Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.
Yash Wade Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.
Wyatt There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.
Yazmin Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.
The Movie Diorama A theory that I am very much interested in, The Oxfordian Theory proposes that the Earl of Oxford actually wrote the plays and penned Shakespeare to them. Being raised in a Puritan household, poetry and art was frowned upon but the Earl yearned to keep writing plays. Honestly if you have time, research on this theory...it's absolutely fascinating and definitely makes you question the legitimacy of Shakespeare. On top of this though we have political conspiracies within the Elizabethan court, illicit romantic affairs and plenty of back stabbing nobleman. Very ambitious, both in scale and it's subject...but unfortunately just exceeds Roland Emmerich's grasp. His desire for cinematic grandeur merely takes away from the plot focus and becomes messy. There is just too much. What I did ire though, was the portrayal of how the utilisation of words and art can convey ideologies. As the Earl looks down from his balcony in the Globe Theatre, you can see the power he holds through his plays and how the audience are manipulated through certain character portrayals. After all, words are the most powerful tool one can have. The Globe Theatre scenes were actually some of my favourite moments, watching Mark Rylance performing famed plays such as Henry V, Richard III and Twelfth Night. Rhys Ifans was excellent casting as the Earl of Oxford, his calm demeanour held much authority and power. Vanessa Redgrave and David Thewlis were also noteworthy. I wasn't too keen on Rafe Spall's portrayal of Shakespeare but in order to convey this theory it kind of made sense to make him a rather slimy character. The script and narrative is where the film falters. Exposition followed by backstory followed by politics followed by more exposition...just, turn it down a notch! Focus on the intrigue of Shakespeare being a fraud, would've been a far tighter plot. Also the ending was too...anti-climatic? Having said that, this film is full of ambition and I find it be rather watchable. Not bad from Emmerich I must say.
L S Shakespeare is considered as the soul of the age. But after having seen this movie, you would really begin to doubt. The movie is a political thriller in which they assume that Shakespeare didn't wrote his plays, but Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford did. He wrote those plays in order to begin a rebellion against Queen Elizabeth I. I, personally, really liked the movie. It was definitely interesting to watch and it left me thinking whether or not Shakespeare actually wrote those 35 plays, 154 sonnets and several narrative poems standing on his name. Before watching this movie I had already heard of this theory that he didn't wrote all those pieces himself. But I refused to believe that. The idea seemed so beautiful that there ever lived such a talented man who wrote so many wonderful and brilliant pieces. But now that I've seen this movie I'm beginning to doubt increasingly. Because, first of all, why would a man so talented and ionated by writing leave his two daughters illiterate? Someone else would nevertheless have wanted that they learned how to read and write so that maybe at least one of them would be willing to follow their dad as a writer. Or that they could at least read the great pieces their father wrote. Secondly, if somebody is so loved and adored by the public of his time, he would surely have wanted to be ed, because then he would surely have left some written evidence that he actually existed. But on the contrary, not a single manuscript of any kind has ever been found written in Shakespeare's own hand, in 400 years, not one document. Also his will famously left his second- best bed to his widow, but it made no mention of a single book or manuscript. Why is that? Isn't it strange that there is not even a single letter found written by the greatest writer of the 16th century? Didn't he even wrote a single time to his wife or children when he was so far away from home? Thirdly, how can a man that wasn't a member of the upper classes be so familiar with the aristocracy, kings, queens and life at the court? Why didn't he wrote plays about the normal working men like other writers as Ben Jonson of his time did? If writing comes from the heart, why didn't he write anything reflecting to his life in Stratford? How comes that this great artist didn't take any inspiration of his own life, like all other artists do? Fourthly, the only handwriting we have of William Shakespeare are 6 shaky signatures. How can a man that wrote such a brilliant plays have difficulties g his own name? Fifthly, there is no proof that he did attempt the Stratford grammar school as they use to say, but his work shows us such a big acknowledge on different subjects. He even got a very rich vocabulary. How can it even be possible that he wrote such a brilliant things without at least have some form of learning? Sixthly, William Shakespeare didn't spent the remainder of his days in the playhouses of London but in the small town of his birth, Stratford-upon-Avon as a businessman and grain merchant. Why would you all of the sudden give up your great ion? Finally, no record shows that William Shakespeare has ever crossed the borders of his homeland, England. But how can he, in several of his plays, describe places like and Italy in such great detail if he has never been there? This discussion is probably far from over. But the question that we should perhaps better ask ourselves instead of 'to be or not to be' is 'Is Shakespeare really the soul of the age, or is he more like the betrayer and fraud of the age'
sergepesic 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.
TinyDanseur27 Anonymous was about the myth that William Shakespeare did not in fact write any of his works, that he was just a front man for an Earl who, to respect his station in society, could not reveal that he was a playwright. I wouldn't venture as far as to say that I believe that myth, but I would say that it made for an extremely compelling film and I left feeling quite inspired to go read Shakespeare's complete works.Rhys Ifans played the Earl of Oxford, the "man behind the magic" in Anonymous. Having only seen him in a few minor roles in movies like Notting Hill and Elizabeth: The Golden Age, I was delighted to see him take a lead role by the reins and really own it. He was wonderfully pompous, dark and tormented. I was amused by the make-up artist's choice to have him wear black eye-shadow the entire movie, but somehow it worked. He was kind of like the "emo-kid" of his day, wearing all black and pouring his soul into his art, his writing.The rest of cast were quite excellent as well, with Vanessa Redgrave and Joely Richardson sharing the role of Queen Elizabeth I, and Rafe Spall as the ridiculous William Shakespeare. The Shakespeare in Anonymous was a self-centered, drunken buffoon, a depiction which I felt was both ballsy and amusing. It takes some nerve to write a pivotal literary and historical figure as a complete idiot. Never-the-less, it was essential to the story and I enjoyed the different take on history.The artistic elements were stunning. The drama was thrilling. The content was very thought-provoking. I highly recommend Anonymous, especially to those who love historical dramas/period films. I'm saddened it only showed in select theaters. It just goes to show what the general populous is drawn to and it's not historical dramas. If you are a hard-core traditionalist when it comes to history and Shakespeare, watch the movie with a grain of salt. The writers rewrote much of history.
