Anne of Green Gables (2016) Reviews

• I thought it was a lovely Rendition

  kmarineau129-449-9044592016-12-02

  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.

• Attractive but also both bland and rushed

  TheLittleSongbird2017-03-30

  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

• A lovely new take on a timeless story

  SusannahWithAnH2016-06-14

  (A longer version of this review can be found on Anne of Green Gables Wiki.) I am a big Anne fan and caught this movie in a cinema in Australia. When I first heard that Breakthrough Entertainment's production of Anne of Green Gables was going to be a 90-minute film instead of a TV series, I was disappointed, but curious about how much story they would try to fit in. True to the early press releases, there were a few (brief) depictions of Anne's unhappy life before Green Gables. We get the sense that she's been starved for affection and made to work hard all her life. While telling her history to Marilla, Anne mentions the Thomas family, the Hammond family and Miss Carlyle from the orphanage (who appears in Before Green Gables). Visually, it's a very pretty movie, with gorgeous drone shots of Prince Edward Island that make you want to be there. At the beginning, I thought Martin Sheen as Matthew was too talkative, but I quickly grew to like him. The scene with Abner the pig at the start of the movie was funny and offered a start contrast with the dim scene of Anne on the train with Lily Jones and Mrs Spencer. Sara Botsford was an excellent Marilla. Many other adaptations focus overly on the romance, but this movie focused on Anne's relationship with Marilla, which I appreciated and enjoyed. Diana was passable (though I found the scene where she and Anne are talking about fairies a little out of character for her) and Josie's five minutes of fame were quite satisfactory. I was a bit disappointed that we barely saw Ruby at all, and Jane Andrews apparently wasn't included. Unfortunately, I didn't like this Gilbert much, even though I tried to. He didn't look at all like what Gilbert should, and the scenes he was in seemed less natural than the others. I thought Ella Ballentine did an excellent job as Anne. Her chatter was endearing and funny rather than annoying, and she looked the part. Her red hair (I know it's not natural) was just beautiful. Since the film was only ninety minutes long, it was quite condensed. Still, I think it managed to capture the essence of the original book. It still contained many of the scenes, such as (these are not in order) Anne losing her temper at Mrs Lynde, the brooch incident, Anne and Diana becoming friends, Anne accidentally setting Diana drunk on currant wine, Anne hitting Gilbert with her slate after he calls her 'Carrots' and Anne saving Minnie May's life. There is no Lady of Shalott, Queen's Academy or death of Matthew, but no doubt the movie would have felt crowded. It was interesting to see nods to the original novel or other adaptations. The story Anne tells Minnie May, for instance, is from the novel, and is 'The Jealous Rival', which Anne wrote for school. Also, Anne introduces herself by name to Matthew at the station, like she does in the 1934 and 1985 movies. In the book, she doesn't reveal her name until Marilla asks her. It was sweet, and a nice continuity nod, the way Anne asked Matthew what made the roads red at the start of the movie, and he found out the answer and told her when they were waiting for the train at the end. On that note, the movie starting and ending with a train journey made for good bookends, and it was touching to see how Anne's relationship with Matthew and Marilla changed over the course of the movie. I'm really glad I got a chance to see it, and overall, I would rate this film a solid seven out of ten. It's not mind-blowing, but it is a very nice film, and a lovely introduction to Anne. However, because I have read the book, I felt the ending of the movie seemed unfinished. If it had been a miniseries or a full series, I am sure it would have been even better, but because it was only one and a half hours long, the creators had to do their best with the limited length they had.

• Horrible, boring, and poor acting

  ksholl-537-2093292016-11-24

  Positively horrible! I adored the 1985 version and couldn't imagine a better version. I was right. The acting seems so contrived. The lines are delivered quickly with little emotion. The newer version is so rushed that it is more like a Cliff Notes version of the story. The plot is just snapshots thrown together, giving viewers no time to digest what is happening or to become emotionally invested. The actors: The young man who plays Gilbert is not as adorable and refined as the late Jonathan Crombie, and Martin Sheen does not exhibit the same adoration for Anne that Richard Farnsworth did. Ella playing Anne is unbelievable whereas Follows became Anne of Greene Gables. I will stick with the 1985 version.

• Why?

  theredmare2016-08-28

  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 ;)