Good start, but then it gets ruined

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

The acting in this movie is really good.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Based on the 1905 novel 'A Little Princess; being the whole story of Sara Crewe' by Frances Hodgson Burnett. The Little Princess was a pretty good adapted movie. I wouldn't say, it's the best adaption of the novel, because it's far from that. In my opinion, the film should had been title 'The Soldier's Daughter' because how different, it was with the novel. Directed by Walter Lang, the movie is about 12 year old, Sara Crewe (Shirley Temple) whom father, Captain Crewe (Ian Hunter) is called to fight in the Second Boer War. Sara is left behind in the care of Amanda Minchin (Mary Nash), the head of an exclusive private school for girls, where she lives in a princess like lifestyle due to her father's riches. Her life as a princess wasn't long, as Captain Crewe's money dry up, and her father is believe to be dead in the battlefield. Miss Minchin harshly force the young woman to serve under her making her life miserable. This doesn't stop Sara's will power and belief that her father isn't dead; and she do anything to find out if he's still alive. Although it maintained the novel's Victorian London setting, the film introduced several new characters like Richard Greene and Anita Louise as the young romantic couple, Sir Geoffrey Hamilton & Miss Rose. They're employees of the boarding school, whom go against the wishes of Miss Minchin. Then there is mean-spirited Lord Wickham (Miles Mander) who has Ram Dass (Cesar Romero) as an Indian servant under him. It isn't really explained why he has an Indian lascar for a servant, and there is no logical explanation for why he would want to redecorate Sara's garret room. I guess, having an Indian sailor next room seem too unrealistic in Victoria Era England to the filmmakers. Another character added is Hubert (Arthur Treacher) who became friends with Sara over music. One thing, way different than the novel is the musical number. I know a lot of Shirley Temple's previous films had this, but this movie lacks music and songs good enough to remember. Shirley Temple and Arthur Treacher had a musical number together, performing the song "Knocked 'Em in the Old Kent Road which was way too short. Temple also appeared in an extended ballet dream sequence that was a bit distracting from the main plot. The whole dream scene was just awful and felt like filler. Another big change is the storyline. The movie used the Second Boer War and the Siege of Mafeking as a backdrop. In the book, the father was just visiting India and got ill to the point, he got brain fever. It wasn't war. The film covers only a timeline of a year, while the book go nearly four years. One of the biggest change in the film is the ending. The film's ending was drastically different. Without spoiling too much of it; this adaptation changes the fate of Captain Crewe. In my opinion, it's a better ending than the book. Still, it's does kinda mess up the plot of a young adult learning how to deal with death and to better herself through the actions of her own well-being. I just didn't like the whole Queen Victoria cameo helping her find her father. It was just outlandish & unrealistic. I can do without all the over Patriotism oozes out of every scene of the film. The main film is about this girl trying to reunite with her father, not the Boer War. Second off, there is no Mr. Thomas Carrisford character in the film. The acting in the film were pretty alright, but nobody really stood out. Shirley looked a little old for the part, but she pulls it off. At the part when she was by the window crying to say goodbye to her daddy was emotional. It was nice to see her react in a film to things like loss and death in a story. The trouble is, she can't pull off the emotion of making herself cry. In the movie, Shirley portrays a child not only with steadfast hope but patience, manners, politeness and kindness in the face of appalling adversity that you rarely see in film today. Who would believe that a child under that pressure could be so gracious? I love when Shirley as Sarah does snap back against her bullies like taunting from Lavinia (Marcia Mae Jones). I have to say, if the film was little bit more dark, it would had work better. It remind me of a Charles Dicken's novel. The director did good on keeping his camera low down, at a child's eye-level. Also striking is his use of multiple angles which really gives dimension to the sets or highlighting a sudden change in mood. This movie was the first Shirley Temple movie to be filmed completely in Technicolor as before that, producers believe these incredibly bright lights produced so much heat that a child, Temple's age would be hurt working under such conditions. Sadly, this was her last major success as a child star. The film is easy to find since it's in the public domain due to the failure to renew its copyright registration. This means that virtually anyone could duplicate and sell a VHS/DVD copy of the film. Therefore, many of the versions of this film available on the market are either severely or usually badly edited. Some DVDs have really extremely poor quality, having been duped from second- or third-generation or more copies of the film. So watch out for that. There are countless remakes of the novel since then. In my opinion: 1995's A Little Princess directed by Alfonso Cuaron was a bit better one than this, but this Little Princess is widely considered to be one of Shirley Temple's best film and I have to agree. Enjoyable tale for children and adults alike. So check it out.

