Annof Green Gables Continuing Story Dvd Reviews
Anne was the mother of five in World 1
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.
52 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Maybe somebody should have told them L.M. Montgomery finished the series. . .
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.
50 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Um, Mr. Sullivan, what happened?
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.
36 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
unforgivable
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.
40 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Anne and Gilbert, kindred spirits? Not anymore, and they're not even pretty
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!
44 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mr. Sullivan does not respect his fans
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!!
29 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
...and Anne hates Americans, too!
I completely agree with the majority of comments posted here about "Anne 3". As a longtime fan of the first two films (and books), I was so excited for this third installment. When I first saw it, I didn't fall in love with it the way I did the first two films. Upon a subsequent viewing and discussions with my sister, I was able to pinpoint what bothered me about this movie. Most of these issues have been covered by other viewers (drastic change from the books, almost completely joyless, weird quasi-unfaithfulness to Gilbert, etc.), but I thought I would add a couple of thoughts that my sis and I discussed.
The "Anne" books contain the simple stories of one woman's life, from madcap girlhood to mature motherhood. When she becomes an adult and marries, the Anne books cover the themes of life, death (loss of children), joy, despair and hope...in other words, the books are about experiences that women of the time could identify with. Apparently, the creators of this third movie didn't think that a "woman's story" was interesting enough. Aside from changing the time frame, they changed the location of the (majority of) the action from Prince Edward Island to World War I-era Europe, chock-full of blood, gore, "action" and spies. If the period of the story's setting had to be changed to WWI, wouldn't it have been more interesting (and truer to the spirit of the books) to portray Anne as a woman coping with the war on the homefront? But, like I said, the story of a woman dealing with life and war must not have seemed as important to the writers/director/producer as spy capers and battlefield scenes.
Also...I'm surprised that none of the other viewers commented on the movie's tiresome anti-American bias. I lost count of the times that we were insulted. Thousands of American soldiers gave their lives to help end World War I and the pointless jibes at "the Yanks" in this film belittles their contribution in ending the stalemate that the war had turned into. If the filmmakers wanted to promote Canadian nationalism, there are better ways to do that than at the expense of Americans.
For a movie that seemed to want to extoll the virtues of Canada, there was precious little of Canada (and Prince Edward Island) shown on-screen. Like Anne and Gilbert's life together, I guess Canada wasn't considered exciting or dramatic enough for the setting of this movie. What a shame.
30 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pretty lame
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.
18 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Although not accurate, I still like it~
I know some are HUGE sticklers to original plot and I'm sure I would feel the same way if I had read the book series. But, I love Megan Follows and I think that she carried the film through with her excellent acting. It may have not even come close to the excellence of the first two films, but I thought it was very creative and adventurous! I can find flaws and even some corniness throughout it, but again, it was touching and interesting. It is still very wholesome and clean compared to most family films these days and I have no qualm watching it with my two daughters when the time comes for them to enjoy all the films~
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
They should have left "Anne" well alone
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.
16 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
huh????
OK, so the second movie kinda mixed up books 2-4, which I could kind of understand them not wanting to deal with Marilla's twin cousins coming to live with them or Anne's four years of college and Ruby Gillis dying and the so forth. But I THOUGHT that if they ever made another sequel that it would at least resemble the next couple of books or something! My dad and I had no idea what we were watching for about ten minutes until I was like, "Hey isn't that the guy who plays Gilbert?" and we soon came to realize that this WAS "Anne of Green Gables: the Continuing Story." Let's just say that the Anne series has been my favorite books since I was a little girl and I just couldn't watch the movie too long. It was too weird.
Not that I'm against people taking liberties when it comes to books, seriously. Even the first movie had a few of the tales mixed up and cut out a few years. But come on! All I could think of was that by WWI, according to the books, Anne and Gilbert were pushing 50 with 6 kids. I hope they realize that they've basically just screwed any chance of ever making another movie. They honestly COULD have made a pretty good movie out of Rilla of Ingleside, which focuses on their youngest daughter during WWI, but I guess... I just don't know what they were thinking. Maybe I'll eventually sit down and watch it, but I think I need to get over my shock and disappointment first. Whenever that happens.
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I waited 10 years...for THIS!
When I learned that there was to be a third installment of the Anne of Green Gables series, I was thrilled. I was even more excited when I learned that Megan Follows and Johnathon Crombie were to return to their roles as Anne and Gilbert. However, the mess that I found myself watching was a total slap in the face for all who love the books and the first two movies. The glaring continuity errors (where did 5 years come from...Gil was already a year in med school in Anne 2), plus the fact that by the time WWI hit, Anne and Gil had tints of grey and 8 children (this was RILLA'S WAR!!!) made it hard to accept it from the start. Not to mention that they completely fluffed over the wedding like we haven't been waiting all these years to see it!
