Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Brainsbell The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

Edmund_Bloxam The screenplay is the worst part of this film, as it lurches from one premise to the next, missing all the important bits that would have made a number of different stories possible. (This film is confusing, because the audience doesn't know what the story is.) I had no problem with the low-production values and the acting wasn't great, but this is telly, so it was fine. I don't mind if some scenes looked like they were done in one take. But having such a non-sensical screenplay is completely unnecessary. Did any executive actually read it before forking out the cash? Avoid this at all costs.The prologue in particular was so poorly written, it needed a voice-over to fill in all the details that had been left out. The prologue was rushed, it wasn't clear what was happening, ie. The Russian Revolution was reduced to "Some riots are happening in Petersburg", with the next scene being soldiers arresting them. I know the basic history of the Revolution, so I could fill in the details, "those pesky Communists". The prologue is best ignored.This could have been a thoughtful study of a person who is confused about who she is. It sets up this premise in the asylum. It could then have her struggling to identify herself for the rest of the film. No. Gone. The film assumes she is who she says she is (even though there is still no empirical evidence.) It sets up a melodramatic romance, a love so strong, it'll believe anything she says. Okay, a soppy romance. No, because it makes no sense. The love interest seems like a crazed (and incidentally, sleazy) lunatic, bursting out in wild gestures. This also doesn't work, because the film stupidly decides to tell the truth in the monologue at the end. They never got married and she returned to America. The love story collapses. Despite there being plenty of love scenes, I was never convinced of the reason that they were in love. I find rom-com romances more convincing, despite there only being one or two scenes which establish that they've even spent any time with each other.It could have been a thriller-type thing where the film assumes she is who she says she is, and she struggles to prove her identity. No, the court case is summed up rather than dealt with. The bizarre voice over comes back, again to fill in the details of a better film.The funniest thing to consider is what really happened. Anna Anderson was a loony who went to America and married another loony and they did crazy things together. Throughout her life, she had bouts of lunatic behaviour. None of this in the film either. There's a really annoying character in the asylum who crops up from nowhere and announces herself as a 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Next/'Twelve Monkeys'-type informant. Thankfully, she vanishes, having brought nothing to the story.

WhisperingBells1959 "I Never Lie" is stated by Anna Anderson in this highly dramatized version of her life and battle for recognition of the Grand Duchess Anastasia. Unfortunately, that is exactly what this retelling does- time and again. Anastasia: The Mystery of Anna cannot be successfully counted as a biography of this Anna Anderson, nor is it fictional enough to be compelling. Overall, this made-for-TV film has the feel of a documentary created with limited research. It is a shame that the movie shoved aside historical accuracy and important details of the book where an excellent cast was involved (with several large names, including the late Rex Harrison). The first half hour displays a compressed tale of the Romonovs' captivity until their execution the following year using information from the foreword of Anastasia: The Riddle of Anna Anderson, the biography upon which this film is based. The acting was well done, the story close enough to accuracy. Since little is known of the Romonovs captivity and, exclusively, their death, liberty can be taken with this part of the biography with little effect. A half hour into the film, Anna Anderson falls off a bridge in Berlin in 1923. This event, in the book, had occurred in 1920. Later during her first interrogation, 'Anastasia Tchaikovsky' never claimed that her bastard son was dead as she had in the movie; on the other hand, according to her, was alive and well in Rumania. Furthermore, she had never herself claimed that her son was named after her brother Alexei- that was wrongly concluded in a supporter's notes. Anna herself had denounced this statement, explaining that she had named the young Tchaikovsky after her father and not her brother. The acting is well enough and the production overall has the feel of a documentary in cinematography and tone. With a three-hour running time this movie could've well been so; with more attention to historical detail and the book itself. Leaving out details is not an object (such as the facts that Anna spoke some German, French, and English as well as limited Russian and that she was wrongly identified as Tatiana by Clara in the beginning); changing them does. There is only one thing to be said: read Anastasia: The Riddle Of Anna Anderson for the truth. This film is a documentary gone wrong without a doubt and is at best useless.

dbdumonteil The subject was treated by Anatole Litvak in 1956 .more than its value,it marked Ingrid Bergman's reconciliation with Hollywood and she won an Oscar."Anastasia: the mystery of Anna" is more interesting,more historically accurate because serious studies have appeared since 1956.But by now,it has become irrelevant cause the truth is known thanks to science.It is a good MTV work,even if there's no longer suspense.Older people will salute one of Olivia de Havilland's last appearances as the dowager .Amy Irving does a good job with Anna who deserves to be called " a brilliant impostor".

rhbr26999 It was probably watching this TV movie that got me interested in the debate as to whether "Anna" was really Tsar Nicholas's daughter Anastasia. Since seeing it I have made a point of watching various documentaries and also bought a book. Despite the evidence that has been discovered since the film was released, I sometimes still think she was. Such is the power of Amy Irving's acting in this 2-parter which is somewhat liberal with the historical facts, but packed to the brim with tear-jerking drama and Irving's totally convincing performance.I was not consciously aware of Irving before this, though I must have seen her without realizing it in "Carrie" (another favourite film). In "Anasasia", I never felt for one moment that "it's only a film". For me this woman WAS Anastasia, and when part one ended with her in the railway carriage meeting members of the royal family, I knew that come hell or high water I had to see the second part. I just wanted to see how she would prove that she was who she claimed to be, and as the story progressed I felt an intense hatred of Rex Harrison's character, though I greatly admire him as an actor.When I saw the movie listed again in the TV guide, I convinced my Mother that we should watch it, and afterward she thanked me for doing so, being almost as keen as I had been to watch part 2. Then I bought the video and can totally recommend it. "Anastasia" is one of those rare TV movies that you simply must watch for the sheer enjoyment of watching the finest acting I have ever seen on TV, and it doesn't really matter whether you believe the legend or not.