Anonymous (2011)

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

The acting in this movie is really good.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Okay, this is not as bad as Amadeus where Mozart was portrayed as a boorish and lewd playboy and Salieri as a hack composer willing to kill. And the history of wanting to attribute the writings of William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon to some other partial contemporary has been going on for a couple of centuries. This film puts Edward de Vere instead of Bacon, Marlowe or Stanley in the role of the secret author. And like all other names submitted, the Earl of Oxford's case for authorship falls short.I'll give the movie a 3 out of 10 since the cinematography, sound and acting are all fine. It's just that the plot is pure fiction and like The Davinci Code would like us all to believe it fact.Somehow, against any and all evidence, it is presumed a fact that Shakespeare's writings are all autobiographical and that his plays all contain things that he was incapable of imagining. I guess this relates back to our 7th grade teachers telling us to write about what we know so of course that must apply to Shakespeare. Hogwash!How do plays make it to the stage? Before Shakespeare's time through today a play does not get written, turned over to an acting company or director and then produced a few weeks later. Instead, the company of actors and the director sit with the author during rehearsals making changes for all sorts of reasons from the capabilities of the actors to the pacing of the play. To think de Vere could write a play, give it to Shakespeare and have it be successfully produced is ridiculous.And how did de Vere write those great plays after he had died in 1604? Because after the Kings Men moved into Blackfriars in 1608 the plays were written for the smaller stage and the different actors in the company.Shakespeare did not live in an age of biography. He did not even own his plays that were performed by the acting company. For a different example, try and find Christoper Marlowe's name as the author of Tamburlaine. Good luck because such a script never existed. If you are interested in the works of Shakespeare enjoy this movie as a work of fiction just as Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet or Taming of the Shrew are. It is not history as de Vere was not the author of the works by the man from Stratford. At least the producers did not market this as a documentary as the people that produced Last Will and Testament. Now that really is a case of false advertising.

