After seeing the previous three episodes, I looked forward to the 4th installment of this beautifully photographed series. Unfortunately, it was a pale imitation of those that preceded it. However, I did not find fault with the outstanding performance of Hannah Endicott-Douglas as very young Shirley. Some have compared her unfavorably with Meghan Follows but I feel this is unfair since Follows was 13 when she initiated the role. Endicott-Douglas was much younger and the task was much harder for her. It was a bravura performance for someone her age. On the other hand, Barbara Hershey as the mature Anne was grotesquely miscast. She bore no resemblance at all to young Shirley and appeared uncomfortable in this role. I found it strange that she would weep at the grave of her late husband who was supposed to have died at Dieppe in 1942? Many Canadians were killed or captured at this ill-advised engagement but it was merely a raid, not a permanent invasion, so it is unlikely that a medical officer would have been there. If he had been killed there, I seriously doubt his body would have been brought back to Canada for burial? Those who died in the Dieppe raid are buried in France among the thousands of other Allied soldiers buried there. I thought Shirley MacLaine was adequate as Mrs. Thomas but I can understand the feelings of those who wondered why a Canadian actress could not have played the part. I agree and feel someone like Kate Nelligan would have been excellent in that role. I thought Rachel Blanchard was radiant as Luisa Thomas and a definite asset to the production. I thought she bears a striking resemblance to American actress Michele Pfieffer. I was very confused by the convoluted finale where mature Shirley was seeking her half-brother? What was Hepzibah, the housekeeper from hell, doing there? She was an old gray haired woman when Shirley was a very young child? Who was the man with her in that house? Why was Violeta the sole heir in Shirley's father's will and where was she? Where was her half brother at this time? A lot of loose ends unexplained. Finally, I agree with those who would have preferred a sequel of the period when Gil and Shirley were married and raising their two daughters and adopted son. Perhaps director Sullivan is thinking of following the example of "The Thorn Birds" and creating a new chapter titled, "Anne of Green Gables- The Missing Years." If so, he shouldn't try it without the original pair.
21 Reviews
Despite One Bravura Performance, Not up to Previous Episodes
hjmsia4917 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Anne fans deserved better
CosmicFlixProductions21 August 2009
I feel like it's all about the money at this point. Again, the magic from the first two is gone. Visually, it's a nice film to look at. I loved seeing Green Gables itself again and happy we got to see more of it than part three. But in my own opinion it's a step down yet again. Three was a let down and so is this one. They should have stopped after Anne 2; and left Anne and Gil on the bridge. I would have preferred to leave it up to the imagination than having this film. Where is the movie with Anne and Gil having children together? Anne fans deserved better. After viewing this installment, I can't believe how anyone who loved the first two movies would ever accept this film. It wasn't what I imagined at all and trying to tie this in simply to make a buck is awful. Thanks, Kevin. I liked three better than this. This film visually is an improvement over Anne 3 but come on, Diana and Rachel fans will be disappointed for one thing! The smartest people in the whole development of Anne '4' are the original actors who decided to stay OUT of it. Especially Megan Follows. You'll always be Anne to me.
DO NOT watch this movie if you ever liked Anne or care about her character
hotcrossplums20 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Wow. I'm amazed that Kevin Sullivan made this movie. To me, this is just sad. Pathetic and sad. Kevin Sullivan clearly is in need of some cash, so he and his company decide to trot the "Anne" story out again and see if they can ring it dry, squeeze a bit more profit out.
I am completely rejecting this story as part of the "Anne" story. Kill off Gilbert? What a joke. That does not happen. I am actually angry at Sullivan for betraying the fans with this drivel. How dare he concoct this horrible junk about Anne just to try and come up with something passing for a story?!! As for the actors, of course they are poorly cast. But I don't fault them. No one could ever take the place of the original actors, so it was an impossible task.
Maybe the movie could have worked if it weren't an add-on to such a powerful mythology that so many people care about and love.
Shame on you, Kevin Sullivan, for betraying the fans that have loved Anne of Green Gables. You clearly can't come up with anything that can add positively to the "Anne" series. The horse is dead. Stop beating it.
I am completely rejecting this story as part of the "Anne" story. Kill off Gilbert? What a joke. That does not happen. I am actually angry at Sullivan for betraying the fans with this drivel. How dare he concoct this horrible junk about Anne just to try and come up with something passing for a story?!! As for the actors, of course they are poorly cast. But I don't fault them. No one could ever take the place of the original actors, so it was an impossible task.
Maybe the movie could have worked if it weren't an add-on to such a powerful mythology that so many people care about and love.
Shame on you, Kevin Sullivan, for betraying the fans that have loved Anne of Green Gables. You clearly can't come up with anything that can add positively to the "Anne" series. The horse is dead. Stop beating it.
Anne: The End
Greens75875826 August 2009
Mr. Sullivan does not have a good track record in terms of his faithfulness to Mongtomery's books. The first movie was his closest and best adaptation. Anne the Sequel, though a well done movie, strays greatly from the original text. By the time we enter into the third movie all is lost. Hard to believe they would keep going, even after Anne: The Continuing Store was critically and publicly panned!
There is not a shred of Anne Shirley's character in Barbara Hershey. And although a fine actress, she struggles to bring merit to the character. The younger Anne comes closer, but her over acting (probably due to poor direction and terrible writing) renders her a mock-up of Megan Follows.
Even worse, Mr. Sullivan completely disregards Anne's back story, told in the first novel. He turns Anne into a liar and Marilla's moral judgment is jeopardized by a cheap subplot! The backdrop of Green Gables is always enchanting, but as a devoted fan I was distracted by the reused footage from previous movies and several episodes of Road to Avonlea. Who do they think they're kidding? It is too bad the powers that be do not listen to what Montgomery fans want and deserve. Movies that would have followed the novels more closely would have been more cherished than this invented drivel, only produced to make an easy buck.
The only redeeming quality is a brief glimpse of Mrs. Rachel Lynde at the very tail end of the movie. Her presence reminds us of what could and should have been.
There is not a shred of Anne Shirley's character in Barbara Hershey. And although a fine actress, she struggles to bring merit to the character. The younger Anne comes closer, but her over acting (probably due to poor direction and terrible writing) renders her a mock-up of Megan Follows.
