Just before seeing this movie, I wasn't expecting much. There just wasn't anything else on TV, and this was just beginning, so I decided to give it a chance. It wasn't very long in before I began to realize that this wasn't just your ordinary, run-of-the-mill, by-the-numbers production. First of all, the movie, with all of the obvious attention to the sets and costume design and how it was photographed, just look absolutely beautiful. Then, the acting is simply superb by everybody, and not just the principal performers. Alfonso Cuaron (who was later tabbed to direct the 3rd Harry Potter movie, really showed his stuff in this film, which in my opinion was largely overlooked, as I don't remember a whole lot of publicity being done when it was first released, which is a shame, because a lot of effort went into making this such a good movie. Equally appealing to kids and adults alike, which is pretty rare as well. Highly recommended!
Add a Review
-
jbwood42112 November 2004
-
This movie is on my short list of great live action family films. If you believe that every girl is a princess, this is the movie for you. Beautifully staged and shot, well-acted, superbly directed. This movie works from start to finish.
Some reviewers here on IMDb have slammed the film as overly sentimental. If you don't like movies with a sweet disposition, this isn't your film. Let's put it this way: if you think Frank Capra was the bane of American film-making, you're gonna hate this movie. If you judge films on a "the darker, the better" scale-why are you even watching this? Another caveat: I haven't read the book. The movie apparently takes great liberties with the book. If this kind of thing bothers you, stay away.
Alfonso Cuaron shows a deft handling of the sense of wonder here. When he was announced as the director of Harry Potter 3, his work on Little Princess made me confident he'd deliver the goods. One reviewer tried to declare that "Princess" was a calculated attempt by Cuaron to to get a gig on the Potter series. Impossible. "Princess" was released in 1995, and "Sorceror's/Philosopher's Stone" was PUBLISHED in 1998.
This is a small, quiet, sweet little film the entire family can enjoy, without insulting Mom & Dad's intelligence. It is the next step for all little girls who are starting to outgrow Belle/Ariel/Jasmine and the rest of the animated princesses. This Little Princess is real, and her story is worth watching.
Side note-little boys might not find the film engaging. It is kind of chick-flick for the tween set. That doesn't mean it's totally male-unfriendly. Fathers of daughters will be hard-pressed to avoid shedding a tear or two.
If you have a tween daughter, save some rental money and just buy it! She's going to watch it over and over. -
I prefix my comments by stating that typically I enjoy the real tough guy movies -- movies with action and martial arts. I am a former boxer and martial artist that really likes the action movies like Bloodsport and Gladiator. One summer evening, I found myself babysitting my 11 year old niece, whom I adore. We were trying to find a movie at the local video store and the one movie that she wanted to see more than any other and had never gotten to was "A Little Princess". I finally gave in to her whims and rented it expecting to be bored out of my mind. Surprisingly, I found myself drawn into the movie and into the young lady's indomitable spirit. Throughout the trials and tribulations of her own life, she continued to worry about others and about making THEIR lives better and forgetting about HER own needs. This selfless action is very admirable. This should be everybody's philosophy on life. If there were more people in this world like this young lady, the world would be a MUCH better place.
-
corpusdza21 April 2004It's a fantasy film over the fantasy and the imagination, but showing realities of children mistreatment and cruelty that in the real world are truly worse than those exposed (maybe more outside of U.S.A. and certainly exists in the third world, including India).
Alfonso Cuarón (`Y tu mamá también'), showed us in this film a masterful domain of the dramatic conduction combined with an excellent photography and a first-rate edition job.
For example, a deserving scene is when Sara (Liesel Matthews) wakes up and starts getting up to find the transformation of the rickety attic in a marvelous environment just made with cloths, fruits, food and incense with Hindu reminiscent. It's a fast sequence of five different shots which emphasizes the magic moment for the girl. The astonishing surprise relaxes the magic to a real world that can be good, just with the appearance of the little monkey of the Hindu servant Ram Dass (Errol Sitahal), showing to us that he, in some way, transformed the attic in the meanwhile sleep of the two girls.
Another exceptional, but very simple made scene, is when Miss Minchin (Eleanor Bron), in a crude way informs Sara that her father, an English captain of the British army, died in the war some weeks ago, and the British government confiscated all his properties, leaving her in misery. At the same time that the speech occurs, a black balloon slowly displaces floating near, exploding at the very moment in when she says that she's completely alone in the world, symbolizing that her fantasies are dead and must face the crude reality.
