TheLittleSongbird Like 'A Little Princess', also written by Frances Hodgson Burnett, 'The Secret Garden' is a lovely, engrossing read with memorable characters, some of whom that you don't exactly like at first but as they grow and change one likes them much more, and a vivid setting.There will always be debate as to which version is the best version of 'The Secret Garden'. The most faithful is perhaps the 1975 adaptation, and the 1949 film with Margaret O'Brien is also very much worthwhile. My personal favourite is the 1993 film, one of my favourites as a child and is still an enchanting film now (and no this is not nostalgia talking, there has been a fair share of childhood favourites that hold up poorly now), to me it had more polish and heart.In no way is that to knock this 1987 adaptation. It stands pretty well on its own enough, and there are some faithful moments and most of the characters are true to personality and how they evolve, but there are also some very odd deviations that do distract pretty badly (anybody looking for a completely faithful adaptation without strange deviations and additions should look elsewhere).Two in particular stand out as either unnecessary or weird. The book-end scenes with the children as adults is the strongest example of the former, those scenes added absolutely nothing and felt very clunky and mawkish in writing. The same with the very ham-fisted message introduced here. The way Dickon's character is written is especially strange, in a way that really doesn't fit the character and jars with the setting.Most of the acting is good, apart from the un-authentic accents. Faring weakest is perhaps Jadrien Steele, whose Colin is stiff in places and while the character is meant to be insufferable at first other adaptations did a better job in showing his change. Barret Oliver does quite well as Dickon but is disadvantaged by the way the character is written.Visually, however, this 'Secret Garden' looks good, beautifully and atmospherically photographed that even an at times less than perfect transfer can't ruin, costumed with a lot of love and care and with scenery that's both charming and atmospheric. The music, with some haunting use of Chopin, fits remarkably well and doesn't feel tonally at odds at all.Dialogue has a mostly natural flow and has the right amount of enchantment and mystery. The story has a lot of charm, and there is enough to leave one in awe and make one cry. The direction is above competent and the sound is crisp and clear, complementing the music and dialogue well.Apart from reservations about Steele and to a lesser extent Oliver, the acting is fine. Gennie James gives a Mary that grows in character from spoilt and sullen to a happier and more caring character, displaying all those traits without being too sentimental or too irritating. Michael Hordern's Ben Weatherstaff is spot on, how lovely to see a character treated like a minor character in a couple of the other adaptations be a scene-stealer.Billie Whitelaw is suitably beastly as Mrs Medlock, while giving her some humanity later on. Viewers seem more mixed on Derek Jacobi, to me his Lord Craven was suitably melancholic and mysterious. Martha was quite appealing too.In summary, stands pretty well on its own but purists better look elsewhere. 7/10 Bethany Cox

ladymulti I LOVE this version of the movie. I was probably 4 or 5 when I first saw it. I can only assume that I caught it on television and recorded it after that....and SURE, it isn't like the book in MANY ways, but it is still a very good movie with great acting. If you take is as it is and not as you expect it to be (like the book), then you see just how great this movie is. How many movies now a days is exactly like the original story, anyway? I really dislike when someone discounts a movie as good or great just because it is nothing like the original story. This is why the movie makes state that it is BASED on the novel, not a direct rendition of such.I will forever love this movie and have come to wonder why I haven't bought the DVD yet.

AngelGirl91602 This only score this high with me because the little girl is cute. My biggest problem is that in this version Mary cries all the time. Starting with when they throw her doll to the fire because of germs. Anyone similar with the story know that a big part of the Mary character is that she is a strange and unresponsive little girl and doesn't cry at all. At least not until the very end if at all. As an avid reader and fan of the story I find this most troubling. There have been many good versions of this movie made.If you want a great version try the 1993 one. It's my personal favorite out of the many I have seen. My only problem with the 1993 version is the change in how Mary's parents passed away, but as they are such a small part of the story it is not too serious of an infraction in my opinion.

phredtribes This has got to be one of the worst book-to-movie adaptations that I have ever seen. The acting by the children was stiff and obviously acting, making it very difficult for me to get into the story. Derek Jacobi was out of place in this film and this is not one of his best roles. Too many of the scenes are so melodramatic that they detract from the story. The only thing I can say about the movie is that it does not stray too far from the book. But look elsewhere for a reasonable movie version. The 1993 version directed by Agnieszka Holland, although it does have its own faults, is much better than this one.