Even worse, Mr. Sullivan completely disregards Anne's back story, told in the first novel. He turns Anne into a liar and Marilla's moral judgment is jeopardized by a cheap subplot! The backdrop of Green Gables is always enchanting, but as a devoted fan I was distracted by the reused footage from previous movies and several episodes of Road to Avonlea. Who do they think they're kidding? It is too bad the powers that be do not listen to what Montgomery fans want and deserve. Movies that would have followed the novels more closely would have been more cherished than this invented drivel, only produced to make an easy buck.
The only redeeming quality is a brief glimpse of Mrs. Rachel Lynde at the very tail end of the movie. Her presence reminds us of what could and should have been.
This film is a travesty
Mobiusgrl5 December 2009
I had heard this was being made and have just seen it for the first time. Kevin Sullivan should be mortified, but I doubt that he has the good taste to know it. The writing is dreadful, the rape of the original story and characters appalling, the abuse of an iconic Canadian story tragic. And on top of that, the quality of the film-making is and insult to the term 'amateur'. It's painful.
I have heard tales of the legendary hubris of Mr. Sullivan but this falls below even the lowest expectation. The directing is so bad he manages to make well known accomplished American actors unwatchable. The sentimental posturing of Barbara Hershey is laughable and Shirley MacLaine looks like she's checking for exits. I guess everyone needs to top up the retirement fund, even legends. Fair enough. But what do a couple of ageing American stars know about Canada or the history of a maritime island most Americans never heard of? What do they have to do with the heart or memory of this story? Their rhythm is wrong. Hollywood plunked itself down in PEI farmland to tell them who they were. Ridiculous. Offensive.
Kevin Sullivan, whatever glutinous ambitious distortions and abuses you have flung across the memory of this story, you could hardly have done worse than this piece of insulting exploitive drivel. I find it difficult to imagine anyone in Canada will ever watch anything you are attached to again. Shame on any Canadian agency for funding you. I commend the past cast members for eschewing this abortion of a script and certainly you as a 'director'.
Hard enough to get Canadian stories told...but this is criminal.
I have heard tales of the legendary hubris of Mr. Sullivan but this falls below even the lowest expectation. The directing is so bad he manages to make well known accomplished American actors unwatchable. The sentimental posturing of Barbara Hershey is laughable and Shirley MacLaine looks like she's checking for exits. I guess everyone needs to top up the retirement fund, even legends. Fair enough. But what do a couple of ageing American stars know about Canada or the history of a maritime island most Americans never heard of? What do they have to do with the heart or memory of this story? Their rhythm is wrong. Hollywood plunked itself down in PEI farmland to tell them who they were. Ridiculous. Offensive.
Kevin Sullivan, whatever glutinous ambitious distortions and abuses you have flung across the memory of this story, you could hardly have done worse than this piece of insulting exploitive drivel. I find it difficult to imagine anyone in Canada will ever watch anything you are attached to again. Shame on any Canadian agency for funding you. I commend the past cast members for eschewing this abortion of a script and certainly you as a 'director'.
Hard enough to get Canadian stories told...but this is criminal.
Sullivan's newest take is liberties that don't really match up to the grandeur of the originals
Robert_duder15 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
It has been years since I've seen the original Anne of Green Gable films and I think I've only seen the third installment once. Nonetheless the first two films are two of my favorite films and brilliant classics of the story and very much defined Anne of Green Gables as much as the books have ever been. So I was excited to see Kevin Sullivan adapt another story about Anne Shirley and her life. I knew by looking at the commercials that it would be a different spin on the story and maybe even take liberties with the story and I'm okay with that if it fits. I will give Sullivan credit this story does manage to mostly fit perfectly in with the other films he made. However it also changes the entire Anne Shirley story a great deal and while some reviewers argue it doesn't matter I think it does. The entire concept of Anne not being a true "orphan" is a liberty that I don't think should have taken. Her existence as an orphan shaped her entire life. But the new adventures, the story before she came to Green Gables is still fun and interesting and it gives you a new side to the overall story which is a welcome addition.
If there is one truly brilliant thing to come from this film it is the performance of the young Hannah Endicott-Douglas as Anne Shirley. Meghan Follows embodied and created the single best character performance of Anne Shirley, it would seemingly be impossible to find someone who could do the same job at the same caliber and yet here comes young Hannah and she does exactly that. Her performance is brilliant, Emmy worthy (or Canadian equivalent), and she is completely believable as a predecessor to the character Follows created. She is a gem! I don't know what circumstances prevented Meghan Follows from returning to her role as the older Anne but Sullivan should have stopped at nothing to bring her back. She could have easily played that role and instead they got Barbara Hershey? A peculiar and wrong choice for the role. She was just boring and didn't have any of the heart required to play this role. By calculations she should have been mid 40's at the oldest and she looked and acted like she was in her sixties. For big fans of the original you will be pleased to see the return of Jayne Eastwood as Mrs. Hammond, and a brief cameo by Patricia Hamilton as the classic character Rachel Lynde.
What has made Anne of Green Gables the classics they are thus far are the adventures and the midadventures. On top of that the characters are probably the most important part. So what made this installment not meet the previous grandeur of the series? The adventures were there, the stories in tact but the characters lacked the same depth and heart. Outside of the main character there were no supporting characters that you really become enthralled with. Certainly if you happen upon this film without seeing the previous ones you might not catch some of the true story behind it but then you might find it more entertaining but if you, like me and millions of others, are enormous passionate fans of the original films (especially the first two) then you'll appreciate the attempt at continuing Anne's story but miss the heart. 7/10
If there is one truly brilliant thing to come from this film it is the performance of the young Hannah Endicott-Douglas as Anne Shirley. Meghan Follows embodied and created the single best character performance of Anne Shirley, it would seemingly be impossible to find someone who could do the same job at the same caliber and yet here comes young Hannah and she does exactly that. Her performance is brilliant, Emmy worthy (or Canadian equivalent), and she is completely believable as a predecessor to the character Follows created. She is a gem! I don't know what circumstances prevented Meghan Follows from returning to her role as the older Anne but Sullivan should have stopped at nothing to bring her back. She could have easily played that role and instead they got Barbara Hershey? A peculiar and wrong choice for the role. She was just boring and didn't have any of the heart required to play this role. By calculations she should have been mid 40's at the oldest and she looked and acted like she was in her sixties. For big fans of the original you will be pleased to see the return of Jayne Eastwood as Mrs. Hammond, and a brief cameo by Patricia Hamilton as the classic character Rachel Lynde.
