Watch Sophie's Misfortunes For Free

Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

I read some people complained because it's half "Malheurs De Sophie " half "Petites Filles Modèles " and Paul is absent in the second part ,apart from a dream (probably inspired by Bernard Deyriès 's animated TV series of the late nineties).Fans have to remember that "Les petites Filles Modèles" was actually the first book Ségur wrote;and "Les Malheurs De Sophie" was not even planned when " Les Vacances " ,the third part was intended as a follow-up ;in "Les Petites Filles Modeles",when Sophie appears ,whe know almost nothing from her past (" she lost her parents in a shipwreck") and never ,in a month of Sundays ,Sophie hints at her cousin Paul ,and for a good reason:the character did not exist then.So why not mix the two stories? I guess the writers wanted to introduce Madame Fichini and to contrast this shrew with the sweet mom the poor little girl remembers dearly in the second part;IMHO,Sophie's biological mother is an ambiguous character ;there are lots of autobiographical elements in it: Ségur's mother ,an uncompromising Catholic ,and herself,whose husband (who appears in "les Vacances " as "Jean De Rugès " ,a simple anagram)was always away in Paris ,den of iniquity.The first part is probably the most satisfying ,for the depiction of the father ,only a shadow, is faithful to the book;on the other hand ,Madame De Réan ,as recent studies have showed (notably Patrick Pipet's "Les Mysteres De Sophie" ),is not exactly the ideal mother;it's not a coincidence that the writer killed her fictitious mom and had Sophie welcomed in her home by Madame De Fleurville .Only a handful of Sophie's misfortunes was integrated in the screenplay ,for we know,almost from the start,that Sophie's family is to sail away to America where a friend of them left them a fortune .It was certainly a good idea to cast very young actors but Camille and Madeleine are not exactly the perfect little girls ;Paul is not the virtuous cousin who tries to keep Sophie on the straight and narrow .Impact is lacking and I do not think that children will be entertained that much with this rather bland screenplay ,in Harry Potter's time.Hence the necessity to use "les Petites Filles Modèles" and Madame Fichini to enliven things a little...just a little for ,although Muriel Robin gives the best performance in the movie,her character was sweetened (after whipping her stepdaughter to bleeding ,she would tell her " now ,go and complain to your (dead) papa ! "the countess wrote in "Les Vacances " ).The two novels are linked together by a sinister painting and Madame De Fleurville's "account",a rather artificial technique .In that context ,the coming of a widowed Madame De Rosbourg and her daughter Marguerite does not make any sense (in "Les petites Filles Modeles " ,her husband is the captain of the ship lost at sea).As an user has already (aptly) written ,the songs are anachronistic, pure filler : Paul's ditty must make the audience put their fingers in their ears ,and the Père Huq 's Chinese lament is not better : although this character is not featured in the trilogy ,it's not a screenwriters' invention ;The "Abbé Huc" appears in another book "Les Bons Enfants" ,in a chapter called "Les Chinois" in which Segur displays lots of humor,sometimes very black (or naivete,which comes to the same thing).And this missionary does love toad jam!If I had to recommend a "Malheurs De Sophie" movie,it would be the animated TV series by Bernard Deyriès (1998) :it encompasses the whole trilogy ,and it's done with taste ,humor and emotion.Children should like it.Jean-Claude Brialy's version (1979) is rather bland and listless ,and features a horrible song by Chantal Goya, of evil memory.Strictly for adult cine buffs :Jacqueline Audry's version (1948) ,the very first of the women directors of the fifties ;it's got feminist accents and turns Sophie the rebellious child into a woman who will refuse her milieu when she grows up.

This is not a flawless movie. First of all, it is a bit sadder and darker than necessary. Nothing to really frighten children's, but still a little bit sad, like when the squirrel dies or the hedgehogs are killed. The overall tone is bending to the dark side. The producer could have chose other, more luminous episodes of the books to balance that feeling. That said, this is also where the movie is the closest to the books of La Comtesse de Ségur. Les Malheurs de Sophie is not primarily a joy full story. It's the story of a little girl who is hurt by life more than the average. The purpose of La Comtesse de Ségur was not to tell a fairy tale but to educated children. The main idea of the book is kept in this movie. I also appreciated the children play which are very natural (at least in the French original voices). Adults are not so convincing. It's a special movie that may appeal to a very narrow slice of ages. I would say, from 7 to 12 maybe. Costumes are nice and the historical context is well done. And it shows children exactly as they may use to live, play and mourn before electricity and iPhone. There is nothing sexual nor really violent in this movie.

Despite the title, this film is actually an adaptation of two of Ségur's books featuring Sophie: "Les Malheurs de Sophie" and "Les Petites Filles Modèles", including about half the material in each. For whom is this film intended? Too long, slow & arty for little girls of the age of those in the film: 6-8 apart from tiny Marguerite who is younger. It's also too whimsical and infantile for most older children and adults. I suppose it would do for the J M Barries and Lewis Carrols of this world, but they may not appreciate Disney-style hedgehogs, squirrel & frog who pop up from time to time - I certainly didn't. Sometimes a character in the film addresses us personally - that's rather "arch". Twice we get anachronistic singing, as in a film from the 70s. So I won't be buying it for my grandchildren who are younger & older than Sophie & her friends. But it's pretty. All the children are well-produced and engaging. Some of the adults are strange choices, particularly Goldshifteh as Sophie's mother, who is nothing like the mother in the book. Sophie's father was a shadowy character in the book and is more so in the film. Nor can one imagine him marrying the appalling Mme Fichini, especially after Goldshifteh. While the children sleep through the rest of the film one is left wondering if it was for her money . . . ah well! I would like to hear what others think.