Anonymous (2011)

Featured Audience Ratings

• Carlos M

  
  Emmerich loses all credibility trying to make us buy his theory at any cost. The premise is intriguing but the weak script is full of unnecessary soap-opera twists that make the plot even less believable. A mediocre movie that is also badly directed and edited, though with a great… More
  Emmerich loses all credibility trying to make us buy his theory at any cost. The premise is intriguing but the weak script is full of unnecessary soap-opera twists that make the plot even less believable. A mediocre movie that is also badly directed and edited, though with a great costume design.

• jay n

  
  Ponderous

• Manu G

  
  Was Shakespeare a Fraud? Don't waste your time! This movie is really bad and boring. I usually don't fall asleep watching movies but this one hit the spot. The story is just so ridiculous and slow you can't even start to like it in any way. One of the worst movies I… More
  Was Shakespeare a Fraud? Don't waste your time! This movie is really bad and boring. I usually don't fall asleep watching movies but this one hit the spot. The story is just so ridiculous and slow you can't even start to like it in any way. One of the worst movies I have ever seen and that's saying alot. 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.

• familiar s

  
  Apparently, historical accuracy is not given as much significance as the entertainment quotient. They've rather presented it as a tragic play wherein the playwright himself is a character falling victim to political tactics. I wasn't aware of this conspiracy theory myself… More
  Apparently, historical accuracy is not given as much significance as the entertainment quotient. They've rather presented it as a tragic play wherein the playwright himself is a character falling victim to political tactics. I wasn't aware of this conspiracy theory myself until I came across the movie. And I can hardly find it of much use to further the arguments. Watch it as a drama, and that's it. If you're looking for a lesson in history here, I don't opine this to be the right book. As for me, the movie was a mediocre drama, and I know not and care little as to whether the real author is Edward de Vere or William Shakespeare. (Besides, what's in name, right?) Thankfully, I knew what to expect here (which might have saved me from disappointment). But yeah, the time jumps was an irritating issue. The rating gets the benefit of (my) circumstances. Of course, I'm not going to elaborate on that.

• KJ P

  
  "Anonymous" is a film that takes place during the time when William Shakespeare was in the midst of writing and performing in his most well-known plays, or so it seemed. We learn (supposedly) that he had others working on his plays for him and paying him to perform in them,… More
  "Anonymous" is a film that takes place during the time when William Shakespeare was in the midst of writing and performing in his most well-known plays, or so it seemed. We learn (supposedly) that he had others working on his plays for him and paying him to perform in them, giving him all the credit, for the soul reason that he knows what he is doing, not because he knows how to properly write. The story, although dragged out and dull, is extremely intriguing and a very fun ride to take through the ancient times. What goes without saying though, is that the set pieces and scenery that went into the making of this film are gorgeous to look at, and saves the dull scenes from becoming overly boring. The acting is top-notch, the idea is fresh, the historical facts are correct, but the fact that the main story is overshadowed by many side plots, will force the audience to lose interest very quickly. The screenplay is very "Shakespeare Influenced" even though we are forced to believe that he technically didn't write anything. Overall, I enjoyed watching the movie, but the fact I had to follow many plots points when I was only interested in the main one that was being pushed to the side, bored me quite a bit. Still, I applaud Emmerich's take on history and I let the film do what it wanted to do! I recommend this film to people who have read and are familiar with shakespearean plays, but unfortunately that is the only crowd who will find this film interesting. It's average, but it's fun!

• Tom M

  
  What a dumb movie. It takes the most interesting of conspiracy theories and uses a stupid explanation - Shakespeare was a drunkard who wrote his name on a play and called it his. I'm sure it had to be a bit more complex than that, if it actually happened. The film gets less and… More
  What a dumb movie. It takes the most interesting of conspiracy theories and uses a stupid explanation - Shakespeare was a drunkard who wrote his name on a play and called it his. I'm sure it had to be a bit more complex than that, if it actually happened. The film gets less and less convincing as it goes on, it falls to ridiculous character cliche's, and of all things, loses sight of the plays as the focus! I went to see if Shakespeare did or did not write the plays that had his name on them, not to see if an heir to a loose of a Queen Elizabeth can be found. That's not what I paid to see, Roland. Why would anyone greenlight this project, this historical fiction, directed by the guy who gave us Godzilla and The Day After Tomorrow? And *shudder*, 2012. God. Really? And the flashbacks...don't even get me started on the flashbacks and flash forwards. There were at least 50 during this movie, and at least 5 of them happen in the first 10 minutes. Learn to tell a story and tell it. Thats all.