What has made Anne of Green Gables the classics they are thus far are the adventures and the midadventures. On top of that the characters are probably the most important part. So what made this installment not meet the previous grandeur of the series? The adventures were there, the stories in tact but the characters lacked the same depth and heart. Outside of the main character there were no supporting characters that you really become enthralled with. Certainly if you happen upon this film without seeing the previous ones you might not catch some of the true story behind it but then you might find it more entertaining but if you, like me and millions of others, are enormous passionate fans of the original films (especially the first two) then you'll appreciate the attempt at continuing Anne's story but miss the heart. 7/10
I could swallow Continuing story, but this is a disgrace to Anne books and shows total lack of invention!
Silverquill29 May 2011
As if Contonuing Story was not enough, here comes this. It's just awful what they made with the books. Bad script, bad directing, bad story in general. Bad story badly told just about sums it up. It doesn't even deserve a vote.
And I just can't forgive for making references to continuing story and Dominic and not to the books, which are far far better than this and at the same time killing Gilbert. And a nostalgic Anne? Where's her spirit? Much as I respect Shirley MacLaine, the actress wasn't convincing at all. None of the cast were. And it just goes off show- it doesn't matter if you bring in good actresses- if the plot is undigestible. This movie butchered the characters. Butchered. The first two movies were very much in tone with the books, very much like Anne should be.
But this final installment is just a disgrace to the entire series of my beloved books. No thank you. It annoyed me beyond all possible measure. And I do not consder myself a purist when it comes to movie-book adaptations. Except this one time.
But I suppose if you're not too big on the books, you may like it, especially if you like parent- child focused stories. But it's just as bad as Secret garden two, where another lookalike steps in and a story is supposed to give the viewer a sense of circular repetition and closure. Which is really bad with Anne. I was really discouraged to see this disaster.
Total nonsense. please, let someone make Anne movies based more on the books. Please, do the books justice!
And I just can't forgive for making references to continuing story and Dominic and not to the books, which are far far better than this and at the same time killing Gilbert. And a nostalgic Anne? Where's her spirit? Much as I respect Shirley MacLaine, the actress wasn't convincing at all. None of the cast were. And it just goes off show- it doesn't matter if you bring in good actresses- if the plot is undigestible. This movie butchered the characters. Butchered. The first two movies were very much in tone with the books, very much like Anne should be.
But this final installment is just a disgrace to the entire series of my beloved books. No thank you. It annoyed me beyond all possible measure. And I do not consder myself a purist when it comes to movie-book adaptations. Except this one time.
But I suppose if you're not too big on the books, you may like it, especially if you like parent- child focused stories. But it's just as bad as Secret garden two, where another lookalike steps in and a story is supposed to give the viewer a sense of circular repetition and closure. Which is really bad with Anne. I was really discouraged to see this disaster.
Total nonsense. please, let someone make Anne movies based more on the books. Please, do the books justice!
It's not bad...but it's not Anne.
JohnnyOldSoul24 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Throughout this film, I kept asking myself: "Who let the air out?" The story did seem to go along like a balloon, hanging close to the grown, the air slowly seeping out. All the ingredients were there, fine performers, beautiful photography, an interesting story...so why do things still seem so amiss?
Had this film been a standalone story, with no connection to Anne Shirley, I think it would have been much better received. The tragic upbringing of young Anne was heartrending...but didn't ring true.
There were fine points to this film, to be sure. The final monologue by the middle-aged Anne Shirley, sitting on the veranda at Green Gables and writing, was beautiful:
"Everything that's happened in my life, the good and the bad, is more than I could have ever made up. I do long to write, and I will write about all of it. My life has been unexpected, exceptional really. Eventually, the more love a person gives, the easier it is to find. That's the only part that matters, nothing else. And it's so much nicer to be Anne of Green Gables than to be Anne of nowhere in particular."
That last line brought a tear to my eye, because it's full of so much truth. However, most of the rest of the film was flat in comparison. I shan't criticize Sullivan's deviation from the books, as he was not permitted to adapt any more of the novels (which was the right decision, given the debacle that was Anne 3.) Sullivan did, however, stay truer to the television "Avonlea" universe in this film. In the series "Road to Avonlea" Anne and Gilbert were married when Marilla died, however in Anne 3, she has long since died when the Blythes finally marry. There are no such plot holes in this film, thankfully.
Many of the performances in this film were quite good. I think Barbara Hershey was rather fine as Anne. Hannah Endicott-Douglas was an inspired choice as young Anne, at times bearing an uncanny similarity to Megan Follows in appearance and delivery. Rachel Blanchard, who I was mostly familiar with through her performance as Cher in the series "Clueless," has shown that she is quite a capable dramatic actress.
I have always admired and enjoyed Shirley MacLaine. In this film, however, she seems to be phoning it in. I was left wondering if there had been script changes she didn't like after signing on the dotted line. That is mere supposition on my part, however.
Sullivan's direction and writing, while adequate, don't really serve the performers well. There's a pitch to the performances that doesn't always ring true. It feels as if Kevin Sullivan kept asking them to make it bigger and bigger, until it was just TOO big.
Another issue I had with the film was the way the characters motivations were a complete departure from what had gone before. Anne as a liar...one can believe a child from such circumstances doing the things young Anne did to hide her painful background. However, this is simply not Anne. For all her faults, Anne's saving grace was her honesty. That is missing here. Also, Marilla hiding the letter from Anne's father was unbelievable. While Marilla may have been reluctant, she was a woman with a strong sense of duty and of right and wrong. It is the essence of her character, and that was disposed of without a thought.
There were a few interesting uses of stock footage in this film that actually work rather well. The Colleen Dewhurst footage was seamless, and quite welcome.
Jayne Eastwood returning briefly as the cruel Mrs. Hammond was well played. Eastwood recreated the vocal part of her earlier performance perfectly. We only see her in long shot, so she doesn't seemed to have aged at all. That was nicely done.
Patricia Hamilton's cameo as Rachel Lynde was most welcome, and it's good to know she and Hetty King are still going strong (however it is implied that Hetty King is standing next to Rachel, but there was no attempt to cast an extra that resembled Jackie Burroughs.)
Despite the serious flaws in direction and storytelling, "Anne of Green Gables: A New Beginning" was an interesting, and sporadically entertaining evening of television viewing for me. While I understand what Kevin Sullivan was trying to accomplish, I really do think it's time that he put Anne to bed. I was never one of those fans who clamored for another sequel. I would have been happy if we had simply been left to imagine what happened to Anne and Gilbert after they declared their love on the bridge. I always hoped that it would inspire young and old alike to explore the books by Lucy Maud Montgomery.
Taken on its own merits, the film can be enjoyed, but only if one can divorce it from all that has come before in the Anne franchise.
