Reviews for Anne of Green Gables ( ) 720p

IMDB: 6.4 / 10

Lovely and pure

I seriously don't understand all these critical reviews. It's not a tv series, obviously it cannot contain all the threads and details. It's just a movie, perfect for a lazy Sunday afternoon - and it doesn't pretend to be anything else. Moreover, it's a really decent piece of movie, with a very fine acting, proper dose of credibility and a spark of beauty. I watched it with a smile on my face and cried at the end - just as if I was a little girl reading this novel for the first time.

Unsatisfying

I'm someone who has favorites. If this remake were as good as the Megan Follows 1980s Canadian version I'd rate it better. But it falls completely short - its execution & performance are either flat or overdone (or simultaneous at times), & therefore BORING & annoying. Hated this one! The Megan Follows version is scripted somewhat differently than this one but performed and directed WONDERFULLY. They're worlds apart in quality cinema. Watch that one and compare to this. I happened to catch this on TV because they're playing it for Xmas time. I wish they'd just play my favorite one instead. This one may be good for families and kids who are growing up today & haven't seen Anne Of Green Gables before, I'm sure it's enjoyable enough (despite hammy acting). But for those of us who came of age when this was first featured on PBS Masterpiece Theatre, this new 2016 version a downright disappointment...& sadly very much in keeping with what's being created in American film these days.

Wrong,all is wrong and stupid

This adaptacion of 2016 really sucks. Gilbert has blonde hair, Diana has blonde hair Mr. Philips has blonde hair.. Wrong! The all have black hair, in this adaptation they say that there was a king, Wrong! There was queen Victoria. They said that all the girls hated Gilbert, Wrong! They don't wanted Anne to stay near him because they were jelause of her "friendship" with him and all the girls loved him, especially Ruby.Seriusly, I could make a list of all the things that were awfull,stupid and wrong! Did they even TRIED to read the book or at least did they knew what Montgomery's book was about? Nah.. lazy acting and movie production. This adaptation is horrible, the 2017 adaptation is the best. This is TRASH compared to the 2017 one.

Because I can't score lower than1

This remake is an empty shell compared to the 1985 movie.

The casting was awful. It felt like a "movie" shot in 2016 that was intended to be a period piece.

What you don't feel is any connection to the characters. The acting was flat.

Why would they even attempt to remake this movie when it was so beautifully told already. With the right cast that embodied the characters. It's frustrating to see the story butchered. Megan will always be the only Anne. Jonathan the only Gilbert. Colleen Dewhurst, Richard Farnsworth, Schuyler Grant... these actors really captured the spirit of the Anne of Green Gables stories.

Anne is believable

This Anne is real flesh and blood, utterly credible. So believable. I loved her interpretation of these familiar scenes, no histrionic over-acting. I couldn't give it 10 stars because I'm so very tired of Martin Sheen and wish they hadn't cast him. Of course the Megan Follows series is a classic; and I also saw Anne with an E (found her so distracting, cartoon characterish). But Elizabeth Ballentine as Anne of Green Gables was inspired re-telling.

Interesting adaptation

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.

Just Too Saccharine

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.

Excellent for small children

This movie is an excellent choice for small children discovering Anne! Although the best series by far is Kevin Sullivan's Anne of Green Gables, it is nearly unavailable in the United States in 2017. So, this version is a great introduction. It is very cute and sweet and very appropriate for children under the age of 10. There is another series by Moira Beckett called "Anne with an E" that I have been enjoying as an adult, but would not recommend for young children. It's just too dark and scary. I was thrilled to hear that L.M. Montgomery's family was licensing a televised version of these classic stories.

A waste of my time...

Every character in this remake of one of my all-time favorite movies is a miscast. That's because "Anne of Green Gables" didn't need to be revamped after the incredible 1985 version! It was VERY difficult to watch this 2016 movie and by the time the little guy was shown who plays Gilbert, I was OVER this remake. The acting from each person in the film seems so contrived and fake. I didn't buy any of it for a moment. I won't ever be watching it again, nor any sequels. The project is an insult to the perfection of the 1985 version in every way!

