Anne of Green Gables (2016)

I was hesitant to watch this because I read reviews that said it was pretty bad. Well, it wasn't terrible. It had a lot of elements that were true to the book. Of course, some parts were changed a little, which is always an unfortunate part of book to movie adaptations. The actress playing Anne does a good job and I think she looks closer to Anne's description from the book than Megan Follows did, although Anne was supposed to be tall and both actresses seemed rather short. The actress playing Diana is all wrong. In the book, Diana is slightly plump and beautiful, with black hair. This Diana is much taller than Anne, very thin, and has a medium-brown hair.Most of the important moments are there and the outdoor scenes are lovely. I will probably be watching the next installment soon.

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!

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.

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.