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...
... View MoreI 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.
... View MoreThis 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!!!!!!!!
... View MoreIf 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).
... View More