Complete list. :-(
Was Shakespeare a Fraud?
A political thriller advancing the theory that it was in fact Edward De Vere, Earl of Oxford who penned Shakespeare's plays; set against the backdrop of the succession of Queen Elizabeth I, and the Essex Rebellion against her.
'To be or not to be.......
Not to be!'
P.s. Extra brownie points of you know from which film I stole that quote.
P.s.s. This film makes the film I stole that quote from look like Albert Einstein.
P.s.s.s. This film sucketh balls like thou wouldst not believe.
P.s.s.s.s. When will someone finally revoke Emmerich's filmmaking license, it's long overdue.
P.s.s.s.s.s. Why the hell was this film ever made? It has no historical credibility nor entertainment value.
The long standing theory that William Shakespeare, widely regarded as the greatest playwright who ever lived, didn't actually pen any of the work attributed to him has been around almost as long as the plays themselves. Anonymous advances the idea that the true Bard was Edward de Vere, a nobleman caught up in the political machinations of the age revolving around the succession of Queen Elizabeth the 1st, who thanks to a variety of reasons was unable to ever be credited as the real 'soul of the age'. Now chances are this theory, like all the rest, are just a load of old baloney and despite the air of mystery around Shakespeare's life, he most certainly wrote the classics much…
roland emmerich's magnum opus, and a landmark work of genius -- taking an absolutely ludicrous theory and using it as a means to emphatically argue for the value in art, even the unbearably stupid art.
emmerich understands he's no shakespeare, guys. this is less about the Great™ artist and more about the deeply personal relationship between the artist & the art, and the art & the audience -- it's a beautiful, multi-faceted collaboration, he suggests, and anything capable of something that complex & powerful is wonderful no matter what. we have had a plethora of films dedicated to the worthiness of Great™ artists & geniuses & innovators, but until this we have never used one as way of arguing for the little guys, the misunderstood…
It is hardly surprising the director of Independence Day would be so loose with history, although in fairness to Roland Emmerich the film never purports to be historically accurate, but I was disappointed there was no sign of an alien invasion and/or natural disaster. No doubt their presence would have livened things up considerably.
The myth of Shakespeare is almost as fascinating as the plays he left behind. Even ignoring the question of genuine authorship (a debate that rears its head every few years), the man was somewhat of an enigma with great periods of his life unaccounted for. It is this mystery that makes his own life ripe for dramatisation with Anonymous supporting the theory that it was the…
I love the works of William Shakespeare. I guess you can call me a Shakespeare buff. I love Shakespeare as much as I love movies; which is a lot. I do truly believe he was a genuis. The idea behind this film is that Shakespeare never wrote any of his plays and while I don't agree with that theory, I think it's interesting subject matter and in the right hands it could make a fascinating film. Unfortunately, even if Roland Emmerich is passionate about what he believes, he does'nt know what to do with.
Emmerich is one of those people I cannot stand...the type of people who would argue with you about something by stating his own far fetched theories…
I can't say I've seen this. Basically what I've done today is what I've done with this film once before; attempted to sit down and watch it only to find I'm unable to get past the first 20 minutes.
The clunky cumbersome dialogue.
It's all 'Well, Sir Henry Cecil' and 'Oh Marlow, lend me some money' and 'Look Kit isn't that Edward De Vere sat over there next to the Earl of Oxford'
No one speaks like this! It's expositional introductions masquerading as dialogue and it's just CRINGEWORTHY!
I'll endeavour to try and watch it again at some stage and see if I can get beyond this. Perhaps one bored and booze filled day over Christmas? Maybe with drink I won't notice the rotten dialogue?
very strong comedy value
Putting aside the debate that this film attempts to engage with, Anonymous is a intriguing historical thriller. It's difficult to follow but it rewards those who do. The performances and production values sell the otherwise bizarrely constructed script.
Should have focused more on Much Ado About Nothing since that's what it is. Nothing of importance happens for the majority of the dull runtime. It might have looked prettier if there was something of note in the presentation, but it is all just a tired retread of other works. It explores nothing in earnest and offers up nothing new, visually or otherwise. At least one of those is required for a worthwhile experience. Rolland Emerich goes through the paces and sometimes teases decent roles from otherwise excellent actors. The camera angles bored me and sometimes even made questionable mistakes via editing, such as reverse shots framed so lifelessly and identically that at first I thought they were jump cuts.…
This was watched with abject passivity. The bare requirements to legally log it as viewed. In other words, digested through eyeballs yet its conflict, narrative and characters were denied analysis. It's a film caught in the middle of a tug of war between factual history and shameless schlock and because there is no winner in this struggle, the rope snaps and Anonymous falls into the mud pool at the center of the tugging, a pool I believe no filmmaker ever wants to find themselves in. Not factual enough to make you feel smart, not silly enough to embrace pure camp. Just a grotesque, humorless blob of indulgent costuming and art direction masquerading as "the untold true story". Makes the liberties that Amadeus took with history look like investigative journalism.
Roland Emmerich haciendo una película sobre Shakespeare, quien diría que iba ser entretenida y nada mala.
Anónimo es una película sobre las teorías de conspiración de que Shakespeare no era solo una persona y que él no pudo escribir tantas obras de teatro y que todas fueran tan buenas.
Y la película va del drama a un thriller con algunas partes cómicas, visualmente esta bien, aunque se ve mucho el cgi, pero la creación de esa época desde el vestuario y las maquetas me gusto.
Una película para ver el fin de semana, aprendes algo sobre Shakespeare aunque algunas de las precisiones históricas están medio mal.
Staggering brassneckery from the guy what done that Godzilla remake, with a batshit-insane Occam's Razor-baiting shower thought gone mad story about how William Shakespeare didn't write his plays. There is a kind of mad entertainment to be had watching the film get ever more desperate and implausible as it comes up with a twisting chain of events to justify the conceit and in some ways you've got to credit everyone for just plugging on with such ardent stupidity.
In other ways you really haven't.
A mixed bag, felt a bit overloaded.
I commend Emmerich for trying something new, but the rhythms are just not here. What a bore.
The strongest aspect of this Roland Emmerich film is Rhys Ifans' performance. He is really, really good as Edward De Vere, an Earl who supposedly wrote the works of William Shakespeare. The whole twist of Anonymous is intriguing and interesting, but at times the plot was a bit far fetched and overall it failed to grip me in the way I had hoped. Still, the performances and production design are all excellent and it is definitely worth a watch.
Every film that has ever been nominated for an Academy Award in any category. Enjoy!