A waste of my time...

Every character in this remake of one of my all-time favorite movies is a miscast. That's because "Anne of Green Gables" didn't need to be revamped after the incredible 1985 version! It was VERY difficult to watch this 2016 movie and by the time the little guy was shown who plays Gilbert, I was OVER this remake. The acting from each person in the film seems so contrived and fake. I didn't buy any of it for a moment. I won't ever be watching it again, nor any sequels. The project is an insult to the perfection of the 1985 version in every way!

A very on the ball retelling of a beautiful tale

As someone whom grew up reading the entire series of Anne books, and having watched the TV Series, I was ready to be disappointed, but was not. Yes they changed things a little, but nothing intrinsic, I loved the moment Anne broke the the board over Gilbert's head. Yes it was an over reaction, and sadly as this only told a short part of the original first book, we never saw much of the make believe or dares she and Diana and the rest got up to. But the feel of the tale was there. If there was an adaption of the Little house books done in this way, I would be happy.

Attractive but also both bland and rushed

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

second rate and unnecessary remake

Why do they even bother to remake successful movies? As much as I like Martin Sheen, he does not do this role near the justice it deserves, likewise the other major cast members. Check out the 1985 version with Farnsworth, Follows, Dewhurst for a much superior film adaptation. If Hollywood writers can't come up with new plot ideas, why don't they do something else? If you can't write a good script, you're not a good scriptwriter. Isn't it obvious?

Disappointing, poor casting and directing

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.

I thought it was a lovely Rendition

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.

Wrong

Stilted and disappointing production was like a pantomime of the original story. It was emotionally flat, lacked development of characters and relationships and offered a clichéd take that steamrolled the provincial charm and historical accuracy of the time and PEI. The emotional development was confusing and disjointed with sentiment and delivery that intermittently veered modern or seemed displaced. Martin Sheen failed to channel Matthew and seemed not even to try. Gilbert was all but written out, replaced by a bit part for a smarmy, under-aged sociopath. Diana was good, if a little one-note, and Anne might have been played well but was misdirected. Drab set design, lack of vision, pointless reinvention of plot, weak dialog, misguided acting and odd insertions of violence failed to deliver the imagination and inspiration of Lucy Maud Montgomery and Anne.

Wrong

Stilted and disappointing production was like a pantomime of the original story. It was emotionally flat, lacked development of characters and relationships and offered a clichéd take that steamrolled the provincial charm and historical accuracy of the time and PEI. The emotional development was confusing and disjointed with sentiment and delivery that intermittently veered modern or seemed displaced. Martin Sheen failed to channel Matthew and seemed not even to try. Gilbert was all but written out, replaced by a bit part for a smarmy, under-aged sociopath. Diana was good, if a little one-note, and Anne might have been played well but was misdirected. Drab set design, lack of vision, pointless reinvention of plot, weak dialog, misguided acting and odd insertions of violence failed to deliver the imagination and inspiration of Lucy Maud Montgomery and Anne.

Disappointing - watch the Kevin Sullivan one instead

I had hoped to love this! I had every intention of loving it!

I wanted to add it to my list of amazing rainy day movies to watch and approached it with an open mind. I ended up being disappointed at every turn. To start with, it was rushed, and mechanical. They tried to fit too much into the time frame.

The cinematography, though lovely wasn't as rich as the Kevin Sullivan version, and the core cast cannot even begin to compare with the timeless performances of Megan Follows and the late Jonathan Crombie. Save your time and watch the 1985 version - your time will be much better spent!

A Wonderful Remake

I was very excited to watch a remake of Anne of Green Gables, one of my favorite stories.

The movie was refreshing and so well done that I hoped it would have been longer. Martin Sheen, Sara Botsford and Ella Balentine were so excellent in their parts. All the acting added to the story line. The scenery was beautiful and the farm delightful. I hope to watch this movie over and over.

This is a must-see movie remake of the classic novel. I gave this movie a 10 because it deserved it. I look forward to the next series of Anne of Green Gables with the same actors.

A real clunker

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.