Kirpianuscus long time, I was very critic about this film. for its status of one of many films in Hallmark style. for a predictable story who could be presented in better manner. and long time I perceived as only good thing the performance of Olivia de Havilland. but the new technology is the best enemy of prejudices. it is not great. but it is beautiful. Amy Irving does an admirable job and Omar Shariff gives one of the most interesting Nicholas II portraits. and, sure, it is almost a crime to ignore Christian Bale in the role of Alexei , if you really are his fan. but, more important, it is a coherent story. and useful adaptation of a case who impress not for its last verdict but for the circle of illusions. story of a myth, it is one of films who gives more than a historical sketch but who reminds the wounds of a period.

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.

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".

Neil Doyle This is a richly produced, atmospheric telling of the Anastasia legend set against the time of the Russian revolution. It has the look of an authentic, handsome movie of the kind made during the golden age of Hollywood. In the title role, Amy Irving gives what is probably one of the finest performances of her career. Others around her are equally impressive: Rex Harrison, Olivia de Havilland, Claire Bloom, Omar Shariff, Jan Niklas and Susan Lucci.The epic story begins with the start of the revolution and the exile of the family of Nicolas and Alexandra. After fleeing execution, the story follows Anastasia's years of struggle to regain her royal heritage--and the opposition of forces around her who call her an imposter.Winner of two Emmy Awards, two Golden Globe Awards and much acclaim from critics and public upon its video showing in 1986. Well worth viewing.