It's interesting to note that the hero of her fantastic stories, Prince Rama, is her own father in the movie (Liam Cunningham) and the heroin, Princess Sita (Alison Moir), is her mother, who died some years ago.
The interpretation of all the actors its extremely well directed and performed but the roll of Miss Minchin (Eleanor Bron) is remarkable.
It's not a movie about a false expectance; it's a movie about fantasies and the necessities to have a hope in the future, being able to dream and therefore make plans. (Remember `La Vita è bella' from Roberto Benigni).
Sorry for my English grammar, but is very difficult for me to express my thoughts in a different language than my native one. -
poetellect6 May 2001This film reminds you what life's all about. Emmanual Luzbeki's cinematography demands praise- it's so stunningly beautiful one wonders why he didn't win the oscar. Indeed, this film is flawlessly scripted, acted, and executed, it is perhaps the definitive example of how the Academy oftentimes nominates based on box-office receipts, and not based on merit. *&#$() braveheart, THIS movie was the best film of 1995. And should have been nominated. No other film makes me tear up or cry as much for its brutal honesty, it's uncliched tenderness, and heartfelt truth about those ultimately human truths- love, kindness, and the magic of believing. Rarely does a film so positively move one's heart. Seek this film out. Go now.
-
imktbq9 May 2001A Little Princess is a great movie of friendship and hope. It shows that all little girls can be princesses regardless of race, appearance, or being a snob. The year is 1914 and little Sarah is forced to go to a school in New York, New York (after spending all her life in India) when her father must fight for Britain in the First World War. Immediately Sarah has made two foes, the head-mistress and founder Miss Minchin and Livinia the school bully. Miss Minchin doesn't like Sarah because Sarah is imaginative and smart. Livinia doesn't like Sarah because she is a threat to her popularity. When a tragic problem arises Sarah is reduced to a servant girl her friends show her that she doesn't need to give up on life. This movie is wonderfully heart touching with a great ending. I would recommend it to anyone and everyone.
-
The movie on its own is beautiful. And I am not a puritan. In general I keep an open mind towards various changes in adaptations. But I just could not get around some character changes in this movie. There is one scene where Sara calls Lavinia (the girl who bullies her) "a snotty little....". The book Sara Crewe would never say that. The best thing about Sara (that I admired and aspired to as a child of 8 when I first read it) was that she had an inner dignity. She was firm with Lavinia, certainly, but unfailingly polite.
-
This film transcends the "Children's Films" genre, to become a lovely miniature masterpiece. This director is fabulous! He is a master of mood and ambiance and a real artist with his compositions! (Just go see his Great Expectations modern remake for further proof!) The cast excels with the familiar material, Eleanor Bron is letter perfect as the wicked headmistress of the school, never descending into caricature, but still making her mark as a the villianous Miss Minchin. Liesel Matthews is a surprising delight as the title character, the other little girls are stereotypical but miraculously wonderful in their individual parts!
Rarely does a film completely draw you into it's world and grab hold of your emotions like this one. The imagery and design elements are remarkable. The passages from India are mystical and powerful, the use of green throughout the design elements is inspired and helps create this world of wonder seen through a child's eyes. Even though, we can guess the ending, it still manages to wring you dry of tears before the final lovely "silent movie" fade-out.
A pure delight from beginning to end! (this must be seen on DVD to fully appreciate the design elements) -
This wonderful movie is based on Francis Burnet kids' classic novel . A sympathetic little girl is sent by her father(Liam Cunninghan in role dual as dad and prince Rama) to New York(the original is London) seminary school ruled by a grumpy headmistress(Eleonora Bron), while he's posted in European WWI. When her daddy is declared wounded and his memory is lost , then the penniless schoolgirl ought to work in the boarding house as a servant to pay her existence.
