PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Billie Morin This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Raymond Sierra The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

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".

aussiebrisguy There can be no doubt that this was an entertaining piece to watch. It had a mixed ability cast with many of the main roles very badly miscast. The pre revolution scenes were too sickly sweet for words. I think the real Anastasia would have found them difficult to stomach. The whole series was loosely based on Peter Kurth's book on "Anastasia". It would have been so much better, given the huge budget, if it had been more historically accurate. It is more Mills and Boon than serious drama. It was more a love story between Anna Anderson and Prince Eric than an accurate account. I would have liked to have seen more about the trials. An interesting drama would have not painted the other side all bad like this did. I guess there was an agenda established from the very beginning that there was no possibility of denying that Anna was not Anastasia. That is where the whole thing disintegrates, sadly.