Anonymous

Needs watching twice to follow the time shifts

glorious genius! bravo! to roland emmerich! this film is accurate! i am sick and tired of reading the reviews of stupid professors and "historians" who are offended by this movie! edward de vere was one of the greatest human beings to ever walk this earth! can you possible imagine the pain of never being given the credit for these plays? this film is a work of genius. genius lauds genius!

Yes, three stars is rather generous for this confusing drama, which tries to take Shakespeare's maxim, good theatre does not depend on historical accuracy and apply the same to the film medium . . . Thus we have two hours of glaring anachronisms as we see the Shakespeare canon being thrown into the cinematic blender and given a good whisking. I'm not an Oxford don, but I know enough about Shakespeare and his times to know that this particular tale is extremely far--fetched .. The screenplay uses complexity to mask its anarchronisms, . .almost every scene is dimly lit . ( yes we know they only had candles in the sixteeth century) William Shakespeare, it seems, was a congenital idiot .who managed to fool the whole of Elizabethan London into thinking he was a Renaissance genius .. . . However, the film has its moments, and although not a patch on Shakespeare in Love in terms of artistic acomplishment,, it attempts at least to engage the critical faculties . . . .

Spectacular acting, outstanding costumes and visual effects, extraordinary plot...That movie altered my opinion of disaster films director Roland Emmerich.However, I didn't like the soundtrack very much. I think if it had been done by James Newton Howard or Hanz Zimmer or even Vangelis, it would've been unforgetable. I really think Anonymous should grap a dozen academy awards including best picture, visual effects and actor for a leading role for Rhys Ifans.

Anonymous Maybe Now I hardly explain the doors You see we’re engaged in. I shudder to think Plebian; No my lord. Wield captain You know David. On the count of three They let him, The new earl And his bank rank. You can’t reach them By Winfield Or Snyder Poet. To get in You listen. You hold the music. You must follow – Son of a bitch! – (You know it, Come on) Shakespeare.

Oh dear, I thought I knew a bit of Tudor history but the first 30 mins of this film are so confusing with flash backs and flash forwards I was totally lost in the incestuous plot, writing this 2 hours later I'm still not sure who was related to who...with better screenwriting this would have been a much better film; evocation of Tudor London was well done and really well acted, but not worth the 3 stars from Timeout I think

This movie is like that beginning of "Amadeus" when Salieri is walking all excited in that Viennese hall filled with people because he knows Mozart is one of them. "This man had written his first concerto at the age of 4... his first symphony at 7, a full-scale opera at 12!" he keeps telling himself wondering the halls expecting Mozart to be this serious, profound young man but then when he meets him he gets slapped down with "That was Mozart! That giggling, dirty creature I'd just seen crawling on the floor." and Forman too had to battle with people who were convinced that Mozart was composing on white pedestal surrounded with golden bars and elephant tusks. Well this move is told from that point of view. Shakespeare's plays must have been written by a distinguished person in some sort of laboratory who was joining power of the universe with derogative human nature in order to directly shape the world. But really? Shakespeare was not a walking institution. He probably didn't care about calligraphy or even the design of his autograph, he was more concerned about entertaining the people. OK but what about the rest of it? It was an OK historical drama with some interesting scenes but kind of stillborn on account that it was built on this falsehood and I expected to enjoy the movie for the sheer of it but it wasn't much possible since it's authors are so infatuated with this belief that Shakespeare was a fraud. Even Derek Jacobi himself believes this.

I thought it was absolutely FAB! Had to see it a second time.........And if it was still on in Manchester I'd go and see it again! ..............Twice.

No one wants to be thought of as mentally ill, so better agree with this rhetorical rape: "No true scholars or Universities believe this sordid , incestuous theory , why should anyone else? Looney was indeed aptly named. Did you know this kind of thinking is actually recognized as a mental illness? The movie will fail, as it deserves to."

I have been in creative work for 15 years in corporate America and know for a fact that most anyone famous for any kind of written art is a fraud, it’s human nature. There are those who do focus on doing great things and those who take credit. It’s not conspiracy theory; it’s a matter of how people choose to spend their time and the ethics from which they were raised. Is it possible or even likely that Shake spear and most other people in history were frauds? ..definitely possible and likely. This is not interesting, shocking or outrageous, its common sense. However, all other historical artist who are still famous today deserve the same scrutiny. Hopefully, with the digital age and improved communication mechanisms much of this fraud and inconsistent historical records will surface further. Shakespeare didn’t have a computerized copyright database to register with, and even that doesn’t guarantee credit to the real originator. History records should never be taken literally, but rather a way to gain an general understanding about the what life might have been like. This movie had some of the best technical’s of any historical fiction ever seen. The queen had had bad teeth, and all that good stuff. Usually block buster directors produce garbage technical’s, people holding weapons wrong, stuff like that. The film was edited in virtually random time-line blips so 90% of viewers only understood about half of this movie. A poor communication technique seen in film-nore and Quentin Tarantino movies. Grab some film editing software and reorganize the scenes into chronological order and this will be a great film. In its current state, you will have to watch it about 5 times and draw a sequence diagram before you will fully understand the story line.