Had this film been a standalone story, with no connection to Anne Shirley, I think it would have been much better received. The tragic upbringing of young Anne was heartrending...but didn't ring true.
There were fine points to this film, to be sure. The final monologue by the middle-aged Anne Shirley, sitting on the veranda at Green Gables and writing, was beautiful:
"Everything that's happened in my life, the good and the bad, is more than I could have ever made up. I do long to write, and I will write about all of it. My life has been unexpected, exceptional really. Eventually, the more love a person gives, the easier it is to find. That's the only part that matters, nothing else. And it's so much nicer to be Anne of Green Gables than to be Anne of nowhere in particular."
That last line brought a tear to my eye, because it's full of so much truth. However, most of the rest of the film was flat in comparison. I shan't criticize Sullivan's deviation from the books, as he was not permitted to adapt any more of the novels (which was the right decision, given the debacle that was Anne 3.) Sullivan did, however, stay truer to the television "Avonlea" universe in this film. In the series "Road to Avonlea" Anne and Gilbert were married when Marilla died, however in Anne 3, she has long since died when the Blythes finally marry. There are no such plot holes in this film, thankfully.
Many of the performances in this film were quite good. I think Barbara Hershey was rather fine as Anne. Hannah Endicott-Douglas was an inspired choice as young Anne, at times bearing an uncanny similarity to Megan Follows in appearance and delivery. Rachel Blanchard, who I was mostly familiar with through her performance as Cher in the series "Clueless," has shown that she is quite a capable dramatic actress.
I have always admired and enjoyed Shirley MacLaine. In this film, however, she seems to be phoning it in. I was left wondering if there had been script changes she didn't like after signing on the dotted line. That is mere supposition on my part, however.
Sullivan's direction and writing, while adequate, don't really serve the performers well. There's a pitch to the performances that doesn't always ring true. It feels as if Kevin Sullivan kept asking them to make it bigger and bigger, until it was just TOO big.
Another issue I had with the film was the way the characters motivations were a complete departure from what had gone before. Anne as a liar...one can believe a child from such circumstances doing the things young Anne did to hide her painful background. However, this is simply not Anne. For all her faults, Anne's saving grace was her honesty. That is missing here. Also, Marilla hiding the letter from Anne's father was unbelievable. While Marilla may have been reluctant, she was a woman with a strong sense of duty and of right and wrong. It is the essence of her character, and that was disposed of without a thought.
There were a few interesting uses of stock footage in this film that actually work rather well. The Colleen Dewhurst footage was seamless, and quite welcome.
Jayne Eastwood returning briefly as the cruel Mrs. Hammond was well played. Eastwood recreated the vocal part of her earlier performance perfectly. We only see her in long shot, so she doesn't seemed to have aged at all. That was nicely done.
Patricia Hamilton's cameo as Rachel Lynde was most welcome, and it's good to know she and Hetty King are still going strong (however it is implied that Hetty King is standing next to Rachel, but there was no attempt to cast an extra that resembled Jackie Burroughs.)
Despite the serious flaws in direction and storytelling, "Anne of Green Gables: A New Beginning" was an interesting, and sporadically entertaining evening of television viewing for me. While I understand what Kevin Sullivan was trying to accomplish, I really do think it's time that he put Anne to bed. I was never one of those fans who clamored for another sequel. I would have been happy if we had simply been left to imagine what happened to Anne and Gilbert after they declared their love on the bridge. I always hoped that it would inspire young and old alike to explore the books by Lucy Maud Montgomery.
Taken on its own merits, the film can be enjoyed, but only if one can divorce it from all that has come before in the Anne franchise.
Total mess!!!!! SPOILERS
vega-376 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I only had to watch the trailer and I am completely horrified. So, pardon me, but this is not a review of the actual movie because it would be "heaping coals of fire on my head" to watch the actual movie. If you don't know what that expression means, then you, like Kevin Sullivan, have not read the books.
Who knew Anne would have plastic surgery in her dotage?(sorry Barbara, but it's really obvious, and you are not well cast as Anne)
Who knew her father didn't die at the same time her mother did, although it states this clearly in the books.
Who knew Gil would go to war too and DIE (who the hell is Gil? There was no Gil! You mean Gilbert. He was never called Gil, ever...only when Anne cut his name off because she didn't want to be suspected of liking him-DUH)
Why would you make Anne single, what, to spice up the story? Guess what, romance actually can exist in a marriage that lasts for many years. It's right there in the books, but again, you don't appear to be able to read.
Why change something that is already so perfect? LM Montgomery's family should be totally ashamed of themselves for giving this soulless man the chance to take such awful liberties with a cherished gem.
Mr Sullivan, you are the worst kind of filmmaker. You don't GET IT. You don't understand your story and have killed the whole beauty of it. You smelled money and you haven't looked back. And people no longer have the ability to READ so they think the movies you have so badly messed with ARE the stories. I couldn't watch any of them after the second one they were so horrible. This goes for everything Sullivan Home Entertainment has ever done that has been based on poor Maud's books. She would just despise you.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH US? Do the British have to get hold of this to make it work? Do we have to ask the producers of the 1995 (NOT 2005) version of Pride and Prejudice to come and do all of this over and make it work? What a horrendous, shameful, idiotic mess.
Who knew Anne would have plastic surgery in her dotage?(sorry Barbara, but it's really obvious, and you are not well cast as Anne)
Who knew her father didn't die at the same time her mother did, although it states this clearly in the books.
Who knew Gil would go to war too and DIE (who the hell is Gil? There was no Gil! You mean Gilbert. He was never called Gil, ever...only when Anne cut his name off because she didn't want to be suspected of liking him-DUH)
Why would you make Anne single, what, to spice up the story? Guess what, romance actually can exist in a marriage that lasts for many years. It's right there in the books, but again, you don't appear to be able to read.
Why change something that is already so perfect? LM Montgomery's family should be totally ashamed of themselves for giving this soulless man the chance to take such awful liberties with a cherished gem.
Mr Sullivan, you are the worst kind of filmmaker. You don't GET IT. You don't understand your story and have killed the whole beauty of it. You smelled money and you haven't looked back. And people no longer have the ability to READ so they think the movies you have so badly messed with ARE the stories. I couldn't watch any of them after the second one they were so horrible. This goes for everything Sullivan Home Entertainment has ever done that has been based on poor Maud's books. She would just despise you.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH US? Do the British have to get hold of this to make it work? Do we have to ask the producers of the 1995 (NOT 2005) version of Pride and Prejudice to come and do all of this over and make it work? What a horrendous, shameful, idiotic mess.
