Anne of Green Gables: The Continuing Story (TV Mini-Series 2000– ) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
114 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
Maybe somebody should have told them L.M. Montgomery finished the series. . .
Jade-1630 July 2000
For twelve years "Anne Fans" such as myself have been eagerly awaiting the third installment of the this much-loved series. Like many fans, I grew impatient and simply read the books. . .yes, all eight of them, just to find out what happened after they left us all hanging at "the bridge".

"Anne of Green Gables" was nearly perfectly faithful to the book, just as "Anne of Avonlea" ALMOST was, but where did they pull "The Continuing Story" out of? I think we all know where. . . but I think most of us still want to know why!

Lucy Maud Montgomery's original material would have been such a beautiful conclusion to the Anne/Gilbert love story. They married after he finished med school, they lived in pretty little cottage until he set up a practice in a place called Ingleside, where they raised seven children (not including Anne's first child who died in infancy). Montgomery even went on to write a book about Rilla, Anne's youngest daughter.

Speaking of her daughter, factually Rilla's boyfriend served in World War I! What an unnecessary leap in time!

Perhaps Kevin Sullivan can still fix the mess he made. I think it is possible to still go on with the story as it was intended to be told. . .I just don't see why they didn't do so to begin with.

There has been no closure in the "Anne of Green Gables" series. Anne and Gilbert's future life and family still remain a mystery to we who assumed that "The Continuing Story" would bring finality to the story that should have been a peaceful, satisfying classic just as it's predecessors were.
36 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Anne was the mother of five in World 1
Xeresa620 November 2004
I've read all the Anne books! I really dislike it when they take a beloved character, and completely ignore all the written material on said character.

It was Anne's three sons who fought in WW1, and you can find the story in Lucy Maud Montgomery's book entitled "Rilla of Ingleside" The story of the terrible effects of the war is seen through the eyes of Anne's youngest child, Marilla, who is fifteen at the start of the war in 1914.

It is a heart-felt story. One of Anne's younger sons dies in France, but it is also a story of hope and faith and the foibles of a small community facing a situation outside the small island they grew up on.

Why they didn't use that story, or indeed, the previous story where Anne is married and starts a new life on her beloved island with Gilbert I'll never know!It often seems to me that screenwriters don't read, or do research when dealing with literary subjects!

I'm sorry that they didn't give Megan Fellows better material. She is a fine young actress and deserves better. Ps: Diana's husband Fred Wright was a pleasant, down-to-earth farmer in the Anne books.
31 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Anne and Gilbert, kindred spirits? Not anymore, and they're not even pretty
lovethebeatles6416 August 2000
The only reason I can think of that this movie even bears the title "Anne of Green Gables" is that the director/producer/whomever decided that they could make a lot more money misleading hundreds of loyal Anne fans. This movie is so unlike the other two that it could be about any couple during WWI. Whatever possessed the wonderful Megan Follows and Jonathan Crombie to be in this disaster of a film, I am sure none of us will ever comprehend.

I also cannot understand why Kevin Sullivan, who first presented Anne on screen with such sincerity, could somehow think that the original L.M. Montgomery stories were simply not good enough anymore? This movie might not be exciting to the "Mission Impossible" fans that it seems to be geared towards, but Avonlea was exactly the setting that made the Anne movies so wonderful. This "continuing story" has none of the beauty and vivacity of the former films. We loved Avonlea and Prince Edward Island, because they provided simple and natural backdrops, allowing the talent of the actors to shine through.

And speaking of the talent of the actors, where on earth did it go? To agree with another reviewer, the actors looked tired and restless during their scenes, as if they wanted nothing more than for all of it to end. Maybe they were blackmailed into doing this? Not only did we have to endure Megan Follows and Jonathan Crombie simply looking old, we were given the added benefit of seeing several other actors coming back to play their former rolls, and clearly not having fun with them. I am not even going to discuss the new character of Jack Garrison, who seemed to be pulled out of thin air to form a soap opera-like love triangle.

