I first read the synopsis of the movie and thought it was odd that they cast Barbara Hershey as Anne. I just couldn't figure out why! Then I actually watched the movie and realized that Megan Follows was a smart lady and wanted nothing to do with this horrible plot line. Turning Anne into a liar? I mean, that was the main draw to her. In the original movies one thing she was not was a liar and had a sweet innocence about her.My other problem with this movie is that Diana was her "bosom friend" throughout but in this movie she is just and afterthought. I would have preferred they never mention her at all rather than sticking a look alike (who REALLY did NOT look like her) in at the end for two seconds. The "flashbacks" of Anne were more watchable than the "flash forwards" and I found myself actually getting irritated when Barbara Hershey was on screen. So they kill off Gilbert so now Anne is a mopey mess. Sorry, even when she was in the "depths of despair" in the originals, she still had life. Now my last problem with this movie is the "long lost brother" plot line thrown in at the end. It just felt hollow. She goes all the way to Boston to find her father, finds out she has a half-brother, gets to Violetta's (who is inexplicably mad at either her or her father, I really couldn't figure that one out) who would not see her, asks whoever is there to see her half-brother, and then all Anne does is rip up a card and leaves. That's it. No fight...nothing. Just leaves. Goes home. But wait....he shows up for some reason (how he got to find out about her or who told him is never explained) at the end of the movie. You never hear the exchange, just a far of shot of them shaking hands, saying a few words to each other, and then hugging. It was just awkward. It seems to me that Barbara Hershey (who I think is a wonderful actress) never took the time to see the original movies so she really didn't get the right feel for the Anne character.

After seeing the previous three episodes, I looked forward to the 4th installment of this beautifully photographed series. Unfortunately, it was a pale imitation of those that preceded it. However, I did not find fault with the outstanding performance of Hannah Endicott-Douglas as very young Shirley. Some have compared her unfavorably with Meghan Follows but I feel this is unfair since Follows was 13 when she initiated the role. Endicott-Douglas was much younger and the task was much harder for her. It was a bravura performance for someone her age. On the other hand, Barbara Hershey as the mature Anne was grotesquely miscast. She bore no resemblance at all to young Shirley and appeared uncomfortable in this role. I found it strange that she would weep at the grave of her late husband who was supposed to have died at Dieppe in 1942? Many Canadians were killed or captured at this ill-advised engagement but it was merely a raid, not a permanent invasion, so it is unlikely that a medical officer would have been there. If he had been killed there, I seriously doubt his body would have been brought back to Canada for burial? Those who died in the Dieppe raid are buried in France among the thousands of other Allied soldiers buried there. I thought Shirley MacLaine was adequate as Mrs. Thomas but I can understand the feelings of those who wondered why a Canadian actress could not have played the part. I agree and feel someone like Kate Nelligan would have been excellent in that role. I thought Rachel Blanchard was radiant as Luisa Thomas and a definite asset to the production. I thought she bears a striking resemblance to American actress Michele Pfieffer. I was very confused by the convoluted finale where mature Shirley was seeking her half-brother? What was Hepzibah, the housekeeper from hell, doing there? She was an old gray haired woman when Shirley was a very young child? Who was the man with her in that house? Why was Violeta the sole heir in Shirley's father's will and where was she? Where was her half brother at this time? A lot of loose ends unexplained. Finally, I agree with those who would have preferred a sequel of the period when Gil and Shirley were married and raising their two daughters and adopted son. Perhaps director Sullivan is thinking of following the example of "The Thorn Birds" and creating a new chapter titled, "Anne of Green Gables- The Missing Years." If so, he shouldn't try it without the original pair.

I had heard this was being made and have just seen it for the first time. Kevin Sullivan should be mortified, but I doubt that he has the good taste to know it. The writing is dreadful, the rape of the original story and characters appalling, the abuse of an iconic Canadian story tragic. And on top of that, the quality of the film-making is and insult to the term 'amateur'. It's painful.I have heard tales of the legendary hubris of Mr. Sullivan but this falls below even the lowest expectation. The directing is so bad he manages to make well known accomplished American actors unwatchable. The sentimental posturing of Barbara Hershey is laughable and Shirley MacLaine looks like she's checking for exits. I guess everyone needs to top up the retirement fund, even legends. Fair enough. But what do a couple of ageing American stars know about Canada or the history of a maritime island most Americans never heard of? What do they have to do with the heart or memory of this story? Their rhythm is wrong. Hollywood plunked itself down in PEI farmland to tell them who they were. Ridiculous. Offensive.Kevin Sullivan, whatever glutinous ambitious distortions and abuses you have flung across the memory of this story, you could hardly have done worse than this piece of insulting exploitive drivel. I find it difficult to imagine anyone in Canada will ever watch anything you are attached to again. Shame on any Canadian agency for funding you. I commend the past cast members for eschewing this abortion of a script and certainly you as a 'director'.Hard enough to get Canadian stories told...but this is criminal.

Wow. I'm amazed that Kevin Sullivan made this movie. To me, this is just sad. Pathetic and sad. Kevin Sullivan clearly is in need of some cash, so he and his company decide to trot the "Anne" story out again and see if they can ring it dry, squeeze a bit more profit out.I am completely rejecting this story as part of the "Anne" story. Kill off Gilbert? What a joke. That does not happen. I am actually angry at Sullivan for betraying the fans with this drivel. How dare he concoct this horrible junk about Anne just to try and come up with something passing for a story?!! As for the actors, of course they are poorly cast. But I don't fault them. No one could ever take the place of the original actors, so it was an impossible task.Maybe the movie could have worked if it weren't an add-on to such a powerful mythology that so many people care about and love.Shame on you, Kevin Sullivan, for betraying the fans that have loved Anne of Green Gables. You clearly can't come up with anything that can add positively to the "Anne" series. The horse is dead. Stop beating it.