Awesome Movie

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

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.

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.

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.

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