Marvelous rendition has Liesel Mattews as fanciful little girl and Liam Cunninghan as her lovely father and of course the spiteful governess well performed by Eleonora Bron. Besides appear as secondaries Vincent Schiavelli and the future great star Camilla Belle. Although many liberties are taken from original novel contains vivid performances and luxurious scenarios filmed on Burbank studios creating a nice film for children and adults. Spectacular production design by Bob Welch , adding a colorful cinematography by Emmanuel Lubezki, director's usual. Evocative and imaginative musical score with oriental influence on the glamorous dreamt images .The motion picture is brilliant and stunningly directed by Alfonso Cuaron(Children of men,Harry Potter and the prisoner of Azkaban, Great expectations). Another adaptations about this classic story are the following : the vintage version by Walter Lang(1939) with Shirley Temple and Ian Hunter(Liam Cunninghan lookalike role) and Mary Nash(Eagle-eyed Eleonora Bron character) and TV rendition (1987) by Carol Wiseman with Amelia Shankley and Nigel Havers. -
tarikur215 October 2013This is coming from a guy's perspective. I have seen this movie many times (I have seen most of the top 250 best rated movies on IMDM). This movie is one of my favorites of all time. I think, this movie is one of most under- rated movie there is. I have seen this movie when I was a young boy and this movie inspired me ever since. What inspired me is not the movie itself but the main character's (Sarah) characteristics. She has a wild imagination and is very creative, she dreams big, she is positive and caring, willing to stand her ground and best of all, she had a great personality. I always try to be like Sarah especially having wild imagination and being positive.
-
the red duchess8 November 2000THis is a wonderful children's film full of fascinating adult tensions. The reactionary assumptions of the source material remain - the upper class are jolly nice and paternalistic; the bourgeoisie (represented by Eleanor Bron) are grasping, slave-owning monsters; India is not a massive subcontinent rife with internal and anti-colonial divisions, but a bright fantasy world of escape from reality - but the film is full of darkness unusual for such a film: apartheid, child abuse, poverty, the disruptive, harrowing effects of war, the absence of parents. In this way, the film's style, veering between fantasy and expressionistic 'realism' is impressive. The social order may be restored, but the film is full of heartening little revolutions: its ultimate message is, look HARDER.
-
thagg28 June 2000I saw this movie with my 5 year old daughter -- and while it was a little too complex for her to follow I completely fell in love with it. Everything about it is beautiful, the sets, the costumes, the acting, even the painful parts are perfect. The scene toward the end where she's dancing in the window is eyewatering...you just have to see it.
Probably this movie is only appropriate for kids 8 and up, (depending on how worldly they are, I suppose), and perhaps that's why it did so abysmally poorly in the theaters. Still, it's a great film.
thad -
MartinTeller4 January 2012I haven't read the book, but I have read outraged IMDb comments from fans of it. Some of the comments seem delusional, but there are some that sound like legitimate gripes. Certainly the ending is far too easy... not for children perhaps, but for me it felt cheap. And the pathology of the wicked headmistress is only hinted at, but never explored and as a result she just comes off like a one-dimensional evil bitch. But there's a lot of delight to be had in the movie. As with PRISONER OF AZKABAN, Cuaron demonstrates a masterful sense of style and ability to craft a tale that's enjoyable for the kids and also engaging for the grown-ups. The set design and color palette is gorgeous, and young Liesel Matthews is endearing in the lead. I also enjoyed the Indian flights of fancy and the general spirit of the thing. Despite some missteps, a charming little picture.
-
meilinpo27 June 2010...as an interpretation of Frances Hodgeson Burnette's original book it could hardly be worse. My apologies to fans of this movie, but I just cannot stand the film. It absolutely ruins everything I love about Sara Crewe and her story.
1. All the original and creative ideas that she comes up with on her own in the book, are here spoon-fed to her by her father.
2. The enchanting Hans Christian Anderson style fairy tales she tells are turned instead into dark, heavy, epic Hindu myths.
3. A major change to the plot/ending changes the whole story, glossing over Sara's (originally) very real loss, and obscuring the point that sometimes bad things DO happen to good people-- and that one can triumph over adverse circumstances without their turning out to have been just mistakes after all.
4. Worst of all, the whole definition of what it means to be a princess is altered: from an ideal of always behaving towards others from a center of strength, with kindness, courtesy, generosity and respect, even when they are treating you badly, it becomes a vague sort of entitled 'specialness' because "ALL girls are princesses", didn't you know? Even when they are behaving like disruptive brats.
