Overrated

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

No, seriously, this film pretty much just made me think of bad Harry Potter darkfic.(you know, the "abusive!Weasleys!", "Harmony!", "evil!Ron!", "Snape is secretly Harry's father!" kind of crap). And if you're creating a movie, it shouldn't seem like it's an awful fanfiction created by an angsty tween girl.It wasn't a bad movie in itself(pretty scenery, decent actors), but why did Kevin Sullivan feel the need to connect it to the Anne universe? It bears no resemblance to the books whatsoever.Oh, and Sullivan clearly doesn't know much about history. World War One happened when Anne's youngest child was 15-16. Clearly not what A New Beginning states. By that time, Gilbert was way too old to enter the war. And I SERIOUSLY cannot grasp why Anne suddenly wasn't an orphan? It made her seem like a sick liar, and I don't think the canonical Anne would ever deliberately make up a story like that.

I only had to watch the trailer and I am completely horrified. So, pardon me, but this is not a review of the actual movie because it would be "heaping coals of fire on my head" to watch the actual movie. If you don't know what that expression means, then you, like Kevin Sullivan, have not read the books.Who knew Anne would have plastic surgery in her dotage?(sorry Barbara, but it's really obvious, and you are not well cast as Anne) Who knew her father didn't die at the same time her mother did, although it states this clearly in the books.Who knew Gil would go to war too and DIE (who the hell is Gil? There was no Gil! You mean Gilbert. He was never called Gil, ever...only when Anne cut his name off because she didn't want to be suspected of liking him-DUH) Why would you make Anne single, what, to spice up the story? Guess what, romance actually can exist in a marriage that lasts for many years. It's right there in the books, but again, you don't appear to be able to read.Why change something that is already so perfect? LM Montgomery's family should be totally ashamed of themselves for giving this soulless man the chance to take such awful liberties with a cherished gem.Mr Sullivan, you are the worst kind of filmmaker. You don't GET IT. You don't understand your story and have killed the whole beauty of it. You smelled money and you haven't looked back. And people no longer have the ability to READ so they think the movies you have so badly messed with ARE the stories. I couldn't watch any of them after the second one they were so horrible. This goes for everything Sullivan Home Entertainment has ever done that has been based on poor Maud's books. She would just despise you.WHAT IS WRONG WITH US? Do the British have to get hold of this to make it work? Do we have to ask the producers of the 1995 (NOT 2005) version of Pride and Prejudice to come and do all of this over and make it work? What a horrendous, shameful, idiotic mess.

It has been years since I've seen the original Anne of Green Gable films and I think I've only seen the third installment once. Nonetheless the first two films are two of my favorite films and brilliant classics of the story and very much defined Anne of Green Gables as much as the books have ever been. So I was excited to see Kevin Sullivan adapt another story about Anne Shirley and her life. I knew by looking at the commercials that it would be a different spin on the story and maybe even take liberties with the story and I'm okay with that if it fits. I will give Sullivan credit this story does manage to mostly fit perfectly in with the other films he made. However it also changes the entire Anne Shirley story a great deal and while some reviewers argue it doesn't matter I think it does. The entire concept of Anne not being a true "orphan" is a liberty that I don't think should have taken. Her existence as an orphan shaped her entire life. But the new adventures, the story before she came to Green Gables is still fun and interesting and it gives you a new side to the overall story which is a welcome addition.If there is one truly brilliant thing to come from this film it is the performance of the young Hannah Endicott-Douglas as Anne Shirley. Meghan Follows embodied and created the single best character performance of Anne Shirley, it would seemingly be impossible to find someone who could do the same job at the same caliber and yet here comes young Hannah and she does exactly that. Her performance is brilliant, Emmy worthy (or Canadian equivalent), and she is completely believable as a predecessor to the character Follows created. She is a gem! I don't know what circumstances prevented Meghan Follows from returning to her role as the older Anne but Sullivan should have stopped at nothing to bring her back. She could have easily played that role and instead they got Barbara Hershey? A peculiar and wrong choice for the role. She was just boring and didn't have any of the heart required to play this role. By calculations she should have been mid 40's at the oldest and she looked and acted like she was in her sixties. For big fans of the original you will be pleased to see the return of Jayne Eastwood as Mrs. Hammond, and a brief cameo by Patricia Hamilton as the classic character Rachel Lynde.What has made Anne of Green Gables the classics they are thus far are the adventures and the midadventures. On top of that the characters are probably the most important part. So what made this installment not meet the previous grandeur of the series? The adventures were there, the stories in tact but the characters lacked the same depth and heart. Outside of the main character there were no supporting characters that you really become enthralled with. Certainly if you happen upon this film without seeing the previous ones you might not catch some of the true story behind it but then you might find it more entertaining but if you, like me and millions of others, are enormous passionate fans of the original films (especially the first two) then you'll appreciate the attempt at continuing Anne's story but miss the heart. 7/10

