UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Hitchcoc 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.

Natalie Collins 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!

Miriam Stocking 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!

mpgebhard 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.