Recensioni degli utenti

These days, the term "Anonymous" conjures up visions of unknown activists trying to influence history from the wings. They write things, and that writing changes society. In his film of the same name, director Roland Emmerich seems to be suggesting that this idea is not exactly new, and that the plays and poems attributed to William Shakespeare were essentially motivated by the same desire. He takes the age-old mystery of "Who really wrote Shakespeare's plays?" and turns it into a political thriller.

If it's difficult for you to imagine a historical costume drama done by the director of "Universal Soldier," "Stargate," "Independence Day," "Godzilla," "The Day After Tomorrow" and "2012," you are not alone. :-) I suspected that the screenplay (by John Orloff) came first, and that Emmerich discovered it and became enamored of it, and a quick trip to the IMDb verifies that this intuition was correct. It also informs me that Emmerich, taking advantage of the money he made on the previous films, paid for this whole movie out of his own pocket, so that he could have full control of the film, without interference from any studio. It shows.

It's not a bad movie at all. And this is something I never thought I'd find myself saying about a Roland Emmerich movie. The cast is simply to die for: Vanessa Redgrave as Queen Elizabeth the elder; her daughter Joely Richardson as Elizabeth the younger; Rafe Spall as Shakespeare (a talentless clod of an actor); Sebastian Arnesto as Ben Johnson (a talented playwright, but not even in the same galaxy of greatness as the author of Shakespeare's plays); David Thewlis as William Cecil; Edward Hogg as Robert Cecil; Derek Jacobi doing the prologue; Jaime Campbell Bower (from "Camelot") as the younger Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford; and Rhys Ifans as the older Edward de Vere, and the real author of Shakespeare's work.

As presented, the plot is not at all a scholarly argument for the Earl of Oxford's authorship of these plays. It is instead a clever reimagining of historical events (some treated as loosely as Shakespeare himself treated actual history) to turn the answer to the mystery that scholars argue about into a taut political thriller. In Orloff's/Emmerich's vision, Edward de Vere wrote the plays and published them under someone else's name for no less a reason that to foment revolution, change the course of history, and determine the next king of England.

And damnit, that reimagining kinda worked for me. The sets and costumes are pitch perfect, the performances are good, and the potential is there for a good time to be had by all. Like anything related to Shakespeare, the more you know about him and his work, the better this film will be for you. There are so many asides and in-jokes that I cannot begin to go into them. Orloff really did his research. Except for the part about Edward de Vere having died before at least 10 of Shakespeare's plays were written, that is. But that's just a nitpick, and should not stand in the way of writing a good drama. Those kinds of historical nitpicks did not deter Shakespeare, and they don't deter Orloff and Emmerich. All of them understand that "The play's the thing," and that history doesn't mean diddleysquat compared to that.

First thing to point out. When going to watch this movie I had no intention whatsoever to judge it on its historical accuracy. I simply did not and do not care. If you want a documentary on Elizabethan times then clearly you shouldn't be watching this particular film.

If, on the other hand, you want a perfectly entertaining and interesting way to spend a couple of hours then you should go and see it. I thought the story was engaging and original (if, like myself, you're not a pretentious academic). The acting was, on the whole, very accomplished. In particular, I thought Rhys Ifans gave a brilliant performance as De Vere and was perfect for the role. I did find Rafe Spall pretty annoying as Shakespeare, but perhaps I should give him the benefit of the doubt as this was probably the aim of the character.

With regards to the historical rewrite then surely if people are interested in what 'Anonymous' suggests they'll try to find out more about the subject in order to make their own mind up. Nothing wrong with that. And those taking Hollywood's version of history at face value are pretty much beyond help anyway.

Certainly one of the most memorable movies i've seen (for the right reasons) this year.

Greetings again from the darkness. While it is clear that writer John Orloff and director Roland Emmerich believe that Edward De Vere, The Earl of Oxford, and not Will Shakespeare, wrote the infamous and iconic plays we have celebrated for 400 years, my advice is to watch this as a Hollywood movie and not a docu-drama. Hollywood is at its best when exaggerating, twisting and dramatizing historic events and figures.