Terrible!
cats-9999528 December 2018
I was very disappointed
norswede15 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I couldn't even get through the first hour of this disaster. I don't even know where to begin. First of all their choice for the part of the older Anne was horrendous. She looked nothing like her and didn't have the same feel to her as the original actress did. And as for the girl who played young Anne, for the most part she was alright until she got excited, then her voice almost gave me a migraine. The original actress had a sweet and refreshing bubbliness to her personality, but this girl was trying too hard to achieve what came naturally to the original actress. I was also very disappointed that they killed Gilbert off. After everything Anne went through in The Continuing Story to find him in the war, they just go and kill him off in another one? It just seems like a cruel joke. If the original actor refused to come back they could have at least cast someone else in his place. They couldn't have possibly picked anyone worse than their choice for Anne. I'm sure I'm not the only fan of the books and the first 2 movies who waited so long to see Anne and Gilbert get together only to be left hanging after the climatic moment at the end of the first sequel. I found that the Continuing Story was exciting enough with all the action but it was lacking the romance I longed for between Anne and Gilbert. I was hoping that this movie would show them finally together and happy for a change, let us see the romantic side of their relationship for more than 2 minutes. Overall, I was extremely disappointed. They had the opportunity to finally give the fans what they had been waiting years to see. A chance to see Anne and Gilbert build a family together and live happily ever after but we were cheated out of that.
A TRAVESTY
archi-530 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I grew up with the "Anne" books and reread them for years, then watched the Megan Fellows films as they came out on PBS. Now at 70 years old, I thought I found a continuation of these best loved books. But I find that Kevin Sullivan has made a liar out of Anne, out of her author, by telling us that she made up stories about her origins, and that, therefore, the Anne books are untrue.
I am so sorry I found this film as it really leaves a bad taste in one's mouth.
I am so sorry I found this film as it really leaves a bad taste in one's mouth.
Like going from Star Wars 8 to 9
sketchatron24 March 2021
Remember when you watched Anne The Continuing Story and thought "well this is kind of dumb, and totally goes against the books, and pretty much common sense, and those continuity issues of their ages, and on and on"? Well that was kind of like Star wars 8 and you thought it destroyed everything. Then came this new movie and you thought there might be some sort of redemption...but just like Star wars 9, it turned out to be an even bigger dumpster fire, and it spat in the face of the previous story. I'm guessing 90% of this movie is basically false and impossible. I was kind of expecting Anne in this story to come out of the shower at the end like Bobby Ewing and the whole thing was just a dream.
What the blazes was Sullivan thinking?!?!?! ( contains spoilers )
shaybale15 June 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I have always had an obsession with the Anne of Green Gables movies. ALways. to the point that one of the things on my "bucket list" is to eventually visit the green gables homestead in PEI where the films were made.
first off they have someone ELSE playing ANne - Megan Follows and Johnathon Crombie ( gilbert) apparently refused to be in the film because it was so vastly different from the books ) .. PLUS Sullivan killed off Gilbert - GILBERT!!! claiming he died in WW2.. which in itself is a load of horse-crap, and would warrant a tar and feathering at the hands of the fans ... !! but now all of a sudden, Anne's parents also did NOT die of scarlet fever when she was 3 months old..( REALLY?!?!?! ) but her mother supposedly actually died when Anne was 11, in a horse buggy accident and her father has been alive this whole time?? ( are you freaking kidding me??? )Diana is nowhere to be found, there is ZERO mention of any of Anne and Gil's other 4 children.. ( only of Dominic ( who was never even mentioned in the series ) and one other child Ummmm.. NO!!! to any TRUE A.O.G.G fans.. this is next door to a travesty of Epic proportions!!
when you have such a Strong connection to a series throughout your childhood, and then some Nimrod goes and changes everything you loved and held sacred about the stories...this is NOT OKAY!! what a waste of time.
first off they have someone ELSE playing ANne - Megan Follows and Johnathon Crombie ( gilbert) apparently refused to be in the film because it was so vastly different from the books ) .. PLUS Sullivan killed off Gilbert - GILBERT!!! claiming he died in WW2.. which in itself is a load of horse-crap, and would warrant a tar and feathering at the hands of the fans ... !! but now all of a sudden, Anne's parents also did NOT die of scarlet fever when she was 3 months old..( REALLY?!?!?! ) but her mother supposedly actually died when Anne was 11, in a horse buggy accident and her father has been alive this whole time?? ( are you freaking kidding me??? )Diana is nowhere to be found, there is ZERO mention of any of Anne and Gil's other 4 children.. ( only of Dominic ( who was never even mentioned in the series ) and one other child Ummmm.. NO!!! to any TRUE A.O.G.G fans.. this is next door to a travesty of Epic proportions!!
when you have such a Strong connection to a series throughout your childhood, and then some Nimrod goes and changes everything you loved and held sacred about the stories...this is NOT OKAY!! what a waste of time.
Bizarre conitnuation of the story
moorthyr12 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I am a big fan of LM Montgomery and her Anne books. The first two movies were faithful enough to the books (with some creative license taken), but the next two (AGG: The Continuing Story, and this one) are a bizarre detour with all sorts of fundamental changes from the books. Why? I won't even waste your time with all the weird changes, but Kevin Sullivan butchered this movie, and while Shirley Maclaine is a revered actress, she was wooden in this movie.
If you like the books even a bit don't waste your time with this (in fact, don't waste your time even if you don't know the books, it is a weak movie, no matter what).
If you like the books even a bit don't waste your time with this (in fact, don't waste your time even if you don't know the books, it is a weak movie, no matter what).
Just depressing what they did to this series
freesharmi26 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I first read the synopsis of the movie and thought it was odd that they cast Barbara Hershey as Anne. I just couldn't figure out why! Then I actually watched the movie and realized that Megan Follows was a smart lady and wanted nothing to do with this horrible plot line. Turning Anne into a liar? I mean, that was the main draw to her. In the original movies one thing she was not was a liar and had a sweet innocence about her.
My other problem with this movie is that Diana was her "bosom friend" throughout but in this movie she is just and afterthought. I would have preferred they never mention her at all rather than sticking a look alike (who REALLY did NOT look like her) in at the end for two seconds.
The "flashbacks" of Anne were more watchable than the "flash forwards" and I found myself actually getting irritated when Barbara Hershey was on screen. So they kill off Gilbert so now Anne is a mopey mess. Sorry, even when she was in the "depths of despair" in the originals, she still had life.
