Anne of Green Gables: The Continuing Story

One thing that really got me about this film was the way Sullivan Productions junked what they had (almost) seamlessly meshed in the past: the "Anne" world with the "Road to Avonlea" world.

Anne and Gilbert had already married and had children by the time of Marilla's death, and it was another few years before WWI happened in the "Avonlea" world. However, here Marilla has died and Anne and Gilbert aren't married yet. Mrs. Lynde, Marilla's long-time friend and confidante becomes a minor character, almost a glorified cameo appearance, and doesn't act like it's been years since she last saw Anne. Josie and Moody are just kinda there as 'fanwank' to placate any fans who might be disappointed that this film wanders so far away from the established 'Anne-iverse.'

That aside, this film still is a bit of a mess. Historical accuracy goes right out the window, and I found it hard to get really involved in these "strangers" lives.

Although, comments made on Megan Follows' appearance is unfair. It's been TWENTY YEARS since the first "Anne" so OF COURSE she's older...duh! Megan Follows does a lot to try to save this film. She's as good an actress as ever. Jonathan Crombie did well also. The radical transformation of Diana's character isn't that out of line with what came before, and Schuyler Grant does very well here.

Sadly, a missed opportunity. This might have worked better as a "Road to Avonlea" reunion movie. I mean, WWI actually was on the horizon when the series ended.

I've read all the Anne books! I really dislike it when they take a beloved character, and completely ignore all the written material on said character.

It was Anne's three sons who fought in WW1, and you can find the story in Lucy Maud Montgomery's book entitled "Rilla of Ingleside" The story of the terrible effects of the war is seen through the eyes of Anne's youngest child, Marilla, who is fifteen at the start of the war in 1914.

It is a heart-felt story. One of Anne's younger sons dies in France, but it is also a story of hope and faith and the foibles of a small community facing a situation outside the small island they grew up on.

Why they didn't use that story, or indeed, the previous story where Anne is married and starts a new life on her beloved island with Gilbert I'll never know!It often seems to me that screenwriters don't read, or do research when dealing with literary subjects!

I'm sorry that they didn't give Megan Fellows better material. She is a fine young actress and deserves better. Ps: Diana's husband Fred Wright was a pleasant, down-to-earth farmer in the Anne books.

The only reason I can think of that this movie even bears the title "Anne of Green Gables" is that the director/producer/whomever decided that they could make a lot more money misleading hundreds of loyal Anne fans. This movie is so unlike the other two that it could be about any couple during WWI. Whatever possessed the wonderful Megan Follows and Jonathan Crombie to be in this disaster of a film, I am sure none of us will ever comprehend.

I also cannot understand why Kevin Sullivan, who first presented Anne on screen with such sincerity, could somehow think that the original L.M. Montgomery stories were simply not good enough anymore? This movie might not be exciting to the "Mission Impossible" fans that it seems to be geared towards, but Avonlea was exactly the setting that made the Anne movies so wonderful. This "continuing story" has none of the beauty and vivacity of the former films. We loved Avonlea and Prince Edward Island, because they provided simple and natural backdrops, allowing the talent of the actors to shine through.

And speaking of the talent of the actors, where on earth did it go? To agree with another reviewer, the actors looked tired and restless during their scenes, as if they wanted nothing more than for all of it to end. Maybe they were blackmailed into doing this? Not only did we have to endure Megan Follows and Jonathan Crombie simply looking old, we were given the added benefit of seeing several other actors coming back to play their former rolls, and clearly not having fun with them. I am not even going to discuss the new character of Jack Garrison, who seemed to be pulled out of thin air to form a soap opera-like love triangle.

When I read a wonderful book like "Anne of Green Gables" (and "Anne of Avonlea", "Anne of the Island", etc.) It disappoints me so much when a movie comes out that is nothing like the amazing piece of literature I have enjoyed. When I heard that there was going to be a "continuing story" my mind automatically filled with images of Anne and Gilbert's joyful wedding at Green Gables, and of their "house of dreams" and their many children. When I heard that it was to be nothing like the book, I could hardly contain my disappointment! We loyal Anne fans have waited so long...for this?

