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 admire 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.

IMDJashe Poon I didn't really have any expectations when I went into the cinema with my grade, but I can say that I really enjoyed the movie and I do not comprehend the low meta-score & user ratings.While the movie is based on pure assumptions, it is not fictional and might actually have happened. In my opinion (I don't know much about movies) there was a great balance between love/romance, drama (as in suspense and action), tragedy and comedy. It was funny, romantic, dramatic and sad at times. The atmosphere was great, the acting was good enough, well directed, suspense was there till the end because I didn't know how it would end, and I love how (POTENTIAL SPOILER) there is a theatre in a movie in a threatre in a movie :D. However, it was pretty confusing with all the different timelines and relationships between the characters (who also happen to have similar names), so it's probably beneficial to already know a bit about the theories before watching the movie.So yeah, I do really recommend this movie, it's new, well done, more or less safe to watch with the family, entertaining and teaches a thing or two about the Elizabethan era, albeit it is not based on a true story.

titerry Never, EVER had I watched a film, and just as the credits begin to roll, immediately restarted the film to watch, again. This film "Anonymous" is the first I'd ever done such a thing,...well I did somewhat the same with "Great Expectations (the original), "Wuthering Heights," (the original), and okay...Scorsese's "Age of Innocence."I truly enjoy watching this film "Anonymous," and will add this film to my DVD collection. The actors...well...come on...STELLAR!A film that you would have to watch without any breaks, oh yeah, or you can pause it if you gotta, go; if you know what I mean. What I found out at the end of this film, did blow my mind, as did one actor, playing 'said' role, when he discovered a *truth.*If you love and enjoy watching films and tele series about the Tudors, Elizabethan period, the works of *Shakespeare*, and historical/period works of cinema, then this is your film to watch. It will make ya go, Hmmmmm...what if.Thanks for reading.

ironhorse_iv 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.