Now my last problem with this movie is the "long lost brother" plot line thrown in at the end. It just felt hollow. She goes all the way to Boston to find her father, finds out she has a half-brother, gets to Violetta's (who is inexplicably mad at either her or her father, I really couldn't figure that one out) who would not see her, asks whoever is there to see her half-brother, and then all Anne does is rip up a card and leaves. That's it. No fight...nothing. Just leaves. Goes home. But wait....he shows up for some reason (how he got to find out about her or who told him is never explained) at the end of the movie. You never hear the exchange, just a far of shot of them shaking hands, saying a few words to each other, and then hugging. It was just awkward.
It seems to me that Barbara Hershey (who I think is a wonderful actress) never took the time to see the original movies so she really didn't get the right feel for the Anne character.
My other problem with this movie is that Diana was her "bosom friend" throughout but in this movie she is just and afterthought. I would have preferred they never mention her at all rather than sticking a look alike (who REALLY did NOT look like her) in at the end for two seconds.
The "flashbacks" of Anne were more watchable than the "flash forwards" and I found myself actually getting irritated when Barbara Hershey was on screen. So they kill off Gilbert so now Anne is a mopey mess. Sorry, even when she was in the "depths of despair" in the originals, she still had life.
Now my last problem with this movie is the "long lost brother" plot line thrown in at the end. It just felt hollow. She goes all the way to Boston to find her father, finds out she has a half-brother, gets to Violetta's (who is inexplicably mad at either her or her father, I really couldn't figure that one out) who would not see her, asks whoever is there to see her half-brother, and then all Anne does is rip up a card and leaves. That's it. No fight...nothing. Just leaves. Goes home. But wait....he shows up for some reason (how he got to find out about her or who told him is never explained) at the end of the movie. You never hear the exchange, just a far of shot of them shaking hands, saying a few words to each other, and then hugging. It was just awkward.
It seems to me that Barbara Hershey (who I think is a wonderful actress) never took the time to see the original movies so she really didn't get the right feel for the Anne character.
My review of "Anne of Green Gables: A New Beginning"
lh57424 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILERS!!!
Although Anne 4 was far from perfect, there was an underlying beauty to it that touched me. It wasn't as emotionally detached as Anne 3. Being an adopted aspiring writer myself, it struck a personal chord with me when the adult Anne said things like, "Not knowing who your real parents are can haunt you," and "I used to long to write." These components truly got to me emotionally.
I know I'm about to raise eyebrows here, but the performance of young Anne by Hannah Endicott-Douglas was dead-on pitch perfect, and honestly, it was just as good as Megan Follows' performance in the first film. This little girl is an absolute marvel. It was jarring, however, to see a different actress playing Anne in a Sullivan film. I'm so used to Megan's portrayal that I had to really try and get past that.
Anne 1 and Anne 2 are glimpses into Anne's life after she has finally found happiness and a place to call home, as well as a sense of herself as a worthy human being, a girl (and eventually a woman), and a writer. She finds a new set of parents with Matthew and Marilla in an idyllic, beautiful setting that she so richly deserved. Anne 3 is a test of loyalty to both her character and the love of her life, Gilbert, as well as the aforementioned metaphor for the loss of childhood innocence. The world is altering the world, and Anne is trying to deal with that disturbing fact, especially when it reaches into her personal life. Anne 4 is a semi-dark, semi-warm introduction to someone we already know, presenting an explanation that fleshes out Anne's personality before we initially met her in the first film. Now that Gilbert has dies, the older, matured Anne must fill a void in her life by writing a play, finding the answers to new questions regarding a father she long presumed dead and a past she had buried long ago, and reconnecting to that part of herself which she had almost given up on due to her grief --- a writer. I will always prefer the first two films, because I grew up with them and I prefer the warmth of their stories. But I don't dismiss the third and fourth installments, either, because I feel that they, too have many interesting things to offer.
I had no idea that the character of Hetty King would make a cameo appearance, but even though you couldn't really see her, I was ecstatic about it nonetheless. It was great to see Rachel again, and it's nice to know she and Hetty remained friends. (What a sweet homage to Road to Avonlea fans.) Yes, I wish Rachel had some dialogue, just as I wished that her part had been longer in Anne 3 and that we had seen her at Anne and Gil's wedding. But the movie wasn't about Anne's friends. It was all about Anne herself.
I LOVED the music in this film more than in any of the other films, and the ending was absolutely beautiful, nowhere near as sappy as I'd read. Plus, the scene with Anne stretched out on Gil's grave was heartbreaking.
Which leads me to another point. Some people are upset that Gilbert is dead. Well, would you rather have Jonathon Crombie in old age makeup playing opposite Barbara Hershey? Or would you rather have a different actor playing Gil altogether? There was a point to Gil's death, which furthered the story. It was Anne's grief over Gil and her worrying of Dominic that fueled her motivations to rediscover herself as a writer. It's a shame, though, that Matthew and Marilla never got to know any of Anne's children, and vice-versa. I mean, think about it. Kevin Sullivan was legally forbidden to adapt any more stories from the novels. But he did want to give the fans more of Anne. So when he does, everyone retaliates against him with dissatisfaction. I honestly feel sorry for the man. He did what people asked him to do, with limited resources other than his own imagination, and everyone still griped about it. It could've been worse. He could've made Gil die in WW1 and Anne run off with Jack Garrison. He could've had Green Gables not be reconstructed after it burned down (and there was significance in its burning). He could've had little Anne in part 4 be some sort of pathological liar, and older Anne marry her friend Gene Armstrong. Even though the later films deviate so drastically from the novels, everything Sullivan did was pretty true to the spirit of Anne (in my opinion), even if it was his own fan fiction. If Anne 3 and Anne 4 were fan fictions presented on this message board, rather than actual movies, people would be going wild with how much they loved them, saying things like, "That would make a great movie!"
I mean, really --- who cares if Anne wasn't truly an orphan by the true definition of the word? All that matters is Green Gables and beyond. I think this entry provides an even more interesting layer to the first film, which I have since rewatched in order to see if everything from part 4 tied into part 1, and it did. People are making a mistake comparing the movies to the books. They're two completely separate mediums. I like the fact that we have two different Anne universes, those of the books and those of the films.
Of course, nothing will ever top the second Anne film for me.