• Josh M

  
  I adore anything by or about Shakespeare, but I did not enjoy this overblown film, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. If you see it, do it for the visual CG recreations of 16th century London, the classy, commanding and wasted perfromances of Vanessa… More
  I adore anything by or about Shakespeare, but I did not enjoy this overblown film, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. If you see it, do it for the visual CG recreations of 16th century London, the classy, commanding and wasted perfromances of Vanessa Redgrave and daughter Joely Richardson as Queen Elizabeth I, young and old, and the spot on breakthough performance by Rafe Spall as opportunistic, stupid, debauched William Shakespeare. Blockbuster director Roland Emerich has handled all aesthetics and pacing with perfect compentence, but the script by John Orloff is surprisingly flat and uninvolving. What annoyed me the most was the irrelevance of the supposed central conspiracy of attributing the plays of the Earl of Oxford to the idiot from Stratford named Shakespeare. This was really a sideshow to an absurd story of Tudor succession to the throne after Queen Elizabeth's passing, which concocted an incomprehensible brew of incestual sex, religious factiionalism and personal ambition. After a day of thinking about it, I don't see how the story of the plays impacts on the succession story. They are mutually exclusive and I wonder why anyone should care about either. This film fails to make us care about who wrote the plays or whether King James or the Queen's illigitimate child should inherit the throne. Yes, I've ruined it for you about the illigitimate children. My bad. Rhys Ifans' central performance as the true writer of the plays, the Earl of Oxford, is passably forgettable, as are almost all other performances, except for the ones mentioned above and the cameo by Derek Jacobi as a prologue. If you don't have any interest in Shakespeare lore, you will be mightily bored. Shakespeare was the soul of the age, but 'Anonymous' is not even the soul of fall 2011. As for the authorship debate, I'm open to hearing about alternatives to the shlemiel from Stratford, but this film makes an lame, unconvincing case for Oxford. Apparently, the Earl of Oxford died before the last 7 plays in the canon were even written. That said, I'm sentimentally attached to the quiet glove maker from the provinces bad grammar school education and all.

• Liam G

  
  I don't think ''Anonymous'' does a truly great job of convincing us of its theory that Shakespeare never wrote the poems or plays we believe he wrote and the story does become muddled at times. However, Roland Emmerich has stepped up and delivered a film far… More
  I don't think ''Anonymous'' does a truly great job of convincing us of its theory that Shakespeare never wrote the poems or plays we believe he wrote and the story does become muddled at times. However, Roland Emmerich has stepped up and delivered a film far better than his previous films, though that's not saying too much. Rhys Ifans is terrific as Edward de Vere, as is Vanessa Redgrave. The film is engaging throughout in my view and Emmerich's visual style is gorgeous. It may seem a little forgiving, but if the story isn't entirely convincing, the performances, costumes, cinematography and pacing are.

• Matheus C

  
  Considering director's Roland Emmerich's track record of directing pretty much nothing but pieces of Hollywood special effects emptiness, it might become tempting to think that the film was directed by a ghost director in the same way it approaches its subject - it's… More
  Considering director's Roland Emmerich's track record of directing pretty much nothing but pieces of Hollywood special effects emptiness, it might become tempting to think that the film was directed by a ghost director in the same way it approaches its subject - it's quite well produced and really well acted, and whilst the premisse is quite intriguing, it never really delivers in terms of narrative and fails to create much of an impression.

• Dann M

  
  Anonymous is a provocative drama that presents quite an intriguing story. Based on an obscure theory, the film presupposes that Shakespeare was an impostor and that his works originated from an English nobleman. Rhys Ifans and Joely Richardson give strong performances, but the… More
  Anonymous is a provocative drama that presents quite an intriguing story. Based on an obscure theory, the film presupposes that Shakespeare was an impostor and that his works originated from an English nobleman. Rhys Ifans and Joely Richardson give strong performances, but the material is a bit heavy and hard to follow. In fact the second half of the film gets especially convoluted, making this story all the more preposterous. Yet, despite its flaws Anonymous is an entertaining and compelling piece of speculative fiction.

