Anna dai capelli rossi

I thought the first episode was lovely, and drew me into the scene. It depicted a charming setting on a rural farm in Prince Edward Island. I would not want to be overly critical for these young actors who put a great effort into their acting. The young girl who played Anne did a marvelous Job.

I am not sure why we have to compare each version and be so critical. I also saw the 1985 version and also enjoyed it but I was a teen then so it was awhile ago but I think Ella Ballentine and Martin Sheen did a great job. The friendship between her and Diana was so very sweet. I do agree it was a little rushed but was a very sweet story.

We anxiously waited for the new new "Anne" series hoping it would be on a par with the previous version staring Colleen Dewhurst and Richard Farnsworth. It took about two minutes for us to see that the acting was stilted with characters simply reading the script rather portraying a believable story in an imaginative way. To state that the show lacked chemistry is a tremendous understatement. The production was somewhat faithful to the book but lacked an understanding of the emotional depth of the book, was not true to the story, and foisted 21st century values on the audience. For example, at the time there was no such thing as a social service agency. It put me, a reader of L.M. Montgomery for 50 years, into "the depth of despair". It was only slightly better than watching a stupid NFL game.

This production has the misfortune of following the brilliant 1985 version. Marilla Cuthbert in 1985 was a solid, religious, grounded woman, who learns to love Anne. The present Marilla is merely cranky. The character of Matthew Cuthbert in 1985 was shy and deep. The present Matthew is a superficial fool. The 1985 Anne was passionate. The new Anne seems forced. The actress does not really inhabit the role -- but rushes through her lines and puts on laughter or tears as the script directs. In 1985, the characters interact and change each other. In this production, they seem to bounce off each other. They are not really present. I agree with other reviewers that the story was rushed.

Come to think of it, I don't believe the house had green gables -- or any gables at all. (Maybe I'm wrong about that.)

Maybe if the viewer has never seen this charming story before, the 2016 production would be good. Compared to the earlier version -- still easily available -- it is a great disappointment.

I was hesitant to watch this because I read reviews that said it was pretty bad. Well, it wasn't terrible. It had a lot of elements that were true to the book. Of course, some parts were changed a little, which is always an unfortunate part of book to movie adaptations.

The actress playing Anne does a good job and I think she looks closer to Anne's description from the book than Megan Follows did, although Anne was supposed to be tall and both actresses seemed rather short.

The actress playing Diana is all wrong. In the book, Diana is slightly plump and beautiful, with black hair. This Diana is much taller than Anne, very thin, and has a medium-brown hair.

Most of the important moments are there and the outdoor scenes are lovely. I will probably be watching the next installment soon.

I have read the books and have seen all adaptations of Anne of green gables. This new movie doesn't even come close to what was done in 1985 with Megan follows. I had to force myself to watch the entire movie. The casting and the direction was very poor. Anne in this movie did not flow effortlessly in her acting like Megan follows did and I found it particularly annoying how Matthew was not true to his character. The dialogues felt rushed and not natural. Many scenes were not given enough attention to detail and proper care. I had to re=watch the 1985 version to get over the disappointment. Please do not do a remake if you can't do a better version of the previous.