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.
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.
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.
Whatever Nicholas and Alexandras failures as rulers, neither of them were evil people and they, their children and servants did not deserve to be murdered. Plus, those that came afterwards, Lenin, Stalin, etc, were just as powerful and tyrannical as the Tsars had been if not more so.
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.
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.
Maybe you are right, but I've done allot of research on history too and I have read *nothing* like what you are stating. At any rate, there is no excuse, absolutely none, for the deliberate murder of these people. Anyone who views this family as evil tyrants who had it coming and that their murders ended all the hunger, poverty and violence in Russia is seeing the revolution, Lenin and Stalin through rose colored glasses.
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.
BS If anything, life in Russia was just as bad if not worse for the people under Lenin and Stalin who were even more brutal, powerful and tyrannical then the Tsars had ever been. Red Tsars and Red Terror.
Neither Nicholas or Alexandra were greedy or pretensious, and I doubt there was ever an option or an opportunity for the family to escape once they were captured. "They had it coming" is always the feeble excuse of cowardly murderers.
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.
And if you, dear, want to believe that Nicholas, Alexandra, their daughters and son, their doctor, cook, valet, lady in waiting and pet spaniel were all evil monsters who dilliberatly set out to destroy Russia and its people and deserved to be murdered for revolutionary ideals then you go for it. After all, Lenin and Stalin were against monarchy so they must be heroic saints and Communist Russia must have been an absolute Utopia with no violence, poverty or hunger. *Rolls eyes*
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?
Oh! And I have an idea! To make all countrys better, lets go rob and murder everyone with more wealth and power then we have! In fact, you and I live better then people on the streets or homeless shelters so why not let them rob and kill us too? We had it coming for living well while they are so poverty stricken and we deserve it after all! *Rolls eyes*
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!
So, like I said, if there are people suffering then it must be all the fault of people who have more then they do? We live in a nice house in a nice neighborhood, we have lots of good food and clothes and jewelry, etc, so that must mean it's okay for the poor, homeless people downtown to invade our house and rob and murder us because they are going through hard times? I think you are the one who needs to grow up, study these people better, and get a broader view. That's all I have left to say.
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.
Uh, no. I've read and studied history and I can tell you that Nicholas and Alexandra were very much in love from the time they were teenagers and married in spite of opposition.
Nicholas insisted on marrying Alexandra and Emperor Alexander III and Empress Marie Feodorovna opposed the marriage and wanted her to marry the Princesse de Orleans, daughter of the Comte de Paris. In the end they relented because Nicholas would marry nobody else.
Why do you think Alexandra and the girls sewed jewels into their corsets and clothes? So they could sell them to live off of once they were either sent away or rescued. And of course they couldn't tell of it in their letters. And I have a difficult time believing that the family who were prisoners and had absolutely no control over their own fate would have been able to have any contact at all with their English cousins.
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.
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.
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.
Did the scene where Anna freaked out and went on a ranmpage actually happen?
AzulaLover1 2 weeks ago
@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.
kittykat0401 11 months ago
@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
kittykat0401 11 months ago
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 1 year ago 4
@QuechuaWind oooohhhhhh that WOULD be a good story. you should write that.
CookieKitsune 7 months ago
Är det någon någon som kan svara på were del 6 tog vägen?
TsarPutte91 2 years ago
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.
lukeallcock2 2 years ago 5
wheres 6
blossomDXbrickD 2 years ago
Wheres part 6...?
chikaloka14 2 years ago 4
What Karenjade says is not simple, but it's true; about murder not solving anything. It's only the beginning of a complicated thing.
SiloliWolfeden 2 years ago 3
SHE WENT NUTSS!!!!! Wat was wrong with her?!
taylorswiftluvrs 2 years ago
she was a loony.
BumbleBeeInABluebell 2 years ago
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.
BumbleBeeInABluebell 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Whatever Nicholas and Alexandras failures as rulers, neither of them were evil people and they, their children and servants did not deserve to be murdered. Plus, those that came afterwards, Lenin, Stalin, etc, were just as powerful and tyrannical as the Tsars had been if not more so.
Karenjade 2 years ago
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
BumbleBeeInABluebell 2 years ago
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
BumbleBeeInABluebell 2 years ago
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.
BumbleBeeInABluebell 2 years ago
Comment removed
BumbleBeeInABluebell 2 years ago
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.
BumbleBeeInABluebell 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Maybe you are right, but I've done allot of research on history too and I have read *nothing* like what you are stating. At any rate, there is no excuse, absolutely none, for the deliberate murder of these people. Anyone who views this family as evil tyrants who had it coming and that their murders ended all the hunger, poverty and violence in Russia is seeing the revolution, Lenin and Stalin through rose colored glasses.
Karenjade 2 years ago
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.