I have to give credit where credit is due, Director Roland Emmerich known for his semi-entertaining disaster flicks, took a risky undertaking, making a political historical drama thriller about William Shakespeare not be the writer of his own's plays. That's take a lot of guts! The movie is set against the backdrop of Elizabethan England during the Essex rebellion against the aging Queen Elizabeth (Vanessa Redgrave) and her crude adviser William Cecil (David Thewlis) and his son, Robert Cecil (Edward Hogg). The film states out the theory that it was in fact Edward De Vere, Earl of Oxford, (Rhys Ifans), who penned Shakespeare's plays so that he convince the people of England to overthrow their ruler in favor of the Earl of Essex (Sam Reid) than the Cecil's pick of King James. The movie might not be historically accurate as it should be, the film presents a nearly absent King James as the Cecils' candidate, and Earl of Essex (Sam Reid) as a threat to his succession. In truth, Essex was King James of Scotland's most avid supporter in England during the closing years of Elizabeth's reign. I do find the absent nature of King James kinda annoying. He should had a bigger role since the plot revolve around him. Most of the characters are portray in an unlikeable role, even Edward De Vere was a bit of a jerk and cowardly. The idea that he has to hide under anonymous identify for the safety reasons is outrageous not hero like and not true to his real life counterpart. The worst had to be William Shakespeare (Rafe Spall). I really hated how negative, he was portray in the film. Even if he didn't write the plays in a film, he was still a brilliant actor and writer not a clueless selfish murderer. Yes, Shakespeare is suggested as the murderer of Christopher Marlowe (Trystan Gravelle) in this movie, despite in real life, Marlowe died in 1593 in a different neighborhood, than Shakespeare was staying. The movie really re-date a lot of plays and events to fit the 1601 Essex Rebellion, but the film fails to mention that he wrote a lot of plays that had no hints that it could relate to being against the current government at the time. The movie portray William Shakespeare/Edward De Vere as an innovator as people are surprise that he wrote a whole play in blank verse. In truth, blank verses been around since 1516, way before Shakespeare was born. Not only do the movie question William Shakespeare status as a writer, but also in the fact that the Virgin Queen, might not be a virgin, after all. That was pretty daring. Despite the historic inaccuracies, the movie had a lot of twist and turns that could be viewpoint as realistic and really were shocking! None of these controversial theories sound too outrageous when you think about it, but let it be known that the movie plot is indeed fiction, unless told over-wise by historians. The film was indeed entertaining well made. I really got into the time period with the set, costume, and visual/special effect design. The script was smarten more-well written than a lot of Roland Emmerich's previous films. Love how Shakespeare's plays themes are mixed with this script. Mad props to screenwriter John Orloff for that. Still, there were some faults to the script, such as the structure of the movie narrative, making it look like its being portray as a play within a play within a play. It's such a time-jumping format. I also didn't like the fact that the movie was nearly humorless beside William Shakespeare is well-known for his humor. Another is how the movie doesn't understand, symbolism like the Tudor rose, which it isn't a real flower. Still, there were lots of action, sexual tension and great acting to make it watchable. It's sad that a lot of people crap on it, without giving the movie a chance. There was a lot of unneeded heat when this movie came out due to the fact that a lot of one-sided biased William Shakespeare supporters AKA Stratfordians stubbornly couldn't open their eyes to a different viewpoint and the fact that It was Roland Emmerich film. Let's remember, he did make some good movies and made some stinkers before, but this movie is far from a stinker! Still, I'm not going to overlook the faults of the film, and praise it, like cult-like indoctrinate Oxfordians AKA people that believe that somebody else wrote the plays. While it's not that far off, that Shakespeare didn't write his plays due to the facts: that there are few records of Shakespeare's private life besides his taxes return, the layout of education in that time period with royals are must likely to able to travel, and get proper training in literacy in aristocratic sensibility, or familiarity with the royal court. Also that others works from author like Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe and others could mistake for William Shakespeare over the years is possible. People like Sigmund Freud, Mark Twain and Whit Whitman believe somebody else wrote William Shakespeare, but I have found in my own belief, that William Shakespeare indeed work his plays due to other well-documented evidence like title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians, and no evidence links Oxford to Shakespeare's works. The most compelling evidence against the Oxfordian Theory is de Vere's death in 1604, since the generally accepted chronology of Shakespeare's plays places the composition of approximately twelve of the plays after that date. I do think, William Shakespeare did steal some ideas & had influences from other writers from the time. Plus, half of his work are just rehash re-tellings of historical events or earlier manuscripts works from other authors like Edward De Vere. So, there is no real wrong answer to this. Overall: I had look at this film in open approach, and despite my overall belief, found it, worth watching despite its fails.

Well produced, extremely well acted, beautifully presented. Worth seeing. So,what else would you need to know about this film? It is deliciously entertaining and an interesting exploration of Shakespearian authenticity.I am neither a Stratfordian nor an Oxfordian but have a fairly open mind about exactly who, and what, Shakespeare really was. In that context, this was a very pleasant film.It did not resolve any issues for me (I am an Englishman and have never.exactly, worshipped the Shakespeare of my school days, 50+ years ago)but did enthrall me like a good detective story. If the purpose of a film is to entertain, to absorb me into the story, this film certainly meets that criteria. I bought the DVD cheap and had it sitting around for 12 days (there is no significance to watching it on the Twelfth Night). Frankly it didn't look as interesting as others I bought at the same time.Which just goes to show that not everything is as it seems at first glance. That, I guess, is the main thrust of the film.

My taught on Anonymous The movie name 'Anonymous' quite inspired me about the unknown truth behind Shakespeare. I personally found it interesting. Also the soundtracks were quite good to give you a great feeling about how is was back then. In this movie you can also find some great actors, a few funny moments, quotes about Shakespeare what I really liked a lot and great historical references. Still, I think this movie could be better. When I was in the middle of the movie I had trouble following the time indication whenever it was a flashback or present. There are a lot of actors during the movie and It was difficult to distinguish them. Also I had a hard time understanding all the relationships with each other. I personally think you have to watch this movie twice if you truly want to understand all of it. Written by a 18 year old Dutch student, trying to improve his English writing skills.