Date Mar. 8 1999
Anne of Green Gables meets All Quiet on the Western Front ... and the result is one of the most romantic films of the year ...
Here is Anne Shirley, our little orphan, all grown up. She finally marries Gil, but before she can settle down with him, he gets sent away to the war. Despite obvious temptations -- Fred and Garrison -- she insists on going into hell on earth in order to find her husband. I hope such devotion still exists amongst married couples today!
I was not disappointed in the least in this film. The characters have grown up -- and so has the world. Someone else wrote here that WW1 changed everyone. Why should this not be the same with Anne?
The performances were top-notch, and I was particularly happy to see good old Barry Morse back in the acting saddle again as Mr. Winfield. Sadly, while it does set up the Garrison subplot, I did feel the New York segment was a little out of place, considering the majority of the film was a war drama. And there seems to have been some "MASH"-style time compression techniques used to try and convince us the entire Red Cross-London-France-Germany segment takes place only in the last few months of the war.
There were some very neat parallels made with the first 2 films ... the scene where Anne converts a furnace into a mini-cannon refers to a scene in Anne 2 where a student sets off a firecracker in a stove. And at least one reviewer has noted how when Anne reunites with Dominic at the end, it looks the same as when Matthew meets Anne in Anne 1.
L.M. Montgomery purists (and I don't intend the term to be used in any negative way) probably would have issue with this different portrayal of Anne. But as a fan of the films since Day 1, I was quite happy to see this reunion and I can't wait until CBC (or PBS) shows it again so I can tape it.
My only major complaint -- the CBC ruined the ending by suddenly cutting to a promo and squeezing the credits into an unreadable strip on the side. What were they thinking?
Date March 8, 2000
I was extremely disappointed. I didn't appreciate the rewriting of a good story just because Sullivan thought there wasn't enough literary material to support another miniseries. Frankly, he botched it. The movie was supposed to continue Anne's story 5 years later but Sullivan advanced the whole timeline by more than 20 years (not to mention that the Megan and Jonathan looked 15 years older) -- Gil never went to war; correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe their sons went to war. I will say that I enjoyed the intimate moments between Gil and Anne best. That was what I was waiting for.
Date March. 8
I was very let down by this movie. I have waited 13 years for it and I can't even describe how empty I felt after it all. Maybe it's my fault for stocking so much into a film. However I have come to expect nothing but perfection from Kevin Sullivan.
This movie was choppy, rushed and poorly written. I'm not sure why Sullivan made it at all. Maybe he wanted closure on the "Anne" movies so he did si as quickly and carelessly as he could. Who knows?
I'm quite agree with Ruby's point...In fact, if you saw "Life and Time" last night on L.M Montgomery, you may give this Anne 3 a extra credit. I know it's hard to accept the reality, I myself first found my dream destroyed too. But then I think,why not just look at it from another point of view? Instead of finding those awkward details/moments, why not just enjoy the spirit within~~ :)
Reviewer Lisa P.
I have been an Anne fan all of my life. Anne 3 was TERRIBLE. There was no resemblance to the L.M Montgomery series besides the characters. What were they thinking???
Date March 08, 2000
Hey there! In response to Dawn's message:
Well you made some interesting points, especially relating to Anne's "touchy-feely" moments with Jack and Fred! (By the way, I too, thought that Anne was gonna have an affair or something with Fred! That scene with her lying on the couch and him holding her hand had some definite UST) But all I can say is that in Anne 2, Anne had no problems flirting and being touched by Morgan Harris, so I don't think that her dealings with Jack were so far out of character. Anne isnt frigid by any means...and in this film, she and Gilbert are pretty affectionate too! Maybe its all part of Anne's subtextual "sexual liberation" which is symbolized in her relationships with men. I also read the OTTAWA Citizen article you link to and I have to say that while I understand Megan Follows' concerns about the character, I do agree with Kevin Sullivan's point: that WWI did change Canadians lives, and subsequently Anne's life too. All the so called "inconsistancies" you describe in her character can be attributed to the climactic changes that the first world war caused for every citizen of Canada at that time. As a Canadian myself, I was proud to see Sullivan depicting our efforts in the war (and underplaying the American stuff).
But I have a question for everyone- did Gil leave for the war on the same day as his wedding or was it the next day? (You know why I'm asking this!! :)
Date March 8, 2000
I found the movie to be quite enjoyable. Once it started, I could not wait for the commercials to end so the movie would be back on!! The location of Green Gables is quite close to where I live and it was totally awesome to see the house in the movie and to realize that I saw the make up of this scene!!! Megan and Jonathan are 2 very good actors, and I look forward (hopefully) to another sequel in the series!!! I thought Diana's was a little useless, her husband tells her he is going to war, and she acts like she could care less!! When Gil left, it was a touching scene where Anne jumps on the train and they share one last passionate kiss before he leaves. I have to admit that its a little far fetched to think that someone could go off to war and be able to locate (even if by luck) the person they are looking for. Regardless, I still enjoyed it and I do hope for another!!!
