YouHeart I gave it a 7.5 out of 10

Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

mickeyandme20042000 The characterizations seemed a little forced. I thought the boy playing Gilbert was mis-cast. He was too young. The locations were lovely. This was good, but not great. But I thought it was still a sweet story. Not on par with the CBC version of the 1980's, but better than that dreadful "Anne with an E".

sherylaw Stilted and disappointing production was like a pantomime of the original story. It was emotionally flat, lacked development of characters and relationships and offered a clichéd take that steamrolled the provincial charm and historical accuracy of the time and PEI. The emotional development was confusing and disjointed with sentiment and delivery that intermittently veered modern or seemed displaced. Martin Sheen failed to channel Matthew and seemed not even to try. Gilbert was all but written out, replaced by a bit part for a smarmy, under-aged sociopath. Diana was good, if a little one-note, and Anne might have been played well but was misdirected. Drab set design, lack of vision, pointless reinvention of plot, weak dialog, misguided acting and odd insertions of violence failed to deliver the imagination and inspiration of Lucy Maud Montgomery and Anne.

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.

feywyndom SpoilersI truly love Martin Sheen's President Bartlet from West Wing. But why oh why was President Bartlet parachuted into Green Gables and into Matthew Cuthbert's coveralls? Studio executives, "Let's make Anne of Green Gables, again. We need a big star to sell it (reaches into rando bag of movie stars) and let's cast Martin Sheen."All sane people, "Um, the whole point of AoGG is the powerful dynamic between the FEMALE characters. I know men usually controlled everything, but in this story, on this little island, in this little town, it was definitely a matriarchy."Studio executives, "I can see that, well why don't we cut Marilla's best lines or even better! give them to Matthew!"I feel really sorry for the actress that played Marilla. Could you imagine auditioning for the part, finally getting it, then reading the whole script and finding you were playing a sparkless co-parent and second fiddle to of all people, Matthew?I know the writers had an impossible job to get so much in so in 90 minutes. But there were so many unforced errors! I just kept thinking, why is president Bartlet still talking? Why do we have to see him chase a pig for two minutes, but then not have enough time to follow Diana back home after she got drunk? Like Anne would have just waved her stumbling friend out the door then turned back to wash the dishes? Why was all that off screen? And Marilla didn't marry the Blythe boy because of her mother? And Matthew went a courting? There were no reasons to change that. It's like the adults were embarrassed for the Cuthbert siblings and were saying, "Yeah, they are super cool. They have a boy/girlfriend but they go to a different school, and you wouldn't know them." Why?Then they gutted Gilbert. He looked more like someone's greasy little brother that Anne would be babysitting rather than a peer, much less am eventual romantic interest (I know our boy was 18 when he was cast, but still).Positives The girl who played Anne was good, a winning smile when she chose to deploy it. Probably the only big character change that I actually like was the Let's Pretend-> Let's Find Out. She still has a big imagination, but showing her deep curiosity for the natural world (red dirt) foreshadowing her great success in not only literature, but STEM subjects.I liked that we saw them all doing chores. That's a main plot point (they need a damn boy!), but in the 1985 one all we really see is Matthew following some cows and Marila leisurely cooking her award winning things, like an upper middle class lady, not a poorish farm woman. Generally, I think everything was on the nose, overacted, over explained, "I just don't understand her." But I did like President Bartlet's quick turn about at the train station when he first saw Anne. I could easily have seen our Matthew doing that move. The drone shots of the Island were beautiful.