You may be an expert on Shakespeare and even Elizabethan history, but whether you are or whether you are not, my guess is that you will find this to be interesting and thought-provoking. You may agree with the idea that Shakespeare was not the prolific and talented author, but this movie provides one possible alternative ... with no scientific proof or actual documentation. We see Rhys Ifans and Jamie Campbell Bower portray Edward De Vere as the older and younger version respectively. Both capture his passion for writing and frustration at being unable to live the life for which he was born.

Vanessa Redgrave and her real life daughter Joely Richardson portray Queen Elizabeth at the older and younger stages, and we certainly get a distinctive impression of how "the Virgin Queen" may have been mis-labeled as much as any figure in history. Many lovers and illegitimate children are mentioned and the web of secrecy would have been exhausting, given the other responsibilities of her position.

Rafe Spall portrays Will Shakespeare as what one might call The Village Idiot. The buffoonery we see from this man is an extreme that weakens the case for De Vere, rather than strengthen it. Though talented writer Ben Jonson (Sebastian Armesto) was De Vere's first choice, the lack of morals by the illiterate actor Shakespeare allows him to seize a capitalistic opportunity and soak up the audience love.

The best part of the film is the realistic look and feel of the streets, the Globe Theater and costumes. Rhys Ifans is exceptional in the role of De Vere, and the story itself plays out much like one of Shakespeare's plays. The downside is, I believe most will find the multitude of characters and time-lines and sub-plots to be quite confusing at times. Don't take a bathroom break or you'll miss new babies being born and upheavals being planned.

The trailer to this movie interested me but it really beat my expectation. I thought it would be sort of interesting but overall dumb and super far-fetched movie. Now I can see how some people might dislike this movie, especially for those that are fans of Shakespeare. Also the movie doesn't really make you think but instead goes in a black and white direction. Where Shakespeare is a charlatan and a fraud, while being a obnoxious drunkard and a despicable person at that. Also this movie might irritate some viewers who judges movies by how true it is historically. Although history is written by ink and usually by the victors. But what this movie is, is a intriguing movie that grabbed my attention most of the way through although it had some slow moments. And can get a bit convoluted the way it goes from before and after parts, but you catch on after a while. Since there are movies about Shakespeare, it would have been more interesting if it had more of the back story of Earl of Oxford and his life. And also some parts seemed a bit far-fetched. The cast was pretty good and the acting for the most part is believable. Especially Rhys Ifans who played Earl of Oxford, the way he presented himself was charismatic and you could tell the character is intelligent by the way he expressed himself. Vanessa Redgrave was also great as Queen Elizabeth I. What was intriguing was how plays are in a way sort of like movies and this movie was about how plays moved people in immense ways. Overall this movie was a good blend of drama, romance and conspiracy.

7.4/10

Set in the political snake-pit of Elizabethan England, Anonymous speculates on an issue that has for centuries intrigued academics and brilliant minds such as Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, and Sigmund Freud, namely: who actually created the body of work credited to William Shakespeare? Experts have debated, books have been written, and scholars have devoted their lives to protecting or debunking theories surrounding the authorship of the most renowned works in English literature. Anonymous poses one possible answer, focusing on a time when scandalous political intrigue, illicit romances in the Royal Court, and the schemes of greedy nobles lusting for the power of the throne were brought to light in the most unlikely of places: the London stage. -- (C) Sony Pictures

As an average movie-goer, I had no idea that Shakespeare's authorship was ever questioned. I didn't know there were theories that existed that other people might have been the true author of the plays, one of which the film focuses on is Oxford. But as far as what ANONYMOUS achieves, it certainly opened my mind as an individual that there is a possibility that another person might have been the true writer of the plays. I mean, why not? It makes the whole thing pertaining to Shakespeare's plays much more interesting. At the most basic level, ANONYMOUS does one thing right: It's damn interesting and entertaining.