• Eric H

  
  I've suffered through Emmerich's body of work like schoolboys suffer through Shakespeare. Fitting then that the two should be united, and just as you'd expect it's a hell of a hard slog. Emmerich is the uber-hack, a shockingly bad director who lucked out with… More
  I've suffered through Emmerich's body of work like schoolboys suffer through Shakespeare. Fitting then that the two should be united, and just as you'd expect it's a hell of a hard slog. Emmerich is the uber-hack, a shockingly bad director who lucked out with "Stargate" and has tortured audiences since with a series of overblown blockbusters whose running times have been known to cause hemorrhoids. The guy just has no idea how to tell a story simply and cohesively. I was utterly lost watching this movie. Characters are referred to without telling us visually who exactly they are, timelines are clumsily flipped back and forth, battle scenes occur with no established context. The cinematography is amateurish, all cheap looking filters and ham-fisted colour correction. The acting is so over the top it feels like an episode of "Blackadder". The editing leaves us scratching our heads as to whether we are watching a flashback or not. The CGI wouldn't look out of place in a nineties PC game. The one positive is Ifans, excellent as Edward of Essex who this movie purports to be the real author of the bard's works. In one of the movie's closing scenes we are told how Shakespeare defined his time. If film-makers like Michael Bay and Emmerich define ours I hope it's a chapter to be torn from the history books.

• Burger S

  
  Totally fascinating! Alert: This story does play fast and loose with the biographical facts but does leave you with a big "What If?".

• Jeffrey M

  
  What to make of the much-maligned Roland Emmerich, director of such poorly received blockbuster films 2012 and 10,000 B.C., but also one of my personal favorites, The Patriot. Anonymous represents his biggest departure from his CGI filled action adventure entries. Simply put,… More
  What to make of the much-maligned Roland Emmerich, director of such poorly received blockbuster films 2012 and 10,000 B.C., but also one of my personal favorites, The Patriot. Anonymous represents his biggest departure from his CGI filled action adventure entries. Simply put, it's a brilliant historical film being intriguing, smart, sexy, and immensely engaging. Having only a passing familiarity of the Oxfordian theory, I'm not sure I completely buy the film's premise. But while watching it, everything seems plausible. The theory aside, it features a surprisingly complex and factual historical setting. This may contribute to some viewer's frustrations, it's not always easy to follow, but I appreciated the willingness to keep things as accurate as possible. The acting is first class all around, as is the amazing script, full of rich dialogue, and managing to create a compelling narrative. Looking back, it's easily one of the best films of 2011. 4.5/5 Stars

