often subtitled) but it actually made it easier to get into the movie because I didn't have to read any subtitles (and I don't know German). I read well above my grade level but it still would have been distracting. Now I probably wouldn't mind.This movie is much more faithful to the book than the 1937 version.Probably because it was filmed in Switzerland, where the story takes place, it has beautiful scenery. They didn't have use any back projections and sound stages for the outdoor sequences, something I noticed even as a child.I looked forward to each time it came on TV in the Los Angeles area, where I grew up. I don't why they stopped showing it unless it was because the Shirley Temple version, which began to be shown a lot at that time, simply displaced it. If so, it's a shame. I'd love to see it again (and again and again, just like back then).I was always fascinated with the story because my great-grandmother was from Switzerland and was a child at the time the book was originally published.