When I read a wonderful book like "Anne of Green Gables" (and "Anne of Avonlea", "Anne of the Island", etc.) It disappoints me so much when a movie comes out that is nothing like the amazing piece of literature I have enjoyed. When I heard that there was going to be a "continuing story" my mind automatically filled with images of Anne and Gilbert's joyful wedding at Green Gables, and of their "house of dreams" and their many children. When I heard that it was to be nothing like the book, I could hardly contain my disappointment! We loyal Anne fans have waited so long...for this?

Other reviewers have complained that their visions of Anne have been ruined forever. I did not have this problem, because I have an imagination that allows me to "imagine things differently from what they are." This movie was so unlike Anne of Green Gables, in storyline, setting, and characters, that it had no effect on my longterm enjoyment of the first two films.

If your curiosity cannot be contained, and you simply must risk it, then by all means, watch this film. If not, however, I caution you, do not touch this movie or it will contaminate you for life!
33 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not very accurate
jlsurratt7 September 2005
I have read all the books except for Rilla of Ingleside, which I have plans to read within the week! None of the events in this movie reflects any events that occurred in the books. While the first two films did not match up with the books tit for tat, the main gist of the stories was told. I really loved the Anne of Green Gables and Anne of Avonlea, but I was extremely disappointed with The Continuing Story. It completely misrepresents the spirit of Ms. Montgomery's works. Where are Anne and Gilbert Blythe, the married couple? Where are all the children - the tragic loss of their firstborn and the renewal of hope with the births of the other children? Where is Ingleside? Where are Aunt Jo's dogs Gog and Magog? Why do we not meet the Captain Joe the lighthouse keeper? Movies that depict literature should not completely disregard what was written in that literature. But that is what happened in this movie. It is as if the screenwriters stole Ms. Montgomery's characters and used them in a completely different story!
34 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Um, Mr. Sullivan, what happened?
JohnnyOldSoul10 November 2004
One thing that really got me about this film was the way Sullivan Productions junked what they had (almost) seamlessly meshed in the past: the "Anne" world with the "Road to Avonlea" world.

Anne and Gilbert had already married and had children by the time of Marilla's death, and it was another few years before WWI happened in the "Avonlea" world. However, here Marilla has died and Anne and Gilbert aren't married yet. Mrs. Lynde, Marilla's long-time friend and confidante becomes a minor character, almost a glorified cameo appearance, and doesn't act like it's been years since she last saw Anne. Josie and Moody are just kinda there as 'fanwank' to placate any fans who might be disappointed that this film wanders so far away from the established 'Anne-iverse.'

That aside, this film still is a bit of a mess. Historical accuracy goes right out the window, and I found it hard to get really involved in these "strangers" lives.

Although, comments made on Megan Follows' appearance is unfair. It's been TWENTY YEARS since the first "Anne" so OF COURSE she's older...duh! Megan Follows does a lot to try to save this film. She's as good an actress as ever. Jonathan Crombie did well also. The radical transformation of Diana's character isn't that out of line with what came before, and Schuyler Grant does very well here.

Sadly, a missed opportunity. This might have worked better as a "Road to Avonlea" reunion movie. I mean, WWI actually was on the horizon when the series ended.
28 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
This is not a good movie
bethkq22 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I must begin by saying that I haven't seen the entire film, but follow this by adding that I could not make myself sit through it. I loved and adored the first two movies in this series, and I've read all of the books. This movie, or what I saw of it, may as well have not even carried the title Anne of Green Gables, and the characters may as well have had different names. That's how unlike the other two movies everything was, and how completely foreign to the books it was. At times it was like they were intentionally trying to stomp on the memory of the first two movies. For example, when Anne goes to see Green Gables. First of all, she would NEVER have rented it to other people and gone so long without checking up on it that these people had run riot and totally destroyed the house. Obviously the amazing Colleen Dewhurst had passed away already at the time the film was made, so Marilla also passed away as a character, but to propose that Anne would let Marilla and Matthew's pride and joy go to ruin is to show a complete misunderstanding of the character of Anne Shirley. I would never recommend this film to anyone who had any respect for the Anne of Green Gables books or movies.
16 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
This is NOT Anne.
MonieLou9 April 2007
When I first saw the first Anne of Green Gables at the library, I nearly screamed out loud. I loved the book, and my friend had told me about the movie. So when I found it, I immediately watched it. It followed the book amazingly, at least in my opinion. I was wrapped in this world that had been in my imagination for the longest time and now I could visually see it. In the book, I was so adamant against liking Gilbert because Anne was so against liking him, but the movie completely changed my perception.