If you like the movie, that's fine; but my advice would be to do yourself a favor and read the book instead. -
pilby9 July 2000Sara (played by Liesel Matthiews) is a generous, compassionate, and imaginative character. This film reminds me of virtues I adhered to as a child, how almost identical they were with that of Sara, and how those virtues have gradually submerged as I ventured towards adulthood. It reminded me of the innocence I once possessed, the innocence that has been slowly but surely chipped away by Society as I know it.
Nevertheless, this film made me realize that all I ever believed was never lost in me, but rather, simply inert and obscured. As my emotions swayed along with the joys and plights the little child Sara endured, I realized I am still as humane and compassionate as I always have been, and that it just doesn't show too much on the exterior anymore, that's all.
Each time my eyes went moist, I felt happier with myself.
Too bad this film did not do too well in the theatres, as I find the film quite moving and uplifting. I would definitely recommend it to anyone! -
itmeantnothing17 February 2004The storyline is touching and the scenes are all very well acted. The people comparing the book to the movie obviously failed media theory, since they are basically comparing an apple to an orange. I love both the original book and this film, and part of the reason behind that is their differences. I have shown this movie to many children, girls and boys alike. It has a magical quality to it, in that it seems to captivate the attention of even the most restless child. The scene where Sara tells Lottie about her mother in heaven is what really sold me. From that point on it only gets better.
-
UnoriginalJess21 May 2010Alfonso Cuaron's A Little Princess (1995) is a delight to watch. From the very first moment, when a tiny spec of colour blossoms from the dark screen to form a scene from one of Sara's stories, it is positively captivating.
As a film, it is an enduring work, worth more than the sum of its parts. Indeed, all aspects of the film work together seamlessly. The script is excellent and the cast is strong.
Liesel Matthews provides a sensitive and emotional performance as Sara Crewe, her wide eyes alternately filled to the brim with passion, or achingly desolate. Vanessa Lee Chester provides a strong performance as Becky, and Eleanor Brom's calm, calculated performance prevents Miss Minchin's character from becoming caricature.
Emmanual Luzbeki's cinematography is stunning and artistic. The soundtrack is charming, and the scenes are filmed artistically, with a level of openness and approachability that is much to be commended. A dream sequence in the middle of the film where Sara sees neighbour Ram Daas in the house next door and dances to the drifting snowflakes is a triumph in artistry. The banquet scene, with its sumptuous mise-en-scene, is made resplendent with the joy exuded by the talented young actresses.
As an adaptation, it is a powerful piece; though it strays from the novel, it is done so tastefully, in the style of the novel, and the climax is both heartbreaking and incredibly heart-warming.
A Little Princess is precisely the type of movie every child should watch- and every adult. It goes to the heart of what it means to be human; to suffer, to live graciously, to love, to take joy in the small things and to take comfort in each other. It is a magical experience, and completely satisfying to watch. After seeing this film, you would have to be heartless to forget it. -
novagirl117 September 2018I loved this movie as a child, watching it over and over.... It was still great as an adult, but it felt shorter! I remember going to the store specifically to find the special VHS package with the brass locket just like Sara's attached! If you've never seen this, watch it on Netflix now! but bring tissues...
-
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. -
Sparrow_in_flight17 January 2004For a family movie, this is great: not too scary, there's humor, and of course, the heartwarming ending. For those of you who adore the book, or are trying to write a book report by viewing the movie...well, for the former, you might like it, and for the latter...go find another film version if you really can't read the book.
BUT...unlike the book, in which Sarah's father is in fact killed, and not just missing...Captain Crewe is, in fact, not killed, just injured and suffering from amnesia and living right next door. Now, the right-next-door idea of course, comes from the book, in which the friend of Captain Crewe was indeed living next to the young girl he was searching for. But reviving Captain Crewe for no good reason just doesn't sit well. The heartwarming ending could still have been had by staying faithful to the book.
In fact, the ending could be misleading to young children who've recently endured the death of a parent. They pop in the movie, watch Sarah start out happy with her father, watch her learn of her father's death, be thrust into poverty, and then learn that her papa is, in fact, alive....and wonder if maybe their parent is alive as well. Not a great message to send to little kids, in my opinion. -
acetylcholinenjoyer14 February 2012This was such a beautiful film. It is one of the best kids movies ever made, and it is also the best movie directed by Alfonso Cuaron, a very good movie director (Despite the fact that sometimes he made bad movies such as "Y tu Mama También") This version was a much better adaptation than the 1939 (Which is a very good film, but honestly I think this was a better adaptation of the book) This film had the heart in the right place, and captures perfectly all the emotion and beauty from the book. It has an excellent visual style, the music and the performances were quite good too.
