Pretty Good

As Good As It Gets

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

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.

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.

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.

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.