|Page 1 of 12:||          |
|Index||113 reviews in total|
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
"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.
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!
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
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.
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
be in this disaster of a film, I am sure none of us will ever
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!
This movie was not horribly bad, but then again, it pales greatly in comparison with the other two. I will agree with the other comments in stating that Anne and Gilbert should of had more screen time together. And I agree with firstname.lastname@example.org whole-heartedly about her comments about Jack Garrison. I don't normally feel this way about characters in a movie, but I HATED the guy. Anne would never like him in a thousand years. He's a disgusting liar for one thing and womanizer...Ick!Poor Gilbert! To even have this guy as a threat to his relationship with Anne has to be an insult. I also didn't care for Green Gables being turned into a shanty and then burned. It almost made me cry and at this part of the film I longed for warm and homey Green Gables in the first two films. This movie does not stink however. Believe it or not there are some good aspects to the movie. First of all I praise Kevin Sullivan for casting "Looking for Miracles"' Greg Spottiswood in the role of Fred. He gave the smug and boring character some life. It was also a treat to see him again in another Sullivan film. Anne was still Anne (although she was more calm and mature) and Gilbert was still Gilbert. However, all this film really did for me was long for the first two installments and leave the story ending with Anne and Gilbert on that bridge with their future ahead of them. That was the ending that left a warm feeling in my heart. This one I'm afraid left me cold.
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
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.
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.
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. . .
I am really disappointed in this movie. What was Mr. Sullivan thinking? I can understand changing the script to make a better movie like in Anne 2, but this was ridiculous. Especially the fact that it was supposed to be only 5 years later. Come on! The audience is not dumb, Mr. Sullivan. He could have kept his WWI story line but still integrate Avonlea people and timeline into it. Geeze! It would have been really simple! Anne and Gilbert should have been married already, had some kids and lived in Ingleside. The movie could have began with Gilbert buying Green Gables (since Rachel lives with Hetty at this point). And then the timeline would have matched! It is so simple that it erks me to no end and I have only seen this movie twice. The second time it was really hard not to throw something at the TV! All he had to do was include events that occurred in Road to Avonlea and a lot of the fans would be happy. And he could have still included his WW1 obsession by showing Davy Keith joining and how Gilbert wanted to be a doctor on the front. Rachel should have played a bigger role than she did. Fred and Diane could have had their problems too, but it should have been Fred Jr. going off to war, not Fred Sr. In the books,Anne's kids went off to war and Walter died. This could have been some of the plot as well. Also, I am annoyed that the orphan house Felicity works at was used as Diane's house as if fans would not recognize it from Avonlea. Not all the characters of Avonlea needed to be involved, but the story lines should have meshed better. Plus, what happened to the town of Avonlea itself? It would not have changed that much in 5 years!! Even Carmody was weird looking. I just wish Megan Follows had said no to this script until changes were made. I think the fault lies more in her lap than in Mr. Sullivan's since the actor usually knows what is better for the character than the writers do. Sigh. Only watch this movie once for the great scenes between Gilbert and Anne where you can just FEEL their chemistry. Otherwise, try to forget it exists!!
*** This review may contain 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.
|Page 1 of 12:||          |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|