I have to say from beginning to end, this movie was very terrible.First of all, it failed to recapture the chemistry of the first two movies by these actors in their roles for Green Gables.Second, they lost touch with the original time period and sequence for the picture. The original theme was obviously set in the 1890s and then they jump to 1915. If they wanted to include a war, it should have been the Spanish-American War.Third, why was it even called Green Gables when the entire time at Green Gables for the movie is less than 5 minutes (ok maybe less than 6 minutes)? Fourth, the actors obviously had been longer than 5 years since the last movie. Unfortunately, this is something that age and time never seem to hide.Fifth, there were many elements to the movie that left loopholes. For example, how did they find the child after the war was over? Wasn't Anne already a published writer? She would have had some clout by then. How about the real purpose of the crooked publisher/editor and his brought to justice after murdering Jack Garrison? Why would Anne have ANY feelings for Garrison after he stole her work? What about the woman editor? And WHY for heaven's sakes, was it imperative to take the child back into France instead of safely into Canada away? The writers for this screen play skipped over the major elements and details in the story that was not done in the previous movies - perhaps because they were more authentic to the books? At any rate, I found this film, after much anticipation, a drag and boring and unbelievable.

Although normally I get upset when movie-makers deviate from a well-known story I have read, I understand that for legal reasons and timing -- if the actors had gotten much older there would have been no point -- he needed a script. This one gave them an opportunity to pursue themes of the era and explore how Anne and Gilbert could have responded to them: a woman writer, the glass ceiling and other gender role situations, WWI with its patriotism, espionage and tragedy, medical ethics in a teaching hospital and in war, sucking up to donors because public money isn't there... come to think of it, those are themes of today too, which is why I liked the movie. (The LM Montgomery books of Anne as an adult were disappointing to me in the lack of serious themes.) The war scenes in the movie were realistic and tension-filled but I endured them better than I do many war movies. I loved seeing how Anne could grow up and deal with more serious challenges, and I loved Megan Follows' performance. She was able to portray more depth of character and variety of emotion than the earlier movies required. The only thing I didn't like is, the "chaos of war" scenes went on longer than necessary.

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~

I am not one to get completely down on a movie because it isn't 100% faithful to a book upon which it draws inspiration. But if one is doing a follow-up to an already established film series, it seems to me it is just plain common sense that the follow-up should have some continuity in character personality and theme.The previous Anne of Green Gables installments relied heavily on the charm of both its characters and Canadian setting for its success. In this movie neither the characters nor the setting are even given the chance.The actors aged 13 years since the last sequel but for some reason look even older than their real-life early 30s. This is a detriment when we are supposed to believe they are still in their early twenties. Of course, what doesn't help at all is the fact that both Anne and Gil behave like folks who are worn down by life...even before they have had their WWI battlefield experiences. If Megan Follows had exhibited more of the fresh spunk and liveliness that made the Anne character endearing in previous episodes, it would have been easier to overlook the drawn face with the age lines around her mouth. Jonathan Crombie's Gil Blythe does no better, acting as drawn and haggard as he looks.Simple plots based on small-town personalities, relationships, ambitions, etc. have been likewise removed in favor of a more "grandiose" plot involving Anne traipsing around WWI Europe in search of her husband with somebody else's baby in tow. The story not only comes off dull but conveniently contrived to boot. Is it just me, or did anyone else find it odd that, with the millions of combatants and support personnel engaged in WW1 Europe, Anne kept running into people she knew? Further, scenes with the diminutive Megan Follows lugging a large baby around that is nearly as big as her also came off as visually ridiculous.Unfortunately, since the characters in this sequel bear little resemblance to previous incarnations, and since even the charm of Prince Edward Island has been supplanted with war-torn Europe, we are only left with asking the following question: Why bother?It is as if the writer/director et al thought, "Well, the names are the same, and the actors are the same. That will appease the Anne of Green Gables faithful. For everybody else, we have a nice, sappy WWI melodrama!"Relentlessly tedious, bleak and humorless, this "Continuing Story" continues scarcely little of the original flavor of the first two movies nor the "Road to Avonlea" TV series. Speaking as someone who is not even a devoted fan of Anne of Green Gables to begin with, this film makes me sorry for those who are.