Although Anne 4 was far from perfect, there was an underlying beauty to it that touched me. It wasn't as emotionally detached as Anne 3. Being an adopted aspiring writer myself, it struck a personal chord with me when the adult Anne said things like, "Not knowing who your real parents are can haunt you," and "I used to long to write." These components truly got to me emotionally.
I know I'm about to raise eyebrows here, but the performance of young Anne by Hannah Endicott-Douglas was dead-on pitch perfect, and honestly, it was just as good as Megan Follows' performance in the first film. This little girl is an absolute marvel. It was jarring, however, to see a different actress playing Anne in a Sullivan film. I'm so used to Megan's portrayal that I had to really try and get past that.
Anne 1 and Anne 2 are glimpses into Anne's life after she has finally found happiness and a place to call home, as well as a sense of herself as a worthy human being, a girl (and eventually a woman), and a writer. She finds a new set of parents with Matthew and Marilla in an idyllic, beautiful setting that she so richly deserved. Anne 3 is a test of loyalty to both her character and the love of her life, Gilbert, as well as the aforementioned metaphor for the loss of childhood innocence. The world is altering the world, and Anne is trying to deal with that disturbing fact, especially when it reaches into her personal life. Anne 4 is a semi-dark, semi-warm introduction to someone we already know, presenting an explanation that fleshes out Anne's personality before we initially met her in the first film. Now that Gilbert has dies, the older, matured Anne must fill a void in her life by writing a play, finding the answers to new questions regarding a father she long presumed dead and a past she had buried long ago, and reconnecting to that part of herself which she had almost given up on due to her grief --- a writer. I will always prefer the first two films, because I grew up with them and I prefer the warmth of their stories. But I don't dismiss the third and fourth installments, either, because I feel that they, too have many interesting things to offer.
I had no idea that the character of Hetty King would make a cameo appearance, but even though you couldn't really see her, I was ecstatic about it nonetheless. It was great to see Rachel again, and it's nice to know she and Hetty remained friends. (What a sweet homage to Road to Avonlea fans.) Yes, I wish Rachel had some dialogue, just as I wished that her part had been longer in Anne 3 and that we had seen her at Anne and Gil's wedding. But the movie wasn't about Anne's friends. It was all about Anne herself.
I LOVED the music in this film more than in any of the other films, and the ending was absolutely beautiful, nowhere near as sappy as I'd read. Plus, the scene with Anne stretched out on Gil's grave was heartbreaking.
Which leads me to another point. Some people are upset that Gilbert is dead. Well, would you rather have Jonathon Crombie in old age makeup playing opposite Barbara Hershey? Or would you rather have a different actor playing Gil altogether? There was a point to Gil's death, which furthered the story. It was Anne's grief over Gil and her worrying of Dominic that fueled her motivations to rediscover herself as a writer. It's a shame, though, that Matthew and Marilla never got to know any of Anne's children, and vice-versa. I mean, think about it. Kevin Sullivan was legally forbidden to adapt any more stories from the novels. But he did want to give the fans more of Anne. So when he does, everyone retaliates against him with dissatisfaction. I honestly feel sorry for the man. He did what people asked him to do, with limited resources other than his own imagination, and everyone still griped about it. It could've been worse. He could've made Gil die in WW1 and Anne run off with Jack Garrison. He could've had Green Gables not be reconstructed after it burned down (and there was significance in its burning). He could've had little Anne in part 4 be some sort of pathological liar, and older Anne marry her friend Gene Armstrong. Even though the later films deviate so drastically from the novels, everything Sullivan did was pretty true to the spirit of Anne (in my opinion), even if it was his own fan fiction. If Anne 3 and Anne 4 were fan fictions presented on this message board, rather than actual movies, people would be going wild with how much they loved them, saying things like, "That would make a great movie!"
I mean, really --- who cares if Anne wasn't truly an orphan by the true definition of the word? All that matters is Green Gables and beyond. I think this entry provides an even more interesting layer to the first film, which I have since rewatched in order to see if everything from part 4 tied into part 1, and it did. People are making a mistake comparing the movies to the books. They're two completely separate mediums. I like the fact that we have two different Anne universes, those of the books and those of the films.
Of course, nothing will ever top the second Anne film for me.
Horrible, horrible, horrible.
LadyOpheliac22 October 2011
Warning: Spoilers
No, seriously, this film pretty much just made me think of bad Harry Potter darkfic.(you know, the "abusive!Weasleys!", "Harmony!", "evil!Ron!", "Snape is secretly Harry's father!" kind of crap). And if you're creating a movie, it shouldn't seem like it's an awful fanfiction created by an angsty tween girl.
It wasn't a bad movie in itself(pretty scenery, decent actors), but why did Kevin Sullivan feel the need to connect it to the Anne universe? It bears no resemblance to the books whatsoever.
Oh, and Sullivan clearly doesn't know much about history. World War One happened when Anne's youngest child was 15-16. Clearly not what A New Beginning states. By that time, Gilbert was way too old to enter the war.
And I SERIOUSLY cannot grasp why Anne suddenly wasn't an orphan? It made her seem like a sick liar, and I don't think the canonical Anne would ever deliberately make up a story like that.
It wasn't a bad movie in itself(pretty scenery, decent actors), but why did Kevin Sullivan feel the need to connect it to the Anne universe? It bears no resemblance to the books whatsoever.
Oh, and Sullivan clearly doesn't know much about history. World War One happened when Anne's youngest child was 15-16. Clearly not what A New Beginning states. By that time, Gilbert was way too old to enter the war.
And I SERIOUSLY cannot grasp why Anne suddenly wasn't an orphan? It made her seem like a sick liar, and I don't think the canonical Anne would ever deliberately make up a story like that.
Pretend this one was never made. Not consistent with the the Wonderworks Production
samchung_rrt2 January 2024
Don't waste your time. Others had warned me not to bother, and I did not heed the warnings. This production is inconsistent with the Montgomery Books. Barbara Hershey is likely a miscast on top of a weak script. The production feels rushed with extremely awkward editing that has made the TV Movie hard to follow. Truly not worth watching, and will slightly ruin what you remember from the original WonderWorks Production. This version of Anne is depressing. They had a great character in Anne and turned her into that Lady in Black from The Natural. Not surprisingly, portrayed by the same actress. I didn't believe all the one star reviews, but I see clearly what everyone else has seen.
JUST SO BAD! Avoid at all cost.
tqdesign-9077920 February 2024
FYI: I ran this through AI because it needed to be > 600 chars. It conveys my thoughts well though.