Date March 8, 2000
First I would like to say that I'm not really good in english, so excuse me if I make mistakes... What a deception... I really don't understand why Kevin Sullivan changes all the story. There's absolutely no interest in this new serie, he should more listen to our request and I hope he will understand that. I think he don't has the right to change a so beautiful story... He mades a mistake, but now it's to late.
Date March 8, 2000
I wanted a place where I could vent and obviously found myself on the internet. I am also interested in what other Anne fans think of my comments on "Anne 3":
I was disappointed that Sullivan changed the genre of the series entirely. "Anne" and "The Sequel" are both romantic comedies with dramatic undertones. "Anne 3" is an action/adventure with romantic and comedic undertones. For example, in "The Sequel", Anne and Diana chase a wayward cow. In "Anne 3", Anne is narrowly escaping with her life from German soldiers. Does anyone else see the major departure here? I also join many other fans that were disappointed that the film didn't remotely resemble LMM's Anne books. New York? The war?
More to vent: they waited too long to do the movie. It was supposed to be five years after the sequel, right? Megan and Jonathan had aged too much to be believable as, what, 25? Also, so many pivotal scenes were too short! The wedding and reception, which all Anne fans have been waiting, was so short in the movie, and was totally coloured by the despair that Gil was going off to war. It was hardly the joyous event that we had all imagined; the culmination of lifelong love. The war storyline could have been alright, had it just been limited to Anne searching Europe to rescue Gil. However, it became laboured and uninteresting when it involved Jack and his top-secret anti-war campaign and biding time with Fred. Who cares!? Where's the love? In short, the scenes I wanted (the Anne and Gil love and family life) were too short and the scenes we didn't need (Anne involved in war efforts and espionage, fighting for justice in an unjust world, in a nun outfit hiding from the Germans) were way too long.
Okay, I feel badly about all my complaining, because there was a lot to like. It was totally awesome to have so many of the original cast in the film; most notably Anne and Gil (Ed. Note: Jonathan Crombie is a man of beauty!), but also Diana, Mrs. Barry, and Mrs. Lynde. Bruce McCullogh would have been the icing on the cake as Fred, but oh well.
Without a doubt, the most redeeming feature of the movie was seeing Anne and Gil totally in love with each other. This was something wonderful that we didn't really see in the other films, except the last ten minutes of "The Sequel". That's what made the movie awesome to me. The scene where she finds him at last, in the square, and they are both looking at each other like they cannot believe their eyes, THAT was amazing. I totally cried. And when Gil tells her that he made it through by choosing differenct memories of her. Awesome! Another awesome scene was when they met Dominque at the station, of course. Most of the Dominque stuff was pretty great, however, I could have done without that almost-love storyline with Jack. (Especially when Jack was basically proposing to Anne when they weren't even sure that Gil was dead, and that scene in the train when she was talking to Jack and touching his cheek and saying that Dominque felt like theirs. HELLO! Oh, but I was going to stop complaining!) The flashbacks were also great.
I think I am done my venting. Overall, the film was okay because of the LOVE between Gil and Anne, and also because the character of Anne stayed pretty consistent with who she was before, despite the surrealistic situations that that character was thrown into. The acting by Megan and Jonathan was totally awesome. Seeing them in action redeemed this whole film for me.
Ruby wrote: Anne is still impetuous and rash in her actions...she is trying to grow up and be responsible but she still isn't afraid of taking risks and facing challenges. She is still very much OUR Anne in this movie.
I disagree. The only Annish thing Anne does is persist in seeking out Gil. Other than that, there is so much she doesn't do. It's my major problem with the movie: that Anne was no longer Anne.
1) She forgives Jack so quickly (compare with how long it takes her to forgive Gil!).
2) She lets Jack touch her all over: arms around her, hugs her, nearly kisses her... more than once! She never let Gil touch her! Each time he tried, she'd walk away.
3) To get Jack off her, she talks of Gil. What subtlety! Why not just out right SLAP him again? Anne would have done that every time!
4) Anne seemed to get very chummy with Fred...
5) Anne (someone else mentioned this) would never have shared the credit for her book!! And she certainly would have continued to fight that fact that it was being published as Jack's alone.
6) And as for the rest of the movie.. most of the time, she just stood around looking confused. Then, unable to think straight, she just did what others told her...
Megan Follows herself says, "It was a lot of hard work, an incredible challenge and ... I had probably my own feelings about who I thought (Anne) was. That was sort of indulged up to a point, and then ultimately, when you work with Mr. Sullivan, it really is how he sees it and what he wants" (Anne, Again, Ottawa Citizen, 2/26/00).
No, I don't believe the Anne in "Anne 3" was OUR Anne....