I loved this movie. I wish there were more kid's films like this. I highly recommend it to anyone. -
thrwmbsbgkdoepmcjrmrdw15 September 2013It's a good film, but different from the book. It's been a while since I've read the book, or until today seen the movie. It's well acted for the most part. I thought the father didn't do that great of a job. But other than him well acted, we directed, well put together. I do have a question though. How is it possible to regain your memory in two seconds like the father did? That part I don't get. I liked how dark they made the head mistress staying true to the character of her. And I love that they made her a sweeper at the end. Good punishment. The sister was probably my favorite with her love affair with the milkman. Very charming and cute. I really enjoyed the movie and would recommend it to anyone.
-
nada-ahmed-9527 June 2015It's one of the very few movies that I've watched as a kid, then watched again as an adult, and loved it even more. It's a 90's movie, that being enough, the richest decade in the movie industry. Little does one witness such an amazing actress at this young age (Liesel Matthews).. she got me into tears BIG TIME.. real tears.. not just some crap.. It's a minor detail, but I really liked that scene when they showed the human side of Miss Minchin (Eleanor Bron). And there's this beautiful beautiful attention to details <3.. this scene of the black balloon that exploded.. <3.. her relationship and bonding with her only friend is beautiful.. they all what they've got.. in a way that's both sadly beautiful.It's one of those movies where you're touched on real stuff.. not just caught up in the moment with cheap emotional triggers.. it's REAL.
-
Instead, see the 1986 version starring Amelia Shankley. I realize it's hard to scout out, but it's definitely worth it. It follows the story exactly, the characters look and act the way they're supposed to, and it gives you the real feeling of what Sara had to go through. I was thoroughly disappointed with the '95 version, and found it completely unmemorable. Why did they change so many things? What was the point of moving the location to New York, and why change the ending so drastically? I was upset to find many of my favourite parts changed completely, or just cut out. Viewers say that the girl playing Sara in this version is not cutesy, but in comparison to the novel and to Amelia Shankley, she is. PLEASE, just skip this version over if you love the novel, and see the '86 version. However, if you've never read the novel, you might enjoy this version, as compared to most other children's movies made to-day, this is above average. I guess I'm just a bit biased, as I read the novel so many times, and loved it.
-
I have loved the book "A Little Princess" for most of my life, and was very excited that there was a movie. But I was appalled at this adaptation. Not only is the acting wooden, and the plot a convoluted mish mash of various incidents in the book, but the theme is all wrong. The real theme of the story should be that a girl can be a princess only when she behaves like one, as Sara does when she gives 5 of her 6 buns to a beggar child, even when she herself is very hungry. The theme of the movie seems to be that all girls are princesses, which cheapens Sara's actions considerably, and seems more like it should be written on a Hallmark card than applied to this story.
There are many other things wrong with this movie- too many to list, but here are just a few of the larger ones: This story should be set in Britian in the mid 1800s, not America during the first world war. Miss Minchen is harsh to Sara from the start, making her actions when Sara is left penniless much less startling than they would be if she was syrupy sweet at the beginning, as she is supposed to be. Nowhere is it mentioned that Becky is black. Sara's father does *not* come back, he is dead. It is his closest friend, and collaborator in the diamond mines who finds Sara, and restores her to her proper place. In fact, the diamond mines are not even mentioned at all, though they are the source of Sara's wealth.
All through everything that Sara has faced, she always acts like a Princess, giving what she can, and forgiving those who hurt her. She would never have called Lavinia a "snotty two faced bully". Such a thing is completely out of character for her, and undermines the entire philosophy that she is to be well behaved no matter what.
This is by far the worst adaptation of a book to the screen that I have ever seen (with the notable exceptions of "Ella Enchanted", and "Anne of Green Gables the Continuing Story")The plot of the book is wonderful, and skillfully written, so I do not understand why the director felt that it needed to be changed to make it interesting. I would suggest that anyone wishing to know this story should watch the 1987 version, which is far superior. Or better still, read the book. It will be more worth your time than the hour and a half wasted on this version on the movie.