Anastácia: O Mistério de Ana

I wouldn't be so sure to accept the DNA tests as irrefutable evidence against Anna Anderson. First, read Peter Kurth's book on which this film is based. Anna Anderson knew things that only the real Grand Duchess Anastasia could possibly have known (forensic evidence in Anna's favor aside). Second, compare the pictures of Anastasia and Anna Anderson. Anyone can see that they are one-and-the-same person. Third, visit Peter Kurth's website (url below) where you can read detailed information about the DNA tests, as well as why Franziska Schanzkowska and Anna Anderson are not the same person (scroll down to the link, "ANNA-ANASTASIA NOTES ON FRANZISKA SCHANZKOWSKA"). Even Schanzkowska's relatives believed that their sister and Anna Anderson were not the same person.

I for one will always believe that HIH Anastasia Nicolevna Romanova and Anna Anderson were indeed the same person; I will never be swayed to the contrary .

www.peterkurth.com

It's a shame, because although this film is entertaining (in an American soap-opera sort of way), the fact that it's so loosely based on the story of Anastasia and the book by Peter Kurth, means it doesn't really live up to it's potential.

The real characters of the Romanovs, the uprisal of the Bolsheviks, imprisonment and execution, royal conspiracies, and in general, an accurate portrait of Anna Anderson's life, all take secondary place to beautiful setting, pretty costumes, an attractive cast (most of the acting is quite good) and an unfortunate 80's tinge (too many perms).

The film goes off on a tangent, eventually delving into the realms of fantasy and sickly Mills&Boon-style romance. Don't get me wrong, it's a fun film to watch, but had it been more intelligent, more ACCURATE and more sinister & mysterious, it would have been so much more captivating and entertaining. I gave it 6/10.

Anastasia: The Mystery of Anna was a two-part star studded historical T.V. movie based on the Peter Kurth book, Anastasia: The Riddle of Anna Anderson. It keeps up historically pretty much, names are changed etc. But sticks to the real story quite well. Omar Sharif and Claire Bloom do quite well as the Russian royals, Czar Nicholas and Czarina Alexandra. What stuck out in my mind was the all too short portrayals by Rex Harrison and Olivia De Havilland. All in all it was a pretty classy production with some fine acting. I was quite awestruck by the production values when it first aired on NBC in late 1986. Also starring was the fine German actor Jan Niklas who had previously starred in NBC's other Russian epic "Peter the Great".

I felt that Part 2 skipped over some important details of Anna Anderson's trip to America. It's important to know too, that in 1986 less was known about the Anna Anderson story. Back then it was still not known whether her claim to be the Grand Duchess Anastasia was genuine. By the late 1990's more was known and Anna Anderson is now reputed to have been a fraud.

Too bad the networks aren't making fine made-for-television movies like this anymore.

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.

The poor woman who was portrayed in this movie would be convincing except for DNA evidence proving she wasn't Anastasia Romonov. Either you believe she was who she said she was or the member of the British royal family who provided DNA and shared a common ancestor with the Romonov's in Queen Victoria wasn't who they said they were which is unlikely, this aside the woman probably believed she was a Romonov even though she obviously wasn't the film seems to make her out as a callous actress who was playing everybody for fools as an alternative for her mental problems said by the surviving family even so this film was entertaining and doesn't end the mystery which was unsolved at the time of it's making but shows it as it was a mystery and I'm glad the DNA evidence is conclusive since there would be people on the internet arguing whether she was who she said she was.