Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Raetsonwe Redundant and unnecessary.

Lawbolisted Powerful

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

c_hope This remake is an empty shell compared to the 1985 movie.The casting was awful. It felt like a "movie" shot in 2016 that was intended to be a period piece. What you don't feel is any connection to the characters. The acting was flat. Why would they even attempt to remake this movie when it was so beautifully told already. With the right cast that embodied the characters. It's frustrating to see the story butchered. Megan will always be the only Anne. Jonathan the only Gilbert. Colleen Dewhurst, Richard Farnsworth, Schuyler Grant... these actors really captured the spirit of the Anne of Green Gables stories.

Hitchcoc 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.

thobelman 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.

gmadigan 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.