Even as a person who never liked Shakespeare's plays (especially the dreaded ROMEO AND JULIET), the film manages to be involving. I was compelled throughout the film, and what makes it work are the actors. Most of them are on the top of their game, including Rhys Ifans who is unrecognizable as Oxford compared to his role in HARRY POTTER 7 PT.1. Even his stares are intense. Rafe Spall as William Shakespeare seems to have a field day with his role, portraying him as an attention-seeking, moneygrubbing actor. I'd also like to point out that Sebastian Armesto, playing Ben Jonson, seems to have an unexpected greater amount of sreentime than anyone else in the film, and he does well in his role as the aspiring writer who plays as a messenger between Oxford and Shakespeare.

Another interesting thing to point out is that the film really doesn't focus on the whole authorship debate a lot. We see that Oxford is the writer giving the scripts to Ben, but other than that, the film pretty much brushes it off to the side and, instead, focuses more on the relationship between Oxford and Queen Elizabeth I as well as the Essex Rebellion. As you can tell, the cast is pretty huge, and I have to admit the first 20 minutes of the film is pretty confusing. We're introduced to a world with many characters and time periods jumping all over the place, but it gets easier to grasp once you get to know the characters.

Overall, ANONYMOUS is an interesting and entertaining film that will get people talking about who the real author of the plays are. The least anyone would get out of it is two hours of a fun "what if?" scenario. The performances by the cast is what really makes the film, though. If it wasn't for the cast, the film wouldn't have worked. Additionally, haters of director Roland Emmerich might find themselves pleased that ANONYMOUS is a character-driven film that doesn't rely on things being destroyed every five minutes. I'd like to see him make more films like this.

The Earl of Oxford (Rhys Ifans) is a talented playwright whose position forces him to publicly abandon his endeavors. He seeks to sign over his plays and sonnets to Ben Johnson (Sebastian Armesto), but that's easier said than done. When William Shakespeare takes credit (Rafe Spall), that's the least of concerns as the words of Edward affect the political climate.

Rhys Ifans is an unrecognizable powerhouse, and though the rest of the cast fairs well, he shines. As does director Roland Emmerich, who uses every trick at his disposal to make a highly sophisticated drama littered with elaborate costumes and set decoration to be admired.

The theatre experience is very well represented in Anonymous, with the narrator barely making the curtain. Believe it or not but this does actually happen and there are actors who specialize in. The workings of the theatre coincide with the events described and eventually merge. In the time of Edward, the Globe is shown with spectacular accuracy and the familiar faces of the troupe appear across plays.

The future of England is put at stake as the insight into Edward's inspiration is penned on a relationship with Queen Elizabeth (Vanessa Redgrave and in younger form Joely Richardson). These secrets showcase the power of words to win over love and country.

Is it cheating to inject stolen verse into a screenplay? To some extent yes. We're talking about a movie that lifts words, then says they came from a thief. A bit of a paradox if anything. Similarly, it would be silly for J.J. Abrams to direct a movie that's filled with scenes from every Steven Spielberg film, yet that happened with Super 8.

If Anonymous has a fault, it would be in jerking around the audience. The movie starts with an inventive use of a framing device, and quite appropriately in a theatre. We go back and Ben Johnson is jailed, only for us to go back 5 years to see him getting jailed. Then we go back another 40 and when we next see Johnson he's being set free. So… in which time is he released? Thankfully Anonymous is long enough to allow an audience to gain bearings.

Anonymous is Emmerich's masterpiece, a radical far from his usual environmental apocalypse works. There could be a stigma surrounding the subject, which will be viewed as blasphemy by many. I'd like to reassure you that most popular cinema is an act of fiction. Shakespeare isn't available to rebut, and most moviegoers are not concerned with historical accuracy so long as the story is compelling and filled with drama, which Anonymous delivers.

