Anne of Green Gables (2016) watch online HD

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.

(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.

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

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 ;)

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.

I ordered it on DVD from Amazon Germany as it has been released in Germany with English audio on it as well as a German dub and sub. Overall I think the film producers got the spirit of the novel though some of the plot points are different or in different order to the novel. Production standards were good and some of the characterization was very good, Botsford's Marilla particularly. Anne herself was better than I expected too. Less over dramatic than the trailer. Anne's back story, though glanced on was also very well done. I liked the scene in the train on the way to the island where she hugs Lilly Jones. I liked Martin Sheen's slightly more vocal Mattew too. I know he is supposed to have paralytic shyness but this is hard to do on screen without making him look like a simpleton. The focus of this film is much more on the relationship between Anne and Marilla and Matthew. The romantic plot, which other productions have tended to focus on, is not really there, this is OK though as Anne is not Ruby and she's only 11. I have a few gripes however. I felt very rushed. Barely any of the secondary characters got a look in. Those that feature are in the main, reasonably well cast. I liked Rachel who is appropriately outspoken but also has a lot of warmth and I though Diana was very sweet, her mother was well done too, as was the nosy post mistress. Gilbert however is too young. I liked the actor but seemed more suited to one of the younger boys in Avonlea. He looks about 10 and Gilbert is supposed to be nearly 14 when Anne first meets him. (Jonathan Crombie was 18 and Tom Brown 21 when they played Gilbert, so maybe I am used to seeing older actors in the part). This film also only covers about half the novel and the ending is very sudden. I have heard since that Martin Sheen will be back for a second series, presumably covering the second half of the book. I hope so as in it's present state, it feels unfinished.

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.

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!

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.

This version of Anne of Green Gables was absolutely dreadful. Where do I begin? Right off the bat, when I knew I was doomed to disappointment, was Martin Sheen playing the soulful shy Matthew as if he was some kind of slapstick comic. Yakitty yakkity Yak to his horse, and then falling face first into a mud puddle. SMH.Too bad, because the scene on the train was actually quite promising. I thought Martin Sheen was a good actor and was willing to give him a chance, but this was disgraceful. It was probably the direction.

The young actress who played Anne, delivered her lines. Period. Whenever a line came close to echoing a line Megan Follows said, the contrast would have been laughable if it weren't so inept. One of the pivotal comic scenes, (Anne's "apology" to Rachel after her rude behavior) took place in a wide shot and without audible dialogue. It was probably a mercy. She wasn't helped by the freckles put on with a pencil that kept appearing and disappearing, and that dye job on her hair! When she got into the sunlight, it looked like something a cheap tart would do to her hair. Again, probably the direction rather than the young actresses fault.

Any production has a tough row to hoe to even come close to the perfection that was The Sullivan Production. That whole cast was perfection itself and truly inhabited their roles. I won't talk about the lack of depth. The whole Minnie May episode,I swear, clocked in at under a minute and that included the reconciliation scene. And "Matthew" continually on the verge of a heart attack. I guess stay tuned for the next installment. The Actor who played Gilbert looked younger than Anne and came across as a bratty little brother. The actress who played Marilla actually was not bad, though not the same character that Colleen Dewhurst interpreted. And Rachel was also excellent. The little actress who played Diana was a bright spot, as little screen time as she had. Again, no depth. And miscasting. She should have played Anne. There will probably be a second installment to this as many of the key scenes were left out entirely (no Lily maid of Astalot. No Miss Stacy.) If they recast an older Anne and Gilbert, and kill Matthew off quickly, it might have a chance to be half-way decent.

There is hope. The early 1930's version with Dawn O'Day (Anne Shirley), Tom Brown, and Helen Westley was a wonder and showed that you could convey the charm of this story in 78 minutes flat, and even manages to include a satisfying romance between Anne and Gilbert.

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.

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.

Spoilers

I 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.

I have read the books and have seen all adaptations of Anne of green gables. This new movie doesn't even come close to what was done in 1985 with Megan follows. I had to force myself to watch the entire movie. The casting and the direction was very poor. Anne in this movie did not flow effortlessly in her acting like Megan follows did and I found it particularly annoying how Matthew was not true to his character. The dialogues felt rushed and not natural. Many scenes were not given enough attention to detail and proper care. I had to re=watch the 1985 version to get over the disappointment. Please do not do a remake if you can't do a better version of the previous.

I'm not going to tell anything as far as the story line because it would retract from the experience one gets from watching this movie. Just know to sit back and be ready to share in crying, laugh, worry and love with all the characters in this movie. Everything in this story spells family. Ella Ballentine did a superb performance bringing her character to life. She as well can lead an audience in any direction and not disappoint in any way or form. A human firecracker in the making and an array of feelings that will bring you back to childhood with a convincing connection, that's for sure. Sarah Botsford did an awesome job with her character. Her ways of motherhood and friend locks you into her character and takes you for a ride that will for sure not only get you thinking but I actually was hoping for acceptance from her character as if she was my own mother. Martin Sheen's character blended in so naturally that you forget while watching that it's a movie. He brought a as he put it a kindred spirit to the audience. If there were ever a dad figure you would want to grow up with, it would be with Matthew Cuthbert. You will not be disappointed with this movie. Great Sunday movie to watch with your family or friends. Be ready to shed some tears, that is, if you have a heart. I know I teared up and not ashamed to admit it.