SPOILERS!!! Although Anne 4 was far from perfect, there was an underlying beauty to it that touched me. It wasn't as emotionally detached as Anne 3. Being an adopted aspiring writer myself, it struck a personal chord with me when the adult Anne said things like, "Not knowing who your real parents are can haunt you," and "I used to long to write." These components truly got to me emotionally.I know I'm about to raise eyebrows here, but the performance of young Anne by Hannah Endicott-Douglas was dead-on pitch perfect, and honestly, it was just as good as Megan Follows' performance in the first film. This little girl is an absolute marvel. It was jarring, however, to see a different actress playing Anne in a Sullivan film. I'm so used to Megan's portrayal that I had to really try and get past that.Anne 1 and Anne 2 are glimpses into Anne's life after she has finally found happiness and a place to call home, as well as a sense of herself as a worthy human being, a girl (and eventually a woman), and a writer. She finds a new set of parents with Matthew and Marilla in an idyllic, beautiful setting that she so richly deserved. Anne 3 is a test of loyalty to both her character and the love of her life, Gilbert, as well as the aforementioned metaphor for the loss of childhood innocence. The world is altering the world, and Anne is trying to deal with that disturbing fact, especially when it reaches into her personal life. Anne 4 is a semi-dark, semi-warm introduction to someone we already know, presenting an explanation that fleshes out Anne's personality before we initially met her in the first film. Now that Gilbert has dies, the older, matured Anne must fill a void in her life by writing a play, finding the answers to new questions regarding a father she long presumed dead and a past she had buried long ago, and reconnecting to that part of herself which she had almost given up on due to her grief --- a writer. I will always prefer the first two films, because I grew up with them and I prefer the warmth of their stories. But I don't dismiss the third and fourth installments, either, because I feel that they, too have many interesting things to offer.I had no idea that the character of Hetty King would make a cameo appearance, but even though you couldn't really see her, I was ecstatic about it nonetheless. It was great to see Rachel again, and it's nice to know she and Hetty remained friends. (What a sweet homage to Road to Avonlea fans.) Yes, I wish Rachel had some dialogue, just as I wished that her part had been longer in Anne 3 and that we had seen her at Anne and Gil's wedding. But the movie wasn't about Anne's friends. It was all about Anne herself. I LOVED the music in this film more than in any of the other films, and the ending was absolutely beautiful, nowhere near as sappy as I'd read. Plus, the scene with Anne stretched out on Gil's grave was heartbreaking.Which leads me to another point. Some people are upset that Gilbert is dead. Well, would you rather have Jonathon Crombie in old age makeup playing opposite Barbara Hershey? Or would you rather have a different actor playing Gil altogether? There was a point to Gil's death, which furthered the story. It was Anne's grief over Gil and her worrying of Dominic that fueled her motivations to rediscover herself as a writer. It's a shame, though, that Matthew and Marilla never got to know any of Anne's children, and vice-versa. I mean, think about it. Kevin Sullivan was legally forbidden to adapt any more stories from the novels. But he did want to give the fans more of Anne. So when he does, everyone retaliates against him with dissatisfaction. I honestly feel sorry for the man. He did what people asked him to do, with limited resources other than his own imagination, and everyone still griped about it. It could've been worse. He could've made Gil die in WW1 and Anne run off with Jack Garrison. He could've had Green Gables not be reconstructed after it burned down (and there was significance in its burning). He could've had little Anne in part 4 be some sort of pathological liar, and older Anne marry her friend Gene Armstrong. Even though the later films deviate so drastically from the novels, everything Sullivan did was pretty true to the spirit of Anne (in my opinion), even if it was his own fan fiction. If Anne 3 and Anne 4 were fan fictions presented on this message board, rather than actual movies, people would be going wild with how much they loved them, saying things like, "That would make a great movie!"I mean, really --- who cares if Anne wasn't truly an orphan by the true definition of the word? All that matters is Green Gables and beyond. I think this entry provides an even more interesting layer to the first film, which I have since rewatched in order to see if everything from part 4 tied into part 1, and it did. People are making a mistake comparing the movies to the books. They're two completely separate mediums. I like the fact that we have two different Anne universes, those of the books and those of the films.Of course, nothing will ever top the second Anne film for me.