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose. By any other name would smell as sweet." - Romeo Juliet He wrote 37 plays and more than 150 sonnets. He introduced some 3000 words to the English language. But was he an illiterate buffoon? His parents were illiterate and he was likely to have received only primary education. His own wife and daughters were supposedly illiterate. For many years since early 19th century, there has been an unsettling question still ensues a debate among many scholars on the authorship of the work published under his name. Who is the real author of Hamlet, Romeo Juliet and many more of those plays that redefined the English literature during Tudor period. Although the work was published by Ben Johnson, but was it really the work of Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford? DeVere was a playwright and a poet of the Tudor times. Also, there were many similarities existed between the characters for example Hamlet and Richard III plays and the people DeVere was close to and the events happened in his life and that are described in the plays. There are few others whom anti-Stratfordians believe to be a real writer as well such as Francis Bacon and Christopher Marlowe. The anti-Stratfordians include famous people like Mark Twain, Sigmund Freud, Helen Keller, Charlie Chaplin, Orson Wells, Malcom X, and more. Did you know Shakespeare was a grain merchant in his later years who was delinquent in paying taxes !!!!

This movie is all about story and script writing. It steers through the complicated corrupt Tudor history, entwines them in a way that is more of a mystery than investigative story. But Intriguing plot, stunningly created Tudor London, breathtaking shots.. an impressive mise-en-scene, superb costumes, convincing performances. A good watch.

In order to enjoy this pseudo-historical thriller, one has to suspend natural desire for logic and order. For a start this is not history. The mystery of Shakespeare, the greatest writer in English language, will probably stay mystery. So, this simplistic movie,doesn't give any answers, nor pose any valid questions, it just tries to dazzle with bright colors. And it makes it's questionable claim with the heaviest of feet. The character of Shakespeare is made to be a step up from village idiot, dumb and illiterate. Little more subtlety wouldn't hurt. But this is Hollywood, a land where moneymakers rule over talent. So, simpler the better, says the one that holds the purse strings. It is hard to do art without money, but when money rules,art becomes obsolete.

I didn't come close to finishing this movie. It came down to simple bad storytelling. All the director and screenwriter had to do was establish the characters, establish the political situation then show how the plays stirred the pot through their hidden meaning, but after 45 minutes it was still just a story about a guy letting someone else put their name on his work. I was confused a lot. The film jumps back and forth in time for no good reason. It never focuses on one character long enough for them to stand out. Even the anonymous Earl of Oxford seems to be merely another character. Star quality, just a starring role, is what the film lacked. The political subtext of the plays either wasn't clear or was dubious. A courtier favored by the Earl is sent to fight in Ireland, so the Earl has the players perform "Henry V". Audience members in the know squirm uncomfortably while the crowd is overwhelmed by the St. Crispin's Day speech, but why? Did the Earl think the crowd would transfer their love of Henry to his friend? I didn't care. The part of "Anonymous" I saw was about a guy letting another take credit for his "incendiary" work. I wanted to see a movie about how these incendiary plays nearly toppled a monarchy. Maybe it happened in the second hour, but that was too late for me.

Can't really say I enjoyed watching this movie. Visually it's a great movie to look at but other than that, this movie has far too little else to offer.

Most people are hating on this movie because it's filled with historical inaccuracies and basically non of it is based on any facts, even though the movie presents itself as if its telling a true and historical story, concerning Shakespeare and his well known stage-plays. This however was not the problem I had with its story. Actually I don't see anything wrong with it. I mean, if it takes an entertaining but yet fictional story to get more people interested in Shakespeare, than so be it and I don't have a problem with this at all. But thing I do have a problem with is that the story of this movie just isn't much good really.

It's a movie about Shakespeare but let me tell you that there is very little Shakespeare about the script itself, though it still is being written as a serious attempt, at a Shakespeareing like tragedy, complete with incest, conspiracies and murder. But it really is a story that just never takes off and fails to ever become a true involving or even just interesting one. To put it boldly; I just couldn't care less about the story or anyone in it!