I thought this was a cute movie. I watched it at home with my roommates and their daughter. They haven't read any of the books and they seemed to also enjoy it. I liked watching the book come to life in the movie. I think they followed the book pretty much word for word script wise except for the ending as they needed to change it a bit from the book to wrap it all up but they did it well. It was s light version and I know People are going to whine about it not being like the old ones but Ignore them. Some people are stuck in their old ways. I think this version is good as it is and I'm looking forward to seeing more . I hope the younger generations like it too. :) I also enjoyed hearing that it was filmed In Canada at Milton heritage site. That's lovely. Oh and I liked all of the acting but I really enjoyed Marilla's acting the best, then Anne and Matthew. I thought the casting was done well, except their Gilbert didn't look like the one in my head and Diana wasn't as chubby as the one in my head, haha.

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.

I watched the first installment of the new Anne of Green Gables series on PBS and was very disillusioned by it. It had none of the charm of the 1985 rendition. The writers of the 1985 series offered "full" stories of each experience in Anne's life with clever and humorous dialogue and always with a keen eye for the important details that helped to flesh out the characters, all of which enhanced the rich emotional landscape of the drama. The new series tells incomplete stories, constantly jumping around and skimping on details that are vital to building depth of character, as well as contributing to the overall appeal of L.M. Montgomery's wonderful books. **SPOILER** As only one comparison, there is a wonderful early scene in the story line where Anne must apologize to Rachel Lynde for Anne's hot-headed response to Rachel's unkind comments about Anne's appearance. In the 1985 version, the apology (which is acted out in full) is extremely funny. Whereas, the modern version shows Anne at a distance with Rachel, gesticulating (with no dialogue), after which she wins Rachel over, who then gives Anne a hug. **END OF SPOILER** This scene is so empty as to leave the viewer with no emotional response whatsoever. In fact, for myself, the entire episode continued on this track leaving such a void that it did not rouse any emotional connection or amusement, which is what made the 1985 version so endearing. Even Martin Sheen, an actor I greatly admire, gave a tepid performance and could not save this poorly written and equally poorly acted version -- nowhere near the quality of acting in 1985. If they were unable to rise above this sub par presentation in 1.5 hours, I believe it is unlikely the remaining episodes will offer any real improvements. And, any attempts to stand apart from the earlier version never should have been embarked upon at the expense of quality. Perhaps the appeal, for some, lies in it's parallel to the modern social media, sound byte dynamic which has gained considerable popularity in our society. Some will say that those who are critical can't let go of their fondness for the 1985 version. But, I would argue that there are fair and well-established criteria for the critical process, regardless of the year. I do not believe this is about "when" something was made. There are many modern day films and series I consider to be quite excellent. All in all, I cannot even bear the thought of watching this version any further. If you have not seen it, I highly recommend the 1985 series for a truly rewarding viewing experience of this wonderful story.

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!

Siblings Marilla (Sara Botsford) and Matthew Cuthbert (Martin Sheen) are looking to adopt a boy to help out on their PEI farm. They are shocked to be given the talkative, precocious orphan Anne Shirley (Ella Ballentine). Marilla tries to send her back. Anne is haunted by abuses at the orphanage and unstable homes. She befriends Diana Barry and Josie Pye is the mean girl. Anne gets into a fight with Gilbert Blythe.

Megan Follows can't be replaced but this one does go a little darker. Anne starts off like a victim. The black and white flashbacks add to that sad and darker start. The well-worn story gets a condensed treatment. It ends when Marilla stops Anne from leaving. The rest is left on the budget cutting floor. Ballentine does a good job. She isn't quite as comical as Follows. This Anne has more feisty anger and bitter sadness.

I was very excited to watch a remake of Anne of Green Gables, one of my favorite stories.

The movie was refreshing and so well done that I hoped it would have been longer. Martin Sheen, Sara Botsford and Ella Balentine were so excellent in their parts. All the acting added to the story line. The scenery was beautiful and the farm delightful. I hope to watch this movie over and over.

This is a must-see movie remake of the classic novel. I gave this movie a 10 because it deserved it. I look forward to the next series of Anne of Green Gables with the same actors.

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".

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 absolutely loved the 1980s 6 hour version. How dare they remake a classic! (actually the 1985 version was the 9th time they made Anne of Green Gables into a film). If you watched the 1985 version, do yourself a favor and just watch this as it is... a 1 and 1/2 hour movie based on the books of L.M. Montgomery. It's well done. The actors did great. It only covers the first part of Anne's story. Which I liked. I was wondering how they could cover so much material with only one and a half hours. It didn't stray much from the story as so many remakes do... trying to be new but was different enough to still feel fresh. I tried to hate it but couldn't

Why do they even bother to remake successful movies? As much as I like Martin Sheen, he does not do this role near the justice it deserves, likewise the other major cast members. Check out the 1985 version with Farnsworth, Follows, Dewhurst for a much superior film adaptation. If Hollywood writers can't come up with new plot ideas, why don't they do something else? If you can't write a good script, you're not a good scriptwriter. Isn't it obvious?