i've seen fans of the book say they prefer this version to the 1996 one

and it just blows my mind. disclaimer: i think this movie could stand well on its own and not under the premise that it's an adaptation of the novel

even if you excuse the completely out of nowhere plotlines that are mostly there for shirley to perform (a romance between two teachers that didn't even exist in the book, the dream sequence, everyone saluting queen victoria for some reason)--which, fine, it's a movie and movies take liberties and there were plenty of ridiculous scenes in the 1996 version (walking across a plank to ram dass's house), this movie just completely butchers the character of sara crewe which is what makes the story so special in the first place.

we never saw her imagination and talent for storytelling, we never saw her perseverance or her kindness to others even in the face of adversity which is why i always thought the hot bun scene was so important. instead, we get her throwing tantrums and dumping soot on lavinia, and the entire point of sara's character is that she's above that kind of behavior and above petty tantrums and revenge. in this film the only reason she seems to keep going is because she knows "her daddy isn't ACTUALLY dead" and her big act of bravery is to sneak out to the hospital at night. shirley temple just played the role as whiny and perky at the same time and i didn't really find myself caring what happened to her. entirely devoid of the magic of the 1996 film and the perfect accuracy of the 1986 miniseries. again, maybe if this movie had come out under a completely different title and the name of shirley temple's character wasn't sara crewe, it might have been more tolerable.


not to mention that the way she ended EVERY sentence with "daddy" in the beginning scene with her father bordered on nauseating.

"Oh my God, what a horrible photograph. My first wanted poster and I look just awful."