But no, it still most definitely was not a movie that I hated watching. It still has some qualities to it, which mostly comes from its visuals and atmosphere. I thought that the movie did a fantastic job at recreating its time period that it is supposed to be set in, with some great looking sets and costumes and atmospheric camera-work. In that regard this movie is still a real surprise, since it's coming from director Roland Emmerich, who normally really isn't being subtle with any of his movies and enjoys destroying the world, in really most of his movies.

It really is still a movie with some qualities to it and I'm sure it also got made with all of the right intentions. It just really wasn't a movie I ever could enjoy or was grabbed by.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Was William Shakespeare a front for an aristocrat who did not want his name revealed as the author? This movie is about political intrigue and how theater gets caught up in a larger struggle for power. The movie offers an interesting and controversial portrayal of Queen Elizabeth I and a glimpse of life in England at the beginning of the seventeenth century. The printing press was becoming a political weapon and those who published could influence the public, maybe to the point of rebellion. Hence, the need of the government to control what was being performed on stage. The stage served the same function of television does today. It was the medium of mass entertainment, which made the playwright a critical player in the politics of the time. Now, if Shakespeare was a front, then the question is: who wrote all these plays? Maybe it doesn't matter who actually wrote the plays but then again, maybe it does matter because by knowing the author, this may lead to new interpretations of the plays. Maybe these plays were political polemics produced under the guise of historical drama. Whatever the case, one thing is for certain: these plays made an impact on society that continues to reverberate to this day.

One other point. This movie is a work of fiction and so if it is loose with certain historical facts, so what? This movie is not a documentary. Rather, it is a fictional historical drama that revolves around a controversial and even shocking plot. Whether Shakespeare is the actual author of the works attributed to him is not the point. That is a matter for debate. What is the point is whether the movie works as a movie. The story is complex, yet the movie manages to engage the audience through strong acting and by presenting a story crammed with political intrigue. Who can say for certain what was going on in England 500 years ago? It is all a matter for speculation, based upon the available historical material, all of which is subject to interpretation. The idea of English writers bickering and fighting over the authorship of plays may seem trite and far fetched, but the conflict makes for good drama, even if it is pure fiction.

'Anonymous' is a modern play on Broadway where a different version of Shakespeare's real life is presented. After a prologue, it flashbacks to Robert Cecil, the Earl of Salisbury with his men chasing after Ben Jonson (Sebastian Armesto) with a collection of manuscripts. He hides them under the Rose and his pursuers burn down the theater. Then it flashes 5 years earlier, Shakespeare (Rafe Spall) is a drunken actor. It flashes 40 year earlier still, Edward De Vere, the Earl of Oxford (Jamie Campbell Bower/Rhys Ifans) is the real author of Shakespeare's works. It is a film about political intrigue in the English court during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I (Joely Richardson/Vanessa Redgrave).

There are a lot of questionable and complicated history. I almost feel a real need to be more familiar with the British history both royal and literary. There is something wrong with this version of history but I'm not a good enough scholar to pinpoint it. The start of the movie jumps around in time and it's easy to get lost. This is definitely an unique interpretation of history from writer John Orloff. Roland Emmerich's direction really needs to simplify the movie although the complicated story adds to the atmosphere. In some way, all the name dropping is addictive and fascinating. The acting is top notch. Emmerich films it with so much murky realism. It's a very tough call. There is enough great performances and the story is so audacious that I must recommend this.

It's long been posited that the man we know as William Shakespeare did not, in fact, write any of the many plays and sonnets for which he is still known 400 years later. Anonymous's premise is that it was the Earl of Oxford, Edward De Vere, who penned the classics and used, indirectly, Shakespeare as a front for the performance of his work. But even if you buy that premise - and it is not essential that you do - the movie is overplotted, dark, and dreary, but with terrific performances by Rhys Ifans, Vanessa Redgrave, and others.

It seems Edward has all of these plays that he's been writing, to his wife's consternation, and he wants to see them performed. But plays are not held in high esteem in London in the late 1500s; to avoid sullying his family name, the Earl provides a local playwright named Ben Jonson (Sebastian Armesto), of whom the more learned of you may have heard. Jonson has his own troupe perform one of the plays, the audience goes crazy, loves it, and so all is good. Except when young Jonson is arrested for sedition, because of course anything that makes the nobility look bad is by definition seditious. And so it goes.

All right, so there's conflict. Class versus class. The place of poetry and of creativity in general in society. Did I mention the French also have designs on the throne of Queen Elizabeth I (Vanessa Redgrave) as well? Oh yes, it's one of those movies. Everyone seems to be angling for something, sort of the norm for costume period dramas. I like that, to a point. Intrigue is good. And this is also one of those movies in which everyone seems to be sleeping with someone they shouldn't be, or at least knows about someone in that position, which leads to blackmail, which represents the plot of every British period drama ever, basically.

Overall, the acting is fine, particularly by Ifans and Redgrave (but of course). Most of the rest of the cast, although competent, is dispensable, even the character of Shakespeare himself. Jonson's more interesting, and Armesto is sufficient, but he's no Sir John Mills. Or Sir Paul McCartney, really, but he tries. There's no hamminess, which is nice, but the passion is relegated to the leads and the leads alone.

Some caveats. For one thing, although London of the period is basically a muddy city, I don't recall seeing anyone with a speck of dirt on them. OK, sure, the nobility gets to walk on half-foot-wide planks to avoid the mud, but still. No mud? Seriously? And no one has a hair out of place, even under the rotten, unsanitary conditions. Also: way too many characters. Picture this: It's dark, it's gloomy, it's dirty, and all of the men look the same. Someone would rush into a scene, breathlessly importing news of, well, import, and everyone in the scene would instantly recognize him. And I'd be like, "Have we met?" I couldn't keep track of them all.

And it wasn't just the characters. There are too many plots. Who wrote the plays? That would have been a nice plot to stick with, and instead of giving us the answer in the first ten minutes, leave it as a - stay with me, now - twist at the end. Then you don't get bogged down with endless prattling about the queen doing this and the earls doing that and ships and swords and why are there guns when other people have swords and on and on.

Well, you get what you pay for, sort of. The sly ones look sly, the foppish ones look foppish, the witty ones try to be witty, and the queen wears the weirdest makeup in the history of painted faces. In this case, the movie's the thing, wherein we don't even see a king. That's a bad play on words. Let me try again. This movie shouldn't have stopped at being titled "Anonymous"; it should have been written by Anonymous as well. I'm making it out to be worse than it probably is, because period pieces aren't my bag (unless they're Dangerous Liasions), so for the sake of fairness I am adding a half star to the review.

Everyone in our theater was so mesmerized by this many-layered plot that no one even got up to go the bathroom. My head was spinning a bit, trying to keep up with who was related to whom, but I loved every minute of it.

And I know the cast is highly pedigreed because I recognized some of the actors in the plays from a live performance of Shakespeare the Old Globe Theater troupe gave at UCLA a few years ago while the Old Globe was being renovated. Annette Bening was in the audience that night, so it was a pretty cool evening all around.

After the movie I was at a restaurant next to the theater and I heard a woman say, "I just saw that Shakespeare movie and I'm in a daze."

Go see it and you will be, too. I think I need to see it a few more times to pick up all the fascinating details.

I don't know why I ever watched this. It was only because it was a new film that I bothered to put it in the DVD player. Therefore I had absolutely no expectations from it.

At first I was confused. Everyone in the past apparently looked the same, i.e. beards and ruffs and Baldrick lookalikes for servants. However, I stuck with it. And I'm glad I did.

I'm not big on history, so I won't (or can't) comment on its historical accuracy, but it was a damn enjoyable romp nonetheless.

It makes the claim that Shakespeare didn't write is plays, but, instead, there was a larger conspiracy at work and someone else did. Now, I don't know whether this was really true or not, but, it's fun to watch.

Once you establish which beard is which and which beard is actually a younger incarnation of a beard in the future (as there are a lot of flashbacks showing what the beards were doing when they were younger), you can actually follow the conspiracy and see which beard comes out on top. As it's filled with plenty of beheading, back-stabbing and political treachery, it's actually more entertaining than you might think.

A happy filmic surprise.

Audiences may sometimes divide themselves when it comes to historical fiction. There is the faction who appreciates a fictional story assigned to a true historical figure to create an engrossing book or movie. Conversely, there arises a vocal minority who deride the story as an affront to what actually happened in history; they worry the uninformed masses will be swayed by the fiction and falsely believe the fiction to be true. Such is the case with Anonymous.

In this story, which furthers the case of a scholarly minority who do not believe William Shakespeare (Rafe Spall) authored all of those plays, Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford (Rhys Ifans), was the true genius behind the words. As an Earl, his station was superior to writing and associating with the rabble in a place such as the Globe Theatre. However, his gift required an outlet. He heard the voices of his characters and felt the physical need to commit those voices to paper.

Left at this level, the film would have been more scholarly and actually about the canon itself, but director Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, 2012) appears to have desired a more suspenseful thriller. In this era, Queen Elizabeth 1 (Vanessa Redgrave) is at the end of her Golden Age and the issue of royal succession is on the English court's mind. Most expect the title to fall to James I of Scotland including the Queen's most trusted adviser Edward Cecil (David Thewlis). There are those though who would like the crown to stay closer to home, one such person is Edward de Vere.

Edward recognizes the power of words. When words successfully capture an enraptured audience, they can move them to weep, poke them with laughter, or even stoke their anger and morph that audience from mere observers into a mob. To ensure he remains as the man behind the curtain, Edward de Vere hires Ben Jonson (Sebastian Armesto) to be his cover. Jonson is already a moderately successful playwright and is loathe to sell out his proud signature on works which are not his own. Mistakenly, he relays the situation to one William Shakespeare.

In Anonymous, Shakespeare is a buffoon. He drinks too much, spends too much time and money with whores, and is even illiterate. Since he is an actor, he can read; however, he is unable to even scribble his own name on parchment. The remainder of the film involves different factions scheming to ensure their man is in line for the throne, the resentment of Ben Jonson over Shakespeare's fraudulent fame, and mostly stuffed into the background are the plays themselves.

Sections of the most famous scenes of Henry V, Romeo & Juliet, Richard III, and Macbeth are briefly staged in the theatre, but they are not the focus. The faces of a stunned crowd, the roving eyes of Ben Jonson and Edward de Vere are in close-up, but the words are overshadowed. The suggestion that a glove-maker's son with a grade school education from an out of the way village named Stratford-upon-Avon did not author all of those plays is intriguing. A figure such as the Earl of Oxford with his first rate classical education and firsthand knowledge of the world outside England makes for a plausible argument against Shakespeare. However, Anonymous truly is historical fiction.

Just as Shakespeare doubters gleefully point out the striking lack of evidence missing from his authorship such as original editions, lack of fame in his lifetime, no mention of the plays in his will, etc… there is also scant evidence Edward de Vere authored them either. Furthermore, the political intrigue in Anonymous is also severely stretched in the credibility department. I will not belabor the details, but if you are already aware of who becomes king after Elizabeth, the tone will be a bit less suspenseful for you than those of you who do not know about the succession.

I recommend Anonymous mainly due to its wonderful production value. The streets are covered in garbage and mud; one must skillfully walk on strategically placed boards placed on top of the mess to avoid sinking into its depth. The reconstruction of the Globe Theatre is done with care and accuracy. Furthermore, in a time when films are routinely shoveled out for the masses to blindly consume based on the bottom line and more frequently their ignorance, Anonymous at least concerns the worlds' greatest ever author. Whoever wrote those lines, be it Shakespeare or Edward de Vere, at least somebody did.

I saw this movie last night and was hugely disappointed. Being a Shakespeare fan, I was always going to be a bit sceptical about any movie that supported the theory that the great man did not write his own plays. But if there was any fear that this movie would lend weight to the countless conspiracy theories that have littered history for centuries, then those fears were soon dispelled. True, Shakespeare is made to look a complete idiot. But that says more about the director and writer than it does about the Immortal Bard. If Shakespeare is treated badly, then Ben Jonson is positively lampooned. Watching the movie, I occasionally got the feeling that its producers did not know who Ben Jonson really was. Historical accuracy was not high on the list of priorities for the makers of this movie. They engage in dynastic and historical gymnastics in order to support the pathetically weak plot, mainly, that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, wrote the 37 plays attributed to Shakespeare. By the time the movie finished, I think the Earl of Oxord had turned out to be his own father and Queen Elizabeth i was his mother. This will only count as a spoiler if you have attempted to follow the entwined family trees of the Cecils, Tudors and de Veres through irritating jumps back and forward in time which totally confuse the audience. Having said all this, the movie does boast an outstanding cast and Elizabethan London is excellently recreated with both costumes and sets. Just a pity that they also decided to manufacture the historical events.

"The most performed playwright of all time, the author of 37 plays, 154 sonnets & several narrative poems...and yet not a single manuscript of any kind has ever been found written in Shakespeare's own hand." A movie that explores the theory that Shakespeare didn't write any of the things that he is said to. The theory is that The Earl of Oxford (Ifans) wrote them all as a stab at the new Queen (Redgrave) of England. I have said this before but I am not a Shakespeare fan at all, I just don't get him. There are a few movies of his I like but for the most part I am not a fan. Needless to say before watching this I was not that excited at all. Almost instantly the movie grabbed me and I was hooked. For those like me this is not really about Shakespeare at all, but more of a political thriller about trying to start and control a rebellion against Queen Elizabeth I in the 1600's. Weather this is true or not to me doesn't matter but the idea of writing plays as a way to begin a rebellion is a very interesting theory and makes for a very interesting movie. Overall, (from a non-Shakespeare fan) I really enjoyed this movie and recommend this. I give it a B+.

Better known for end-of-the-world popcorn flicks 2012, The Day After Tomorrow, Godzilla and Independence Day, Roland Emmerich proves there's more strings to his bow with this highly competent period political thriller. If you can go along with the main conceit – that Shakespeare was an illiterate, drunken buffoon who was putting his name to the Earl of Oxford's plays – then Anonymous presents a delicious tale of deceit, lust, betrayal and violence. The quasi-Gothic setting, gloriously photographed by DP Anna Foerster, compliments the mostly on-song cast, featuring Rhys Ifans as the conflicted Earl of Oxford, Vanessa Redgrave as the tinderbox Queen Elizabeth I and David Thewlis as the malevolent William Cecil. Rafe Spall doesn't impress as much as the obnoxious Shakespeare, but Aussie boy Xavier Samuel takes another step closer to stardom with his solid work as the Earl of Southampton. An intriguing history-amending yarn that sees 130 minutes fly by.

This is a bad movie, but more importantly, it's a harmful movie. It's based on a faulty and widely debunked historical and literary argument; the form this argument takes in the film is confusing, trite, and fails to even rise to the level of melodramatic; it abuses its non-linear structure to the point that an audience will have to work harder than the theorists who put forward these bunk ideas in order to understand what's happening. By themselves, any of these could be forgiven. The stars aligned in such a way, however, that this movie has them all. Avoid if at all possible. To those who think this is a good movie, I challenge you to actually watch good movies on occasion and hope that you will update your reviews after being exposed to things that don't suck.