purplejoy716 As I huge fan of L.M. Montgomery, I was surprised I never read the book that my sister owned, or watched the movie that went along with it. I grew up with the "Anne" movies and loved those, despite the minor changes made to adapt the books into a movie. So I read "Jane of Lantern Hill" and absolutely loved it. Then I watched the movie and was horrified. This is worse than Anne's "Continuing Story." Why couldn't Jane have grown up in her Grandmother's house, instead of having her mother get sick forcing her into Grandmother's house? Why the whole ghost story involving Evelyn, an entirely made up character and plot line? Little Aunt Em was turned into mystical Hepzibah for no good reason, though I do enjoy the acting talent of Colleen Dewhurst. Jody, though well played by Sarah Polley, was annoying and vastly different than Jane's friend in the book. The Cockney accent really threw me off, seeing as the she lives in Toronto. Sullivan also decided to change the season Jane goes to visit her dad. Why? Summer is the loveliest time of year on P.E.I., but he makes it the school year up until Christmas. I did not like the casting of Robin or Andrew. They don't follow the characteristics of Montgomery's characters at all. Overall, a huge disappointment. I wouldn't have liked the movie if I had seen it without reading the book. It's not at all L.M. Montgomery.

thefonz003 I first watched this movie when I was late-elementary-school age (about ten-ish, if I remember properly). I was mesmerized, ironically, by the scenes that did not take place in the book (Colleen Dewhurst's character, and the nightmares). I'll admit I haven't read the book, so if I had, I might be disappointed by the film, as some viewers have obviously been; but as it stands, I found the movie version uplifting as spellbinding. The young Sarah Polley demonstrates the abilities that would later lift her to iconic status in her native Canada, while Mairon Bennett, though decidedly less over-the-top, turns in a respectable performance as well. Bear in mind that I was only about ten when I first watched this film. Now consider this: I am now twenty-one years old. The nightmare scenes have stuck with me all through the past decade, to the point where for about two years, I would quiz people to find if they knew in which movie these scenes had been found. I even posted on the IMDb boards. In either September or October of '05, someone read one of my posts and pointed me in the direction of this film. I bought a DVD from eBay and watched it last night for the first time in at least ten years. Although I am an adult now, it held up extremely well. How I saw it in the first place, I'll never know: it was a Canadian made-for-TV film, and I'm from Ohio and, at that time, my family had only what our antenna gave us (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, PBS, TBN, and UPN). At any rate, I consider this an amazing film, and would highly recommend it to anyone looking for an under-appreciated cinematic experience.

KatharineFanatic This was one of my favorite books as a child. I even had the book on tape, read by the same wonderful young actress that portrayed Jane in the film. I spent numerous blissful hours drawing and listening to the tapes, imagining that I was part of Jane's marvelous world. Then the movie came along and as a nine year old, I was thoroughly traumatized as to what they had done to my beloved book.Years later, an interest in Sam Waterston's acting drew me back, and admittedly out of sheer bias toward his portrayal of Andrew, which may be the only good thing about the movie, I did not hate it as much. But that does not make it a good adaptation. "Jane of Lantern Hill" was never meant to be a ghost story. There was no strange, creepy, gray-haired old woman (witch?) trying to encourage Jane to draw her parents back together. There was no ghost haunting her, nor no sinister nightmares. Beyond that, the first half hour of the film is complete rubbish that only bears a passing resemblance to the book.I'm not a prude when it comes to adaptations. I can enjoy them even with major changes made so long as the spirit remains true to the author's intention, and the characters are not severely altered in any way. I'm afraid this one doesn't quite hit the mark. I found it enjoyable, but in comparing it to the book, came up short every time. The best thing about the production are the performances by the leading girls and the depiction of a charming, eccentric father. That almost makes it worth it.

suessis While young Sarah Polley is not meant to be the featured child in this film she certainly steals the limelight from Mairon Bennett. She does a wonderful job as the young cockney orphan who becomes Jane Stuart's staunchest ally. Her performance and Colleen Dewhurst's make the film a joy to watch. Sam Waterston does a credible job as the father although I think that he carried the lost and confused act a little too far at times.I am not meaning to say that Bennett isn't good because she is. In fact the only performances that I was disappointed in was Patricia Philips as the mother. She seemed to over do it a bit at times and was somewhat melodramatic.Other stand outs in the cast include Zoe Caldwell, the great stage actress, as the grandmother, and Vivian Reis as the conniving Aunt. Although it shouldn't be possible, Joyce Campion and Florence Patterson steal scenes from Colleen Dewhurst.Kevin Sullivan's version is very different from the original book mostly in terms of the feel. Sullivan adds more of supernatural element that offers a chance for some well done special effects.I recommend this film highly for family night viewing.