freesharmi
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.
LadyOpheliac
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.
CosmicFlixProductions
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.
Larry Hirsch (lh574)
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.
