Magnum Myth This movie is a must see for everyone, whether you are a little girl or an adult. even if you don't believe in fairy tale you should watch this movie. It is as sweet as it can be , well staged and the cinematography is so beautiful that for once you will surely forgot about all the cruelty and chaos of the world and see the beauty in each aspect of life and praise it.this film is about love, kindness , magic and full of heart.This movie is spellbinding and a fascinating movie to watch. It will make you want to cry at many moments.Guys see this movie it is a must watch for everybody.

SnoopyStyle It's 1914. Sara Crewe (Liesel Matthews) lives a fairy tale life with her loving father (Liam Cunningham) in Simla, India. When war breaks out, he sends her to the NYC boarding school that her late mother attended. Her father's money gets her the best room. She struggles under the cold-hearted headmistress Miss Minchin (Eleanor Bron)'s strict rules. She believes that all girls are princesses but Miss Minchin hates her imagination. Mean girl Lavinia doesn't like her. She makes friends with little Lottie who also lost her mother, black servant girl Becky, and most of the other girls who love her fanciful stories. Later, her father is assumed killed and his estate has been seized by the government. Miss Minchin reduces her to work as a servant girl for the money she owed.Director Alfonso Cuarón brings this classic story to life. The Dickensian tale is a real tear jerker. The Indian fantasy stories are magical. It brings the audience down to the kids' level which elevates the tension and the poignancy. The girls all do a good job acting. It is a children's movie that even adults will love.

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 passable 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.

entertainmentalice Yes, the film was visually beautiful. Truly. BUT - My issue isn't so much that her father was alive, although I thought they shouldn't have done that. Parents DO die and children are left to deal with it. That is REAL LIFE. However, I like film for escape, so okay - I'll give them a pass on that.My issue is with Sara. The Sara in the book was a MUCH better PERSON than the Sara Crewe in the film. In the film, Sara was spiteful and petty. She retaliated against those who wronged her. The whole POINT of the book was that horrible things happen and life is unfair and just because you are good doesn't mean good things will always happen to you. Unfair crap happens and it's how we RESPOND that matters.In the book, Sara Crewe had dignity and character. She took it on the chin and maintained her personal dignity. I was SO disappointed in the film. I've loved the book for my entire life. To have Sara changed so was a terrific disappointment.Given that the entire point of the book was Sara - who she was and how she handled horrible adversity - I must say I hated this film. I felt they destroyed the character.