Recently, I just found The Sequel to Sullivan's Green Gables. It had the exact same affect on me as Green Gables. I liked that he incorporated a couple of the books into one movie. At least he BASED it off the books.

Now, as for this movie. It's horrible. I haven't read all the Anne books, but from my watching this movie, I couldn't stand it. It's so far from Anne of Green Gables as California is from New York. It has no place being called Anne of Green Gables: The Continuing Story. Even the character seems different. They aren't the same lovable Anne, charming Gil, and innocent/naive Diana. Admittedly, they are older, but they seem as though they aren't themselves.

Why wait thirteen years to make another Anne movie? It makes no sense. . .
24 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
fairygirl4113 July 2002
Let's start with the continuity errors -- Road to Avonlea theoretically ended in 1912 after a 7 year run, Anne already having been gone for several years when it started. This one starts in 1915, and Gil and Anne have only been engaged 5 years? Plus they were supposedly already married at Marilla's funeral in RTA, to which Anne did not show up. I'm not convinced.

What's worse is the story and the script -- certainly nothing Lucy Maud Montgomery ever dreamed up. Brief overview: Anne and Gil move to New York, where they come head to head with dastardly American politics. They go home, get married, Gil is overwhelmed by his sense of duty and enlists. Lots of people die. Ever-determined Anne becomes a Red Cross volunteer in order to find her only true love. Instead she finds a shell-shocked Fred, and they trek across a war-torn Europe with a baby in tow. Anne becomes a spy and smuggles black-market jewels across the border dressed as a nun. She and her long-lost Gil are reunited and they live happily ever after (with the baby).

It's even dumber and more improbable than I can make it sound, if you can believe that. And real LMM fans don't want to watch a 30-year-old Anne speaking fluffy lines in every possible locale but Avonlea.
30 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
They should have left "Anne" well alone
roisinmoriarty11 July 2000
I'm sorry to have to say this, especially considering the wonderful actors who were involved, but this film is a travesty. First of all, the characters have clearly aged (the sequel was made in 1987) so are we supposed to believe that Anne and Gilbert have been engaged for at least ten years? It is also quite clear that characters such as Rachel Lynde, Josie Pye and Moody Spurgeon were dragged out just for the sake of it. Oh, and Josie married to Moody? Please! Never in a million years!

Ironically, one character who was seemingly indispensable was Fred Wright but he was the only one not played by the same actor. Either Bruce McCulloch had the good sense to stay away from this project or his subsequent work ("The Kids in the Hall") made him an unsuitable actor for such a wholesome film.

If you've never seen the other films and you've never read the books then you may deem this movie a pleasant little war drama that's a little on the sentimental side. However, you will also find yourself getting a bit lost at time as characters and situation crop up that mean nothing to you and aren't explained to the uninitiated. For those of you who know and love the previous films and books you may well, like me, be horrified. I foolishly bought the video but took it back to the shop the very next day and got my money back.

I have to echo the sentiments of a previous reviewer: why did Follows, Crombie and Grant agree to make this sorry excuse for a "continuing story"? Lucy Maude Montgomery would be spinning in her grave.
12 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Pretty lame
dlduncan13 December 2002
Fantastical story line that has nothing to do with Lucy Maud Montgomery's books. I could barely keep up with all of the ridiculous plot twists. The only reason I rated this higher than a "1" was that the acting was fine. Don't waste your time on this one - stick with the first two.
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews