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.

Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

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?

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.

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 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.