Anastasia

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.

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

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.

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".

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.