TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Brainsbell The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

Aiden Melton The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

folsominc2 I have to say from beginning to end, this movie was very terrible.First of all, it failed to recapture the chemistry of the first two movies by these actors in their roles for Green Gables.Second, they lost touch with the original time period and sequence for the picture. The original theme was obviously set in the 1890s and then they jump to 1915. If they wanted to include a war, it should have been the Spanish-American War.Third, why was it even called Green Gables when the entire time at Green Gables for the movie is less than 5 minutes (ok maybe less than 6 minutes)? Fourth, the actors obviously had been longer than 5 years since the last movie. Unfortunately, this is something that age and time never seem to hide.Fifth, there were many elements to the movie that left loopholes. For example, how did they find the child after the war was over? Wasn't Anne already a published writer? She would have had some clout by then. How about the real purpose of the crooked publisher/editor and his brought to justice after murdering Jack Garrison? Why would Anne have ANY feelings for Garrison after he stole her work? What about the woman editor? And WHY for heaven's sakes, was it imperative to take the child back into France instead of safely into Canada away? The writers for this screen play skipped over the major elements and details in the story that was not done in the previous movies - perhaps because they were more authentic to the books? At any rate, I found this film, after much anticipation, a drag and boring and unbelievable.

MyrPraune I have not read all the Anne books. I don't like the flowery style of Lucy Maud Montgomery that much. But the 2 first TV series were really nicely done, with the romantic and "frilly" side of the story being anchored with really good interpretation. But this is just horrible. It really plays like an excuse to try and bank of the previous success of the 2 first series; the story is ridiculous, the characters so shallow it's a real joke. There is NONE of the warmth and charm of the first series. Even the character of Anne... I mean, it's Megan Follows, normally she should have been able to play Anne like she's done it before........ But with such a screenplay and dialogue, there's no way to do a good job. I felt cheated after this; I felt like the characters and the story that I really loved had been used for $$$ and cheapened. Yuck. I still give a 4 for the fondness of remembering those characters and a certain curiosity in seeing them again on screen.

anna-39 The problem with this film is not the film itself. It is entertaining enough and there is lovely chemistry between Megan Follows and Jonathan Crombie. Fans had been longing for a long time to see these two in the roles that they own so much. But... the problem really is that producer Kevin Sullivan thought he had the right to change the life story of characters created by someone else. He thought that Anne's story was not dramatic enough (and the legal disputes with the heirs didn't help) and decided to invent something that would be bland and entertaining. By doing this he overruled the expectations of millions of fans that loved Anne's story - he had the perfect chance, perfect actors and a great story (who in their right mind can say that Anne's House of Dreams is not dramatic enough??) and he missed that. It is really unfortunate and sad. Why call them Anne and Gilbert when they obviously are not them?

Whythorne I am not one to get completely down on a movie because it isn't 100% faithful to a book upon which it draws inspiration. But if one is doing a follow-up to an already established film series, it seems to me it is just plain common sense that the follow-up should have some continuity in character personality and theme.The previous Anne of Green Gables installments relied heavily on the charm of both its characters and Canadian setting for its success. In this movie neither the characters nor the setting are even given the chance.The actors aged 13 years since the last sequel but for some reason look even older than their real-life early 30s. This is a detriment when we are supposed to believe they are still in their early twenties. Of course, what doesn't help at all is the fact that both Anne and Gil behave like folks who are worn down by life...even before they have had their WWI battlefield experiences. If Megan Follows had exhibited more of the fresh spunk and liveliness that made the Anne character endearing in previous episodes, it would have been easier to overlook the drawn face with the age lines around her mouth. Jonathan Crombie's Gil Blythe does no better, acting as drawn and haggard as he looks.Simple plots based on small-town personalities, relationships, ambitions, etc. have been likewise removed in favor of a more "grandiose" plot involving Anne traipsing around WWI Europe in search of her husband with somebody else's baby in tow. The story not only comes off dull but conveniently contrived to boot. Is it just me, or did anyone else find it odd that, with the millions of combatants and support personnel engaged in WW1 Europe, Anne kept running into people she knew? Further, scenes with the diminutive Megan Follows lugging a large baby around that is nearly as big as her also came off as visually ridiculous.Unfortunately, since the characters in this sequel bear little resemblance to previous incarnations, and since even the charm of Prince Edward Island has been supplanted with war-torn Europe, we are only left with asking the following question: Why bother?It is as if the writer/director et al thought, "Well, the names are the same, and the actors are the same. That will appease the Anne of Green Gables faithful. For everybody else, we have a nice, sappy WWI melodrama!"Relentlessly tedious, bleak and humorless, this "Continuing Story" continues scarcely little of the original flavor of the first two movies nor the "Road to Avonlea" TV series. Speaking as someone who is not even a devoted fan of Anne of Green Gables to begin with, this film makes me sorry for those who are.