For a more faithful adaptation, look for the 1986/7 version. However, if you are the kind of person who tries to judge movie adaptations on their own merits and likes their movies to be beautiful and with emotional impact, the 1995 Alfonso Cuaron film and this will have you satisfied. The costumes and sets are very elegant, and the gorgeous Technicolour and cinematography help. The music is both sensitive and catchy, and the choreography is suitably nifty. The script is mostly engaging, the film is beautifully directed by Walter Lang(who I remember best for the 1956 musical The King and I) and while darker in tone(I did miss some of the fascinating imagination aspects from the book admittedly) the story is still charming, with a fun song and dance interlude with Shirley Temple and Arthur Treacher and the ending is very moving. I have not seen enough of Shirley Temple's films to judge whether The Little Princess is among her best or worst, but while a couple of the more emotional moments were a little forced her adorable appearance and charm makes for a delightful Sara overall. Sybil Jason is a sweet Becky also, although I find the chemistry between Becky and Sara more believable in Cuaron's film and in the book. Mary Nash's Miss Minchin is suitably nasty, while a young Cesar Romero is handsome and quietly composed as Ram Das, Ian Hunter in what he has is a loving father figure and as Bertie Arthur Treacher(whose scenes with Temple are among the best of the film) has an easy-going charm. Beryl Mercer is appropriately dignified in her cameo as Queen Victoria. All in all, a lovely film. 8/10 Bethany Cox

I awarded this film 5/10 as just about average.It has an infantile plot for children & families around in 1939.For the female teenagers there is Richard Greene (later famous in the 1950s for the British TV series "The Adventures of Robin Hood").I only watched it after searching on Youtube for Anita Louise who played another girlfriend Helen Wentworth in the film "Love Letters"(1945) & Titania in "A Midsummers Night's Dream" (1935), both in my DVD collection.The plot closely resembles a British pantomime with wicked witches, ugly spiteful sisters & handsome princes with Shirley Temple playing Cinderella in reverse.I read all the previous user reviews before writing this piece and accept most of their valid criticism of this film, they are evidently more versed in this particular Frances Hodgson Burnett's tale than I am.What film producer ever sticks slavishly to the original book since they mostly want to produce their own version on film.Their most bankable star was Shirley Temple so she naturally had to appear in most scenes, as they hopefully had to provide a dividend to the film company's shareholders.Cinema goers in 1939 who had seen ST sing & dance "The Good Ship Lollipop", would have had an expectation of seeing her in a similar act, in this case the old musical hall song, "Knocked Them in the Old Kent Road".I would have liked to have heard a fuller version of this song with more sung and danced verses.As stated the acting was in almost pantomime style, more suited to young children and their parents.

It was fairly enjoyable, but really, they only used the base of the book and altered the rest. It basically isn't anything like the book. Like I said, I would have liked it better, if the book never existed. If it never existed I would have given the movie a seven, it's not Shirley's greatest movies (even though she acts good in them).I was very disappointed, but we I can still sit through it. Whenever my great-grandma comes to visit our house we put in a Shirley movie, it comforts her a lot she's always saying, "Oh boy, that Shirley Temple is such a neat kid." Was a good enough film for my family to fairly enjoy, we have the d.v.d, I seldom watch it, but If I'm ever in the mood I'll pop it in.