just watch it!

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Lucy Maud Montgomery's beloved literary character, "Anne of Green Gables", is once again brought to life through Canada's CBC network. There is a bend in the road in this sequel, as young Anne (grown up all "tall and stylish") moves away to the city in order to assume the position of English professor at an exclusive ladies college. There she makes many new friends, and some enemies, as she adjusts to life far from Prince Edward Island, while an older would be suitor begins to sweep the romantic "Anne-girl" off her feet.The entire original team return to put us in the fun-loving, heart warming mood which made the first film such a pleasure. Alas Kevin Sullivan and his ensemble are unable to reproduce the enchantment of the prior mini-series, if only because of the new setting. "Anne of Green Gables: The Sequel" is sadly ineffective when not in Avonlea. We never see enough of the wonderful people like Marilla, Gilbert Blythe, Rachel Lynd and Diana Barry, all of whom we came to love when first introduced to Anne Shirley.Megan Follows, Colleen Dewhurst and the rest of the support all give fine showings once again, while Hagood Hardy's music makes a welcome return and the rest of the technical crew are impressive too. A shame then that this follow up never stood much of a chance against its predecessor, though most fans of the series will enjoy the continuing saga.Saturday, July 9, 1994 - Video

I won´t come into the old debate "book vs. movie"; They´re different mediums, and in the translation from one to the other a number of things have to be changed or left out. In the case of "Anne of Green Gables: The sequel" the problem´s not as much things ommited as the strange mix we get. There are elements from "Anne of Avonlea", "Anne of the Island" and "Anne of Windy Poplars" in here. Trying to be all of them to some extent, it ends up being none.The producers got themselves into unnecesary problems, and ended up making too many wrong decisions. Firstly, there´s no sense in mixing three novels when almost all of the actions belongs to "Windy Poplars". This way, what we get is a kind of twisted version of this novel. It´s Windy Poplars without Windy Poplars! Why do you adapt this lovely book removing the main element in it, the titular boarding house? The delicious widow sisters and the wacky lady who lives with them are a no-show. Instead, characters which were almost anecdotical, like Katherine Brooke and the Harris come to the forefront. I could barely remember them from the book! Introducing Captain Harris as Anne´s love interest, this seems done in order to fit a wrapped up story in four hours, which seemed by far the biggest worry of Mr. Sullivan.Anne and Mr. Harris´ romance is very objectionable. I don´t think she would ever in the world be interested by a 20-years older than her businessman. It´s absolutely against her character! If they wanted to introduce a love rival for Gilbert, it should´ve been some young guy with the romantic appeal Anne´s always been craving for. There´s not even real competition: Gilbert´s absent from the scene, studying in Halifax!Anyway, not everything´s bad, by a long shot. Virtues from the first part are still there, such as very adequate production values and performers. Megan Follows is a good Anne no doubt, though she´s very tiny, and in some scenes she seems all hair. We get a good rendering of the Avonlea universe, and some parts are well reflected, as her handling of the Pringle clan. Along with the defects we get a reasonable amount of "Anneish" moments.I believe they could have avoided most of the problems adapting "Anne of the Island": It tells far more transcendental events in the life of Anne, and it´s got a far more coherent and satisfying love story. I have a hard time understanding why they went with this strange compendium. All in all, a nice if somewhat flawed rendition of L. M. Montgomery´s world. I think Mr. Sullivan does not despise the story, but he doesn´t care enough for it either. I wouldn´t say his is the definitive version of the Anne universe at all. This should be made not into a mini series, but a long one, that delivers all the little details in the novels, which are the real joy of them. Check out the japanese animated series, an absolute masterpiece. Meanwhile, we´ll wait for a more comprehensive treatment of this most exceptional story.

I don't really understand the unsatisfaction. You had better blame him because of Anne 3. Poor Megan not even looks older than Anne could have been in 1915 and in 1919, but looks older than herSELF, also. She misses proper make-up first of all, proper lights during filming (2 or 3 scenes are only perfect) and last but not least good sentences. (Just see the page of memorable sentences! The first two parts have dozens, it only has three of them!) The story, well, it's even worse. So I must say, wether Anne 2 is true to the novels or not, it is a whole, compact story and is NOT boring, this sequel is only his own interpretation. After all, we've been waiting for the very last scene since Gilbert first called her 'Carrots'! Could you wait months for that moment? So I ask you: isn't that what we wanted?

Why isn't the movie like it was written by L.M. Montgomery? It is really well done- great acting etc, but it actually gets boring in parts. I was quite disappointed after reading the books- I expected them to be a little alike. Why couldn't we meet the girls from her college years?This movie is good, but has been changed too much for my liking.