Watch Pollyanna For Free

Wow! Such a good movie.

Overrated and overhyped

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

I have long loved Mrs. Porter's two novels, & I very much enjoy Hayley Mills' 1959 Pollyanna. This version is very good. Subtler and with less treacle than the Disney production (but what else would one expect from Disney?). The cast are very good, reserved and dignified and somber, starkly contrasting Pollyanna's irrepressible optimism. The locations and sets are peaceful and serene, quiet and gentle examples of pre- industrial/technological explosion society.

I have to say, I enjoyed this version of the wonderful book by Eleanor H. Porter because I believe it is more true to how she would want it portrayed. They use most of the story lines, and create some nice ones to go along with the originals!I loved this version from the moment I saw it. I taped it from ITV and have nearly worn out the tape. I read the book when I was about 11, and have adored it ever since, and I thought this version only complimented it.I purchased the other, older version by Disney a little while ago and found it very sickly sweet, like many Disney films, though often, they are tempered with a moral. This was, but the sweetness and goofiness if I may speak plainly, overtook the story and did not add anything to it.This version, on the other hand, was excellent and even my brother, who hates these types of movies, can sit through it quite easily and happily. I love Amanda Burton's portrayal of Polly Harrington, it was just like I had envisioned and I loved Mr Pendleton, not Perndergast.Thank you for your time, I would advise you watch the film and think of your own opinion!

This 2003 Masterpiece Theatre version of "Pollyanna" is the ultimate feel-good movie and because it is a bit less sappy than the 1960 Disney version you can enjoy repeated viewings anytime you need some cheering up. The new version is also more faithful to Eleanor Porter's original 1913 story and more focused on characterization than on elaborate set design and visual dynamics (there is no town fair and the comic relief has a more mature quality). And the setting is moved to Edwardian England with liberal use of wide angle lenses to capture the lush countryside.The real improvement, however, is in the casting of the title character. Georgina Terry, with her red hair and freckles, projects such effortless charm that even the most cynical should be won over. Hayley Mills' performance was more forced and she was really too old for the role. Terry's Pollyanna is much more convincing, both in her continuing attachment to her father and in her struggles to play his glad game in the face of so much adversity. "I suppose it's as easy to be happy about things as to not be". This struggle was at the core of Porter's story and the 2003 version makes a real effort to construct a multi-dimensional Pollyanna who would have met with Porter's and her readers' approval.Otherwise, the physical casting of the two movies are amazingly similar. Amanda Burton and Pam Ferris in particular conjure up vivid memories of their predecessors Jane Wyman and Agnes Moorehead. Burton portrays Aunt Polly more sympathetically, much more in line with Porter's original characterization. Instead of a ruthless and conniving queen bee, she is more hurt than mean. The tip off comes early as she amusingly allows herself to be persuaded by Tim (Tom Ellis) to purchase a motor car. Tim provides most of the film's comic relief as his prowess with automobiles is contrasted with his shy and awkward romantic overtures toward Nancy (both motor car and romance are creations of the adaptation and not part of the Porter's original story). And Aunt Polly's obsession with flies is nicely played for laughs.There is a trade-off between the versions relative to the characters. Moorehead's Mrs. Snow was more memorable and entertaining; Ferris is not given enough material. Conversely, Kenneth Cranham (Mr. Pendleton) has more to work with than did Adolphe Menjou (Mr. Pendergast) and is not handicapped by having to share scenes with Kevin Corcoran. As in the book, the less irritating Jimmy Bean (Ben Thornton) of the 2003 version has a smaller role and there is more emphasis on Pollyanna's individual relationship with Mr. Pendleton (who was once in love with Pollyanna's mother).The only real weakness of the Masterpiece Theatre version was the need to adapt the story to a compressed 90-minute running time. This was to some extent a mixed blessing because while there are transitional gaps, the time constraints forced them to get creative ant this led to some nice sequences. A montage of a bewildered Aunt Polly receiving a parade of townspeople extolling Pollyanna's virtues is especially good, and it nicely sets her up for a mild scolding by Nancy about not allowing Pollyanna to speak openly about her father. They also responded positively to the running time issue by jumping right into the story at the beginning (just running the titles over the scene) and by wrapping things up with an understated ending that let the audience just interpret what they were seeing.The "Pollyanna" story has a timeless appeal for children who get off on her ability to influence adults but this film version is also a wonderful family film. This convincing story of how an 11-year-old girl's indomitable spirit positively impacts everyone around her offers enough nuances to keep adults entertained and may even elicit a few tears from otherwise cynical observers.Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

I didn't mean to watch this movie on TV, but it just happened to be on, and I just couldn't turn it off. It's a typical piece of mawkish victorian children's literature that gets lined up for the Disney treatment. A couple of hours later, and with a tear in my eye, I had to admit they'd done a good job, and now I want to read the book. I'd always assumed this was an American book, so I looked it up, and seems it's was originally set in Vermont, so I guess this is a bit of a perverse, reverse export.OK. It's not the greatest movies you'll ever see, but I gave it 10 out of 10 because I think it did what it had set out to do, was a really good watch, and managed to draw me right in, and I can't imagine anybody not loving this TV movie.Even tho it's not my usual cup of tea.