I cannot believe Kevin Sullivan was behind this monstrosity. He directed the first two with such care to the storylines. I would have understood if Marilla was dead, but the rest should have been done with the same respect given to the first two. If that could not have been done, the movie should not have been done at all.
14 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is NOT Anne.
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. . .
33 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Why?
Warning: Spoilers
** POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD **
Let's face it. This third installment of the Anne series is so much darker than the previous two films (it's set in World War I) and it is NOT for children under the age of 13. It fails as a movie and a second sequel to the Anne film series. To an "Anne fan" like me (and some others out there, you know who you are), this movie is a sacrelige. Anne's character is taken almost out of context and they threw in some fictional character, Jack Garrison, who did not appear in any of the Anne books. It's like the producers literally tore the entire story of Anne Shirley-Blythe to shreds. It would be nice to let Mike Nelson and the bots over at "Mystery Science Theater 3000" take a swing at this but due to the dark, dramatic nature of the story, the jokes wouldn't be appropriate.
The characters in the book are totally the opposite of how they appeared in the books and the first two movies. One scene shows Anne disguised as a nun and taking several drinks out of a bottle of what seems to be hard liquor, which is something I doubt the real Anne would do. Fred, Diana's husband, comes home from the war with one arm missing, not to mention other scenes of gore. This is not the way these kinds of films are to be made, especially if it was based upon the beloved Anne series. It would be much better if there was a scene where Diana would be reading a letter written to her by Fred, DESCRIBING the horror rather than showing all the gory details (no pun intended).
The only thing good about this movie were the marriage of Gilbert and Anne and the adoption of Jack Garrison's baby son Dominic (by Anne and Gilbert).
If there is to be an Anne IV, please make sure it's A.) family-friendly and B.) not as bad as Anne III.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is not a good movie
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.
20 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dissapointing
Warning: Spoilers
I was excited to see the third movie of this trilogy but was greatly disappointing. Based on the books, this film does not follow them. But reviewing it as a movie alone it felt way too rushed compared to the other two. I loved how the first two movies flowed smoothly following Anne's life showing how she alone seems to be a light that can change people and the way they see the world. But in this movie you are bounced from one location to the next. You get a little blip of her career and Gil's. then you're thrown into a sudden mirage that lasted all of two seconds before suddenly everyone seems to join World War 1. I have a hard time believing that they would let Anne travel where ever she wanted to on the front lines, even if she was apart of the red cross. She would need papers and approval to go where she wanted to go. And during that time woman had very little rights nor say on what to do during a war. More then that, I think Gil would be terrified to know Anne was on the front lines to begin with. The story was incredibly choppy. All i wanted to see was her married to Gil and their struggles of raising children, while working as a doctor and writer. While seeing how Anne changes the people around her. Instead I was given a poorly written story that had no clear plot that made very little sense. A disgrace compared to the other two movies.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A literary disappointment
I first fell in love with the story of Anne Shirley and Gilbert Blythe as a seven year old when my family watched Anne of Green Gables on The Disney Channel. I read the books as quickly as I could, and I make an effort to re-read the books every 2 or 3 years. Even at 25, I find myself laughing at the same parts, crying at the same parts, and wishing that Anne would just accept Gilbert's proposal the first time he asks her. Every time I finish Rilla of Ingleside (book 8), I wish that Lucy M. Montgomery had just written one more book so that the story could continue...
The story did continue in 2000 with the third installment of Kevin Sullivan's Anne films. However, this one was a complete departure from the story that I and little girls around the world had grown to love. Where the first two movies were laden with episodes from the books, the third movie had nothing in common with the books at all. Were we supposed to ignore the fact that by the time WWI rolled around, Anne's CHILDREN were old enough to fight? According to Sullivan, while the rest of the world moved ahead about 20 years from the time of the bridge scene to the time the third film opens, Avonlea was stuck in a timewarp.
Sullivan should have realized that the people who would have waited for a third film after 15 years were the ones who truly loved the Anne story. While the movie is able stand on its own as a love story between a woman named Anne and a man named Gilbert, those of us who waited deserved a continuation of the story L. M. Montgomery wrote. Keeping close to the the first four books served Sullivan well when putting together the first two movies. I for one would have loved to have met Captain Jim, Susan, and old Dr. Blythe; to be a part of a wedding that I have imagined from my childhood; and to see Anne and Gil experience the joys and sorrows of their House of Dreams. Sullivan's decision to completely ignore the works of L. M. Montgomery is an insult to her memory, her work, and her fans.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not very accurate
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!
