Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

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.

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

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.

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 ;)