Added: 4 years ago
From: Tbozfan07
Views: 28,054
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (64)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Did the scene where Anna freaked out and went on a ranmpage actually happen?

  • @dancerina26

    - when the men ran out of bullets they stabbed the bodies, making sure they were dead. I do believe that the dog was with them.

  • @dancerina26

    That is partly how the execution happened. They were led down into the cellar, under the pretense that they would be leaving. They they were told they needed to be photographed to have proof that they were still alive. Then, after reading their sentence the men fired upon them. The women had sewn all of their jewels into their corsets, so some of the bullets were bouncing off. The scene would have been horrific, they were all running around, screaming, bullets flying. Then

  • You know what would make a nice ghost or horror film would be the real anastasia's sorrowful and vengeful spirit possessing a girl and trying to seek vengeance. I dunno, it seems kinda cool to me.

  • @QuechuaWind oooohhhhhh that WOULD be a good story. you should write that.

  • Är det någon någon som kan svara på were del 6 tog vägen?

  • the Tsar did do bad things so if they wanted to kill him then ok but not the family they Grand Duchesses and the Tsarevich were innocent and had done nothing to upset Russia. they should of been allowed to live and sent to England. if it was only them then King George would have agreed to it.

  • wheres 6

  • Wheres part 6...?

  • What Karenjade says is not simple, but it's true; about murder not solving anything. It's only the beginning of a complicated thing.

  • SHE WENT NUTSS!!!!! Wat was wrong with her?!

  • she was a loony.

  • The Romanovs were no fairytale. They were living in luxury while the Russian people lived like medieval serfs, and sending millions of men into battle in midwinter with no boots on their feet and 1 bullet per day per 50 men, against German tanks, planes and machine guns. They were mad, stupid, corrupt and greedy.

  • Very true, re Stalin and Lenin. And of course, children don't deserve to be shot in a cellar. But the Russian people did not deserve to be treated as medieval serfs, gunned down in the street during peaceful, loyal demonstrations (orders of the Romanovs) or to be sent for slaughter without equipment while their rulers lived in obscene luxury. Being mad, stupid, corrupt and evil IS evil, in a ruler. They were also liars. Letters exchanged between them and George V of England prove that they

  • told him they were totally impoverished when in fact they had removed wealth to Britan as well as wearing 'diamond bullet-proof vests'. He offered them - with the agreement of the Soviets, who wanted them off their hands - safe house in London at his own expense, but they refused this, and demanded that the British people paid for them to be kept in Royal state. George V refused this, saying "While I will provide personally for my dear cousins, my people have recently fought a great war and I

  • will not ask that they now have added to their burdens this expense." THAT is why they didn't survive. The British royals were paying for the endowment of hospitals and charities for their people, not bleeding them dry. I am British, this period was my specialist degree subject, and I can assure you that if the British royal family had behaved as the Romanovs did at that terrible time in Europe, they, too, would have been gunned down in a cellar.

  • Comment removed

  • The british royals learned the hard way to rovide the fairytale while behaving benevolently, by virtue of a King being beheaded. For this reason,they are one of only a handful of monarchies to surive the upheaval of WW1. Tyrants end messily. Being a tyrant is not excused by wearing tiaras. The Romanovs - the worst tyrants of all - have simply captured public imagination. Nobody grieves for the Habsburgs, for example, but they are actually still forbidden to enter Austria, for the same reason.

  • I didn't say that it ended al the hunger poverty and vioence in Russia - but it certainly didn't make it worse, and in some cases improved matters. And yes, they had it coming, because they had to option on leaving - but chose not to take it because they were not permitted to treat another nation as they had treated their own. The tragedy is that children were involved - but their parents refused the opportunity for them to escape, on grounds of greed and pretension.

  • No, actually, it was about the same. Tsarist Russia was not a liberal democracy - it was a brutal autocracy. And yes, dear, if it makes you happy to believe that their lives were not marked by greed, arrogance, and an absolute disregard for the lives of their people, then you go for it. They wore pretty dresses, after all, so they must be faiwytale pwinthes and pwinthethes, not really a known incompetent idiot and a cold blooded emotionally unstable harridan.

