Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to of the 1%

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Jerrie It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

merelyaninnuendo A Little Princess3 And A Half Out Of 5A Little Princess is a plot driven fantasy feature about a girl that stands for something that outs her on potential, power and tricks but lacks the force. There may have been various such features or tales that walks on a familiar path and rigid structure but its Alfonso's lens that lures the audience in for a second look. It is rich on technical aspects like background score, sound effects, art design, cinematography and editing. The camera work is impressive and is shot beautiful with a mild tone and perfectly balanced energy attained for providing a wider range. The adaptation by Richard LaGravenese and Elizabeth Chandler is smart, gripping and thought-provoking due to its layered concept and its sketchy and edgy characters that are as much as juicy as they are nutrient. Alfonso Cuaron; the director, as mention earlier, has done an excellent work on executing such mythical tale that could not resonate more with practicality and the society that we all reside in. The performance by the young cast is plausible and convincing throughout the course of it where Liam Cunningham and Rusty Schwimmer has done a decent work on ing them. A Little Princess is a bold and mighty walk of righteousness that withholds the audience not for its ingenious modern take on old comic tales but the essence of those pages that it sums of.

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 able 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.

anastasia-cessano-writes This movie is wonderful! I am 13 almost 14 years old and I still watch this movie regularly! I watched it so much the DVD messed up and I had to buy a new one! I HAVE read the book, and at the time I liked the book, but then I watched this-and I was blown away! This movie is a perfect example of a kids' movie that isn't horrible garbage without being overly intense. I have to it, this is quit different from the book, but who really CARES? Sara (Liesel Matthews) is a thoughtful, smart, sweet child, not spoiled and stupidly cheerful like Shirley Temple's version. Oh no! She IS a little princess! And her father (Liam Cunningham) is so devoted and loving!But the best acted part of this entire movie has to go to: Eleanor Bron (yes, the lady in Help, and Wimbledon!!) as Miss Minchin! She was an amazing evil woman but at the same time, you see that she has never been loved and that's why she's so HEARTLESS! I believe that woman should have won an Oscar for this! And Cuaron's directing is unbelievably great! Seriously, go see this film. If you hate it, email me at [email protected] with your complaints.

byakuganangel-sting This movie is perfect. One thing I noticed with those fun-sponges who hated this movie, is that they are all (I mean it, all of them) comparing it to the book.Forget about the book. I actually thought this movie was better, I who have read the book approximately 50 times, so this is a high compliment. Perhaps Alfonso Cuaron should have written the book, rather than s Hodgson Burnett.I can't when I first saw this film, but I suspect I was about 2 or 3 years old. As a child, I adored it. As an adult, I appreciate it even more. What you all need to is that there is a demographic for this kind of film. I suggest girls about 7 to 12 years old, but adults can also appreciate it, if this is their sort of thing. Also, you have to be prepared to cry.I can understand why someone wouldn't like the movie, but I what I can't understand is why they would give it a bad review. For example, I didn't like 'Black Swan', but I acknowledged it was a good movie. Alright, now my ranting is out of the way.It is beautifully filmed. Cuaron uses colour to show the juxtaposition of Sara's India with dreary and depressing New York perfectly, and the music is wonderful. Anyone who accuses Liesel Matthews of being a bad actress needs to watch the scene in the attic, just after she realises her father has died. She draws a circle around herself with chalk, mirroring the scene at the beginning where Prince Rama draws a circle around his wife to protect her. I never cry so much than when I watch this scene.Although the themes of the movie differ from the book, as I said earlier, I think these themes are better. For one, the theme of the book is that a girl is a Princess when they behave, when they are good and virtuous as Sara is. I find that a bit lectury. It's like the Santa Claus myth, trying to bribe/blackmail children into being good, but the theme of the movie, which is that all girls, even horrible ones, are Princesses is lovely. It is forgiveness before the wrong has been committed.I watch 'A Little Princess' every time I'm sick. You'd be surprised how effective it is. I suppose I cry the sickness out of me. Also, if you find the ending not too corny for your tastes, that this is a movie for children. Children want happy endings.