TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

Nonureva Really Surprised!

Tobias Burrows It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Paynbob It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

kmarineau129-449-904459 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.

John Plotz This production has the misfortune of following the brilliant 1985 version. Marilla Cuthbert in 1985 was a solid, religious, grounded woman, who learns to love Anne. The present Marilla is merely cranky. The character of Matthew Cuthbert in 1985 was shy and deep. The present Matthew is a superficial fool. The 1985 Anne was passionate. The new Anne seems forced. The actress does not really inhabit the role -- but rushes through her lines and puts on laughter or tears as the script directs. In 1985, the characters interact and change each other. In this production, they seem to bounce off each other. They are not really present. I agree with other reviewers that the story was rushed.Come to think of it, I don't believe the house had green gables -- or any gables at all. (Maybe I'm wrong about that.)Maybe if the viewer has never seen this charming story before, the 2016 production would be good. Compared to the earlier version -- still easily available -- it is a great disappointment.

gmadigan Another reviewer was dead on the money. This felt so very rushed. Too many holes. The cast was okay. They had incredibly large shoes to fill and I think that the writers did not do them any favours. I would have liked to have been given more of this wonderful story closer to as it was written. It may have given me a bit more time to actually warm up to these actors reprising these roles.I do feel ripped off. This portion of the story alone should have been 4 hours. Hmm they want 10 lines minimum. I guess I can say that I think Sara did a decent job as Mirella. The actress that played Diana Barry was perfectly chosen. They could not have done better. That was the best casting in the whole show. Richard Farnsworth is irreplaceable but Mr Sheen stood up to the challenge and did very well indeed. I truly need to blame the writers for any disappointment that I feel here. Der IMDb. Favour is spelled correctly as I am Canadian and this is a Canadian story. So I am choosing not to change it.

DiscGolfer I absolutely loved the 1980s 6 hour version. How dare they remake a classic! (actually the 1985 version was the 9th time they made Anne of Green Gables into a film). If you watched the 1985 version, do yourself a favor and just watch this as it is... a 1 and 1/2 hour movie based on the books of L.M. Montgomery. It's well done. The actors did great. It only covers the first part of Anne's story. Which I liked. I was wondering how they could cover so much material with only one and a half hours. It didn't stray much from the story as so many remakes do... trying to be new but was different enough to still feel fresh. I tried to hate it but couldn't