  • No, they didn;t have enough coherant thought to 'deliberately' do anything except feather their own nests. They just didn;t give a rat's arse, because they saw the millions of Russian peasants - who were not permitted to leave their estates unless it was to die, ill-equipped - as sub-human. Get real. Or maybe you don;t mind licking arses as long as the owners of said arses carry a heriditary title?

  • Yay! good idea! After all, we live in 1000 room palaces while most of our people live in single-room huts, and their children die of malnutrition, don't we? And we insist on sending millions out to their deaths without ammunition while our families are hanging in jewels! And because we our wealthy and wear pwetty dwesses, our five kids matter MUCH more than the 1000s of peasant children who are turned out of their hovels because their fathers have died for us, don't they? Do grow up!

  • If you really think it's that simple, you have a lot ot learn.

  • If you think murder is ever an end all be all answer to a problem then it's *you* who has allot to learn.

  • The Romanovs murdered countless of Jews, non-Russians, workers, labor activists, and dissidents. Their fate was punishment, and not a simple case of killing because they had more. The Czar bled and starved the country.

  • As was said, Lenin and his own goons, the Bolsheviks, the Chrka, etcs crimes against humanity far outweighed the Romanovs, and neither their five children with their pet spanial nor their four servants were responsible for the countrys problems. Adding eleven more corpses onto the pile doesn't help anything.

  • Yeah, reducing a 7 day work week to 5 days, paid vacations, healthcare, education, housing, and worker control of their factories really were crimes against humanity. Because it robbed the right of some fat slob in a tuxedo to gt rich from it, right? The Romanovs ordered children killed for being Jewish, for being children of trade unionists, sent young Russians to die at the front against their will without guns and shoes, and instructed his Cossacks to shoot those who retreated.

  • No - you haven;t 'done a lot of research on history' - you;ve read a few historical novels. REAL history isn't pretty, and neither are most of the royal protagonists who marry in order to cement treaties which consolidate their wealth. Alexandra and Nicolas were not a 'love story'. There is nothing 'romantic' about shagging a stranger for money.

  • Not to mention the face they were cousins...

  • Yes, it gets more and more romantic, the more you look into it.

  • The Romanovs, the Hapsburgs, the Hohenzollerns... All more inbred than Dalmation puppy.

  • Just fewer spots and slightly shorter tails.

  • In some cases, anyway...

  • First off, as I said, Nicholas and Alexandra were failures as rulers, there's no denying that, but it wasn't because they were neither mad, stupid, corrupt or evil. Secondly, if you are referring to Bloody Sunday, Nicholas *did not* order the massacre. In fact, he was away at the time and devestated when he heard the news.

  • i hated the start of 0:33.. it' makes my stomach feel bad and reminds me of their death

  • y is she in the crazy house?

  • this doctor is kind of a creeper...

  • wow when she said she was asnataisa did anyone else notice her eye color changed

  • Amy Irving is great.

  • thx for posting... and where´s part VI ????

  • To solve everyone's questions.

    The reason the part's skip to different scenes is because the movie is based of facts, there's was no eveidence that anying happened with Anastasia or Anna within those years, so they couldn't make anything.

  • We realize that. The problem is that the scenes within the movie itself are being cut short by the end of each part, and the movie is not being taken up where it left off with each consecutive part. We're missing clips of scenes that ARE IN the movie.

  • oh... wasn't this movie made before tjhey found about the DNa of anna and anastasia

  • think it was dont think they found out that anastasia died till early 1990's

  • people are so rude...i really pity he romanov family...

  • thanx for posting but u skipped bits of it

  • So, not only the clips aren't connected at all, you ALSO missed part 6??...

  • Was Olivia De Havilland only in that small clip at the very begining

  • You forgot to post part 6

  • wers part 6

  • why else would she not want her picture taken.... she was mentally scarred being the only survivor watching her family die, her dog... everything she loved

  • Because it was suppose to appear as though the sudden bang from the flash in the camera not only triggered her memory but "reminded" her of guns going off, say, during an execution.

  • Thank you for posting this movie.

Loading...
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more