41 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A very disappointing and unnecessary sequel
Why?is my first comment.They should never have made this sequel in my opinion.The first two Anne stories are so delightful,but this was a bitter disappointment to me.It isn't the actors don't get me wrong they were just as good in their roles as ever ,but this story isn't even written by the original author Lucy Maud Montgomery.No if you are a big Anne fan like me ,Don't watch this sequel.You WILL be sorry like I am.No offence to the actors ,but why Megan and Jonathan did you touch this it's a sham!!!!1
11 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A big disappointment for Anne lovers.
A big disappointment. The departure from L.M. Montgomery's novels and the creation of an entirely new storyline has sapped all of Anne's vivacity, impishness, and honesty right out of her. The production drags, the actors seeming less like the characters I've known and loved than, well, tired actors. The war story is a good idea, but with every implausible twist and turn it becomes clearer that it just doesn't work to superimpose a simplistic, slapdash storyline on classic, beloved characters like Anne, Gilbert, and Diana. I'm surprised that Kevin Sullivan, who created such beautiful adaptations of the novels in 1985 and 1987, allowed this melodramatic drivel to be produced with his name on it.
11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
a film not for true 'kindred spirits'
Although this could almost have been a decent war drama by itself, this film should by no means bear the name 'Anne of Green Gables'. For this film, Kevin Sullivan was fortunate enough to have 4 more books from which to write his script- but he chose to ignore all of them. For him, this was a 'what if' movie - not a 'what was written' movie, which - as a die hard 'Anne' fan - put me in the depths of despair. I won't even go into the under-developed characters or predictable plot. After capturing so many girls' hearts years ago with two beautiful films, Kevin Sullivan has betrayed us by substituting scenery for explosions and character for carnage. Amongst all the victims in this film, it was for the death of Anne's spirit for which I grieved the most.
If you treasure your Anne girl, DO NOT see this movie.
11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Vive le Bridge!
I remember the scene of Anne of Avonlea on the bridge as a child and being completely rapped up in the warmth of Anne and Gilbert and... the kiss! I was aching to find out what happened next. Now... I wish it was left up to the imagination. Alone, The Continuing Story isn't so bad. If you put different names to the characters you would have never guessed that it was related to the first two Anne films. I say this only becausethe characters are completely different... Anne has lost her sweet childlikeness, her playful cocky spirit... Gilbert doesn't seem very charming or flirtatious... in fact another suitor by the name of Jack Garrison seems more interesting than Gilbert in this one. This film stoops so low on the Anne scale that they actually filmed a wedding night scene (thank god they didn't put it in the final version but they FILMED it as a MAYBE!) We don't want to see that! Please forget this film and let your imagination go- after the beautiful bridge scene in the second installment.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
horrible
For those who have read the Anne books, you should know the writers and creators of this movie didn't read them at all, I'm sure. In that sense it was awful. Even if you haven't read the books you would probably find the movie terrible. I was completely confused during the first half. I understood basically what was going on, but the reasons for what was happening were lost on me. And Jack- did Anne really care about him? Is that what they intended to imply? Or did I totally read it wrong? Like I said, I was confused. I'm not sure why anyone thought this movie would be popular with any viewer. I was bored to death. It just didn't have the same feel as the other movies. It wasn't as exciting or as fun and cute as the others. But it did do some good. I laughed so hard at it. And it made me appreciate the other two movies and the books so much more than I used to. If you've read the books and/or seen the other movies, you probably want to watch this one just for the experience. If you don't you'll keep wondering what it's really like. If you're new to Anne, don't bother. This was quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen.
12 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Blech!
Warning: Spoilers
**WARNING**SPOILERS AHEAD** (?!?) As a lover of the Anne of Green Gables novels I absolutely *detested* this film. There were no parallels between this and L.M. Montgomery's novels. Anne and Gilbert married once Gilbert finished medical school. They settled down with Gilbert as a country doctor and had 7 children. The dating is completely off for this movie, as well. If you date Anne & Gilbert married, they did so well before the turn of the 19th century. By the time WWI rolled around her youngest child was 16 and three of her sons joined up to fight. Gilbert was too old to have fought! Absolute trash. I couldn't even finish watching it.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It just doesn't live up to its predecessors....
I sat through the first two TV movies and was glued to the TV every minute of these stories. I had a hard time sitting through this "continuing story". I can't put my finger on it, but it was missing something that the first two had. I still watch videos of the first two and will probably not even buy the third one. I am surprised to see the number of people who gave it a 10.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0158466/reviews
0 Response to "Annof Green Gables Continuing Story Dvd Reviews"
Post a Comment