My wife and I have always been avid admirers of the Anne of Green Gables series, along with its sequel, Avonlea. Our journey through these series via Gazebo has been nothing short of delightful, filled with the warmth and nostalgia that these stories are known for. In our quest to experience the entirety of this beloved universe, we decided it was time to watch the final video, hoping to complete what had been a heartwarming journey.
The anticipation was high as we settled in, expecting another enchanting visit to the world of Anne. However, our excitement quickly turned to dismay. Within the first hour, it became painfully clear that this installment strayed far from the elements that had initially drawn us in. The storyline had taken a surprisingly dark turn, and the plot felt disjointed, lacking the coherence and charm of its predecessors. Feeling increasingly uncomfortable, I turned to my wife and expressed my inability to continue, saying, "I can't watch this anymore. It's too dark. The story doesn't make any sense." To my relief, she shared my sentiments, admitting she too wanted to stop watching.
This experience led us to ponder how such a project received the necessary funding and support to come to fruition. It's bewildering that a series known for its light-hearted and engaging narrative could conclude with an installment that seemed so disconnected from its roots.
For fans of Anne of Green Gables and Avonlea, I would urge caution before venturing into this final video. If you hold dear the memories and joy these series have brought you, it might be wise to bypass this conclusion. It's a tough pill to swallow, but sometimes, leaving things unfinished is better than tarnishing the beautiful memories we've built. In our case, we chose to preserve our affection for Anne's world by foregoing this last chapter, and in hindsight, we're glad we did.
My wife and I have always been avid admirers of the Anne of Green Gables series, along with its sequel, Avonlea. Our journey through these series via Gazebo has been nothing short of delightful, filled with the warmth and nostalgia that these stories are known for. In our quest to experience the entirety of this beloved universe, we decided it was time to watch the final video, hoping to complete what had been a heartwarming journey.
The anticipation was high as we settled in, expecting another enchanting visit to the world of Anne. However, our excitement quickly turned to dismay. Within the first hour, it became painfully clear that this installment strayed far from the elements that had initially drawn us in. The storyline had taken a surprisingly dark turn, and the plot felt disjointed, lacking the coherence and charm of its predecessors. Feeling increasingly uncomfortable, I turned to my wife and expressed my inability to continue, saying, "I can't watch this anymore. It's too dark. The story doesn't make any sense." To my relief, she shared my sentiments, admitting she too wanted to stop watching.
This experience led us to ponder how such a project received the necessary funding and support to come to fruition. It's bewildering that a series known for its light-hearted and engaging narrative could conclude with an installment that seemed so disconnected from its roots.
For fans of Anne of Green Gables and Avonlea, I would urge caution before venturing into this final video. If you hold dear the memories and joy these series have brought you, it might be wise to bypass this conclusion. It's a tough pill to swallow, but sometimes, leaving things unfinished is better than tarnishing the beautiful memories we've built. In our case, we chose to preserve our affection for Anne's world by foregoing this last chapter, and in hindsight, we're glad we did.
A wonderful job, at least in the flashbacks
vchimpanzee26 July 2011
I enjoyed the scenes from Anne's childhood more than the 1945 scenes. I didn't like going back and forth.
Hannah Endicott-Douglas did a fine job for the most part, making young Anne such a delight, though at times she could be overly enthusiastic and I occasionally found myself agreeing with Violetta about how annoying she was. But that didn't last. Such an intelligent child, and so often positive despite what she had been through.
Rachel Blanchard, who I know mostly from her perky "Clueless" character, started out so stoic and proper, but turned warm and loving later on.
Shirley Maclaine did her usual good job--not necessarily likable at first, but over time it appears Anne has a good influence on most of those she comes in contact with.
Kyra Harper was a standout as the woman living at an abandoned mill who helped Anne from time to time. She was one of the few who really showed concern, when Anne was seeing mostly hostility from those taking care of her.
Bernhard Behrens also did a good job as a man who in today's society would be seen as eccentric. Back then, he was someone who needed to be kept locked away from society. and yet Anne saw value in him.
As for the 1945 scenes, I suppose they were pleasant enough. Nothing to write home about. Barbara Hershey has a nice smile and pretty hair, but she never quite made me like her. I'm not clear on who the man in her life was, but he added a lot. The efforts to make a play about her life a success didn't interest me too much.
Anne's search for details of her past was hard to watch, but at least some of her efforts had good results. The movie ended happily for me, even if not everything could be resolved.
This is a good family film, though some of the adversity Anne has to experience may not be appropriate for the youngest children. Anyone who can handle Dickens is probably ready to see this.
My primary complaints about this movie were based on the fact that, although Anne loved Green Gables, we never got to see why. We saw only her life after World War II and her difficult childhood. Later I found out this was a sequel. I have no experience with Anne of Green Gables, so I don't fully understand the hostility over this movie.
But if you're new to the character, this may be a good introduction.
Hannah Endicott-Douglas did a fine job for the most part, making young Anne such a delight, though at times she could be overly enthusiastic and I occasionally found myself agreeing with Violetta about how annoying she was. But that didn't last. Such an intelligent child, and so often positive despite what she had been through.
Rachel Blanchard, who I know mostly from her perky "Clueless" character, started out so stoic and proper, but turned warm and loving later on.
Shirley Maclaine did her usual good job--not necessarily likable at first, but over time it appears Anne has a good influence on most of those she comes in contact with.
Kyra Harper was a standout as the woman living at an abandoned mill who helped Anne from time to time. She was one of the few who really showed concern, when Anne was seeing mostly hostility from those taking care of her.
Bernhard Behrens also did a good job as a man who in today's society would be seen as eccentric. Back then, he was someone who needed to be kept locked away from society. and yet Anne saw value in him.
As for the 1945 scenes, I suppose they were pleasant enough. Nothing to write home about. Barbara Hershey has a nice smile and pretty hair, but she never quite made me like her. I'm not clear on who the man in her life was, but he added a lot. The efforts to make a play about her life a success didn't interest me too much.
Anne's search for details of her past was hard to watch, but at least some of her efforts had good results. The movie ended happily for me, even if not everything could be resolved.
This is a good family film, though some of the adversity Anne has to experience may not be appropriate for the youngest children. Anyone who can handle Dickens is probably ready to see this.
My primary complaints about this movie were based on the fact that, although Anne loved Green Gables, we never got to see why. We saw only her life after World War II and her difficult childhood. Later I found out this was a sequel. I have no experience with Anne of Green Gables, so I don't fully understand the hostility over this movie.
But if you're new to the character, this may be a good introduction.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