Other reviewers have complained that their visions of Anne have been ruined forever. I did not have this problem, because I have an imagination that allows me to "imagine things differently from what they are." This movie was so unlike Anne of Green Gables, in storyline, setting, and characters, that it had no effect on my longterm enjoyment of the first two films.

If your curiosity cannot be contained, and you simply must risk it, then by all means, watch this film. If not, however, I caution you, do not touch this movie or it will contaminate you for life!

I completely agree with the majority of comments posted here about "Anne 3". As a longtime fan of the first two films (and books), I was so excited for this third installment. When I first saw it, I didn't fall in love with it the way I did the first two films. Upon a subsequent viewing and discussions with my sister, I was able to pinpoint what bothered me about this movie. Most of these issues have been covered by other viewers (drastic change from the books, almost completely joyless, weird quasi-unfaithfulness to Gilbert, etc.), but I thought I would add a couple of thoughts that my sis and I discussed.

The "Anne" books contain the simple stories of one woman's life, from madcap girlhood to mature motherhood. When she becomes an adult and marries, the Anne books cover the themes of life, death (loss of children), joy, despair and hope...in other words, the books are about experiences that women of the time could identify with. Apparently, the creators of this third movie didn't think that a "woman's story" was interesting enough. Aside from changing the time frame, they changed the location of the (majority of) the action from Prince Edward Island to World War I-era Europe, chock-full of blood, gore, "action" and spies. If the period of the story's setting had to be changed to WWI, wouldn't it have been more interesting (and truer to the spirit of the books) to portray Anne as a woman coping with the war on the homefront? But, like I said, the story of a woman dealing with life and war must not have seemed as important to the writers/director/producer as spy capers and battlefield scenes.

Also...I'm surprised that none of the other viewers commented on the movie's tiresome anti-American bias. I lost count of the times that we were insulted. Thousands of American soldiers gave their lives to help end World War I and the pointless jibes at "the Yanks" in this film belittles their contribution in ending the stalemate that the war had turned into. If the filmmakers wanted to promote Canadian nationalism, there are better ways to do that than at the expense of Americans.

For a movie that seemed to want to extoll the virtues of Canada, there was precious little of Canada (and Prince Edward Island) shown on-screen. Like Anne and Gilbert's life together, I guess Canada wasn't considered exciting or dramatic enough for the setting of this movie. What a shame.

For twelve years "Anne Fans" such as myself have been eagerly awaiting the third installment of the this much-loved series. Like many fans, I grew impatient and simply read the books. . .yes, all eight of them, just to find out what happened after they left us all hanging at "the bridge".

"Anne of Green Gables" was nearly perfectly faithful to the book, just as "Anne of Avonlea" ALMOST was, but where did they pull "The Continuing Story" out of? I think we all know where. . . but I think most of us still want to know why!

Lucy Maud Montgomery's original material would have been such a beautiful conclusion to the Anne/Gilbert love story. They married after he finished med school, they lived in pretty little cottage until he set up a practice in a place called Ingleside, where they raised seven children (not including Anne's first child who died in infancy). Montgomery even went on to write a book about Rilla, Anne's youngest daughter.

Speaking of her daughter, factually Rilla's boyfriend served in World War I! What an unnecessary leap in time!

Perhaps Kevin Sullivan can still fix the mess he made. I think it is possible to still go on with the story as it was intended to be told. . .I just don't see why they didn't do so to begin with.

There has been no closure in the "Anne of Green Gables" series. Anne and Gilbert's future life and family still remain a mystery to we who assumed that "The Continuing Story" would bring finality to the story that should have been a peaceful, satisfying classic just as it's predecessors were.