Anne of Green Gables

Lucy Maud Montgomery's 'Anne of Green Gables' is a literary classic, and, while not every adaptation of 'Anne of Green Gables' has been watched by me, count me in as somebody who also adores the 1985 version and who considers it vastly superior to this latest effort.

Every adaptation deserves to stand on its own two feet, regardless of how well or badly it fares to the source material or how it stacks up with other adaptations. As has been said, this 'Anne of Green Gables' underwhelms as an adaptation, the details are there but not the spirit with the film seeming to forget what it is about the story that makes it resonate so much. On its own terms, it also is just as problematic. To me it isn't as awful as has been said, but the disappointment is understandable.

There are good things with 'Anne of Green Gables' (2016). On the most part it looks very attractive, with beautiful and quaint scenery, evocative costume and production design and photography that gives off a real wholesome charm that reminds one fondly of cosy period dramas or something like 'The Waltons'. The music is lilting and suitably whimsical as well as with the right understated touch when needed.

'Anne of Green Gables (2016)' casting has been criticised and again understandably, with reservations for a few also shared. Ella Ballentine, starting with the positives of the casting, is a spirited and charming Anne, even if Megan Follows embodied the role much more Ballentine doesn't fare badly at all on her own and her spirit and charm lifts the film from mediocrity at best to something a little better. Julia Lalonde is perfectly cast as Diana, and Stefani Kimber's Josie is a bright spot too.

However, despite most of the details being there the spirit (apart from a cosy wholesomeness) isn't there, suffering from the pacing and dialogue delivery especially being too rushed and characters and essential plot points being either underutilised or re-written in polar opposite fashion. Gilbert is both downplayed and underused, with a too young Drew Haytaoglu being pretty bland in the role, and while it was appreciated that the relationship between Anne and Marilla had more prominence when it is often the romance it would have been appreciated more if it didn't feel like it dominated too much and that the character of Marilla had a better mix of the hard and soft rather than just being cranky and also less severe to usual. This too would have given Sara Botsford more room to stretch herself and her talents, what should have been a pretty juicy role limited her too much and never allows her to disappear into it.

Martin Sheen overplays in the role of Matthew, that is also written too extrovertedly. As much as this sounds like a purist, one of the book's biggest pleasures (of which there are too many to list) is how momentous the reader feels when Anne wins Marilla and Matthew over, when you have the roles written in polar-opposite fashion, Marilla needing more severity and more of a mix of hard and soft and Matthew needing to be more introverted and gentle, like here this momentous feeling is lost. The editing also feels very jerky too, while the script is rushed and often stilted in delivery and has a anachronistically modern feel that distracts too much from the period (as well as a few gratuitous darker elements that was best omitted). The ending has too much of a too sudden and unfinished feel to it.

Overall, looks attractive, has a nice score and with a few casting bright spots but feels both too bland and rushed. 5/10 Bethany Cox

To anybody who ever saw the ultimate TV series adaptation with Megan Follows.... And no offence meant to this cast who is undoubtedly doing their best, But this is wrong, wrong wrong on every level.

This is dull as dishwater and has zero sparkle, even feels completely anachronistic in the actors' delivery and dialogs.

It feels like bad fanfiction. The children are doing a good job but they're not Anne, Diana nor Gilbert, not by any stretch of the imagination. As to the adults, the least said the better. Pointless remake of an absolute all-time classic (I mean it) , which I recommend to anyone who has never watched it.

Avoid this at all costs when you can see the other one.

And please don't click on "not helpful", unless you HAVE seen the eighties version I'm on about because you couldn't even envisage how superior it is ;)

This movie is so syrupy. After having seen other renditions, including the new series on Netflix, "Anne, With an E," this one is put to shame. First of all, as a teacher, I used these books many times. They are extremely well written and have a real edge to them. Marilla's slow acceptance of Anne is totally lost here. She is a harsh, practical woman and Anne really gets on her nerves. I'm a big fan of Martin Sheen going back forty some years. But his portrayal of Matthew is a total miscast. His cutesy, confident character is the opposite of the Matthew I know. First of all, Matthew is generally frightened of his sister and doesn't dare to confront her. The problem is that she gives up right away and lets Matthew have much more freedom than the real story portrays. Anne's previous experiences are so harsh and are hardly exposed in this new telling. When Marilla starts to accept the sad little girl, it is when she sees the pain of loneliness brutality she has experienced. This makes her turnaround an act of triumph. Ann is also less interesting. She so quickly catches on with the other children, we lose the harshness and unfairness of them. There is only one girl who is really unlikable and she quickly becomes at least tolerant of Anne. Mostly, I just found this so quick and formulaic and lacking in depth with easy plot transitions.

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 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.