BumbleBeeInABluebell 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BS If anything, life in Russia was just as bad if not worse for the people under Lenin and Stalin who were even more brutal, powerful and tyrannical then the Tsars had ever been. Red Tsars and Red Terror.
Neither Nicholas or Alexandra were greedy or pretensious, and I doubt there was ever an option or an opportunity for the family to escape once they were captured. "They had it coming" is always the feeble excuse of cowardly murderers.
Karenjade 2 years ago
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.
BumbleBeeInABluebell 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And if you, dear, want to believe that Nicholas, Alexandra, their daughters and son, their doctor, cook, valet, lady in waiting and pet spaniel were all evil monsters who dilliberatly set out to destroy Russia and its people and deserved to be murdered for revolutionary ideals then you go for it. After all, Lenin and Stalin were against monarchy so they must be heroic saints and Communist Russia must have been an absolute Utopia with no violence, poverty or hunger. *Rolls eyes*
Karenjade 2 years ago
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?
BumbleBeeInABluebell 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Oh! And I have an idea! To make all countrys better, lets go rob and murder everyone with more wealth and power then we have! In fact, you and I live better then people on the streets or homeless shelters so why not let them rob and kill us too? We had it coming for living well while they are so poverty stricken and we deserve it after all! *Rolls eyes*
Karenjade 2 years ago
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!
BumbleBeeInABluebell 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
So, like I said, if there are people suffering then it must be all the fault of people who have more then they do? We live in a nice house in a nice neighborhood, we have lots of good food and clothes and jewelry, etc, so that must mean it's okay for the poor, homeless people downtown to invade our house and rob and murder us because they are going through hard times? I think you are the one who needs to grow up, study these people better, and get a broader view. That's all I have left to say.
Karenjade 2 years ago
If you really think it's that simple, you have a lot ot learn.
hectorbolshevik 2 years ago
If you think murder is ever an end all be all answer to a problem then it's *you* who has allot to learn.
Karenjade 2 years ago 3
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.
hectorbolshevik 2 years ago
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.
Karenjade 2 years ago
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.
hectorbolshevik 2 years ago
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.
BumbleBeeInABluebell 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Uh, no. I've read and studied history and I can tell you that Nicholas and Alexandra were very much in love from the time they were teenagers and married in spite of opposition.
Karenjade 2 years ago
Not to mention the face they were cousins...
HouseOnSunset 2 years ago 4
Yes, it gets more and more romantic, the more you look into it.
BumbleBeeInABluebell 2 years ago 5
The Romanovs, the Hapsburgs, the Hohenzollerns... All more inbred than Dalmation puppy.
HouseOnSunset 2 years ago 2
Just fewer spots and slightly shorter tails.
BumbleBeeInABluebell 2 years ago
In some cases, anyway...
mrsapricot 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Nicholas insisted on marrying Alexandra and Emperor Alexander III and Empress Marie Feodorovna opposed the marriage and wanted her to marry the Princesse de Orleans, daughter of the Comte de Paris. In the end they relented because Nicholas would marry nobody else.
huwwilson651 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why do you think Alexandra and the girls sewed jewels into their corsets and clothes? So they could sell them to live off of once they were either sent away or rescued. And of course they couldn't tell of it in their letters. And I have a difficult time believing that the family who were prisoners and had absolutely no control over their own fate would have been able to have any contact at all with their English cousins.
Karenjade 2 years ago
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.
Karenjade 2 years ago
i hated the start of 0:33.. it' makes my stomach feel bad and reminds me of their death
RomanovLearner334 2 years ago
y is she in the crazy house?
izzfifteen 2 years ago
this doctor is kind of a creeper...
xbeyondxrealityx 3 years ago
wow when she said she was asnataisa did anyone else notice her eye color changed
RobotMice 3 years ago
Amy Irving is great.
KnusperhexeRosmer 3 years ago
thx for posting... and where´s part VI ????
elvenpath1327 3 years ago
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.
lozzalovesyou 3 years ago
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.
KekoaOnorati 2 years ago
oh... wasn't this movie made before tjhey found about the DNa of anna and anastasia
RomanovLearner334 2 years ago
think it was dont think they found out that anastasia died till early 1990's
gummie1066 2 years ago
people are so rude...i really pity he romanov family...
mitsugen07 3 years ago 3
thanx for posting but u skipped bits of it
zulukydd 4 years ago 4
So, not only the clips aren't connected at all, you ALSO missed part 6??...
mcmlxvi 4 years ago 17
Was Olivia De Havilland only in that small clip at the very begining
Cader1dris 4 years ago 2
You forgot to post part 6
azianboy2010 4 years ago 3
wers part 6
dyarakz 4 years ago 3
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
rainbowfairy420 4 years ago 3
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.
Jal8919536 4 years ago 3
Thank you for posting this movie.
starrynightz 4 years ago 2