• Cameron J

  
  I never thought that I'd call something pertaining to Roland Emmerich genius, but I must say that this film is brilliant... in its marketing. No, but seriously though, that trailer was so incredible, which is why they brought up the words "A Roland Emmerich Film" very… More
  I never thought that I'd call something pertaining to Roland Emmerich genius, but I must say that this film is brilliant... in its marketing. No, but seriously though, that trailer was so incredible, which is why they brought up the words "A Roland Emmerich Film" very early on in it, so that when the trailer got cool, you'd forget and be tricked into not thinking that the guy behind this is an absolute, tasteless, hack of an idiot. Jeez Roland, didn't you destory history enough with "10,000 B.C."? Well, now that I think about it, as much as I hate this hack, he was great casting as director, because when I think of a dramatic political study on the conspiracies behind famous literature, I think of big dumb blockbusters. No, I'll be the first to admit that Emmerich has got quite the handsome stylistic choices, but you can say that about countless other directors, most of which are immensely superior and have plenty of experience in these kind of dramas, and were they to go with any of those people, this would have been a much better film for it, but as it stands, Roland Emmerich wastes potential yet again. Of course, that doesn't mean that it's a bad film, because regardless of Das Stupid calling the shots, this film turned out alright, but not really much more than "alright", because it's still not without more than enough missteps that keep it from hitting the high mark that it was almost certainly going to hit until those six, horrible, dreaded words that no one wants to hear when beginning production of a film: Get Roland Emmerich on the phone. There is limited evidence supporting Roland Emmerich's presence, but it's not like you ever forget it, because what evidence there is to support his presence screams, "Roland Emmerich", only it's not always his strengths proclaimed by the film. The film makes little pretense of being anything more than pure sensationalism, and that is made clear, considering that Shakespeare's own taste in melodrama has been incorporated into the script to support both the theme and fictitious tone, but what Emmerich fails to realize are the limitations on that melodrama. Emmerich's a weak storyteller enough as it is, but when he's given all of this super melodrama to play up, he overplays his hand, leaving plenty of moments to feel overwhelming in their suddenness and noisiness, and it really powers down the film's intrigue and intellegence. Still, as much as I give that idiot a hard time, he's not the only one to blame for this film's moments of lacking in the intellegence department, because John Orloff's screenplay gets rather spotty. Orloff is clearly with good intentions - and certainly with a good premise -, but his additions to this big mystery get to be a bit too far-fetched, while many of his additions to the progression of the story feel rushed and rather convoluted, and it really throws you out of the film, and to add insult to injury, the screenplay also hits some pretty low points in dialogue from time to time. Now, I'm not reaching for stuff to pick apart, because I don't trust a Roland Emmerich film; when I first heard he was on board, I was worried, because I genuinely wanted this film to succeed, and I still want it to even now, especially with that admittedly pretty darn sharp final half-hour, but I've got to be perfectly honest and say with a combination of Emmerich's mediocre direction and Orloff's spotty screenplay, this very high potential goes unrealized and after a while, the film loses enough steam for it to finally sit as just alright. Still, the film dances far from mediocrity, because in spite of all of its missteps - of which there are many -, the film has enough ink in its pen to sketch its portrait well enough. I hate considering him an aesthetic person, so I'm only assuming that Emmerich has the taste in style that he does simply because he thinks it looks cool, but hey, it's not like he's wrong, because the film looks cool to a dumb person like Emmerich. Anyone else, the film doesn't so much look cool as it looks dashingly handsome, to say the least, because this film looks absolutely beautiful, having a gracefully saturated, almost fluid aura that brings the essence of this world to life and keeps it engaging. Still, something else that also brings this world to life is, well, what actually recreates the world: The visual effects, which are subtle and seamless, boasting authenticity and slickness in their reconstruction of old England, and with fine production designs, as well as the aforementioned beautiful cinematography complimenting this lively world, it's hard to not be captivated by, if nothing else, the handsome rebirth of a time lost. Still, the film is not only impressive aesthetically, as there is another fine element that keeps this film afloat whenever it is incorporated: The guy playing Shakespeare. I mean, he was cheesy to the point of not only being an additional offense to Shakespeare, but to the point of feeling like an anachronism, but he was actually kind of funny, and plus, I do like Russell Brand, and Shakespeare's portrayer, Rafe Spall, clearly took some notes from Brand. Wow, I think I just solidified how surprisingly unintellegent this film ended up being by drawing comparisons with Russell Brand, but it's not like the film is all out stupid - and not just because Russell Brand is actually pretty darn clever -, partially because of the other performers. True, there are some tertiaries that are definately improvable, but the head hanchos definately show how they got to be head hanchos, because, on the whole, this film is packed with fine, sometimes charming and sometimes boldly emotional performances, whether it be the subtle, graceful Vanessa Redgrave or the great Rhys Ifans, who's portrayal of a man facing the facts that he can never be honored for the masterpieces a fool is claiming credit for is heartbreaking, and for every turn in his character, you're on the edge of your seat, maybe not enough times to where Ifans is entirely worth mentioning alongside some of the best performances of 2011, but for every moment he's onscreen, he spends his time well. In the end, Roland Emmerich's overwhelmingly melodramatic direction that exacerbates a sometimes far-fetched and often convoluted screenplay leaves the film to pop out steam with every step, until it all but slows to a crawl as a "just fine" film, when it could have been a great film, but what keeps it genuinely enjoyable regardless is the handsome visual style that compliments sharp production design, as well as generally charming, when not very strong performances, leaving "Anonymous" to stand as a generally intriguing tale, improvable though, it may be. 2.5/5 - Fair

• Christopher H

  
  The style, design, and performances are charming, but the push-and-pull plot holds this period piece back from being anything out of the ordinary. Rhys Ifans delivers an amazing performance, showing a perpetual slide into award-worthy roles.

• Philip P

  
  The mystery surrounding Shakespeare and if one man, under this name, actually wrote the collection of poems and plays that have defined English literature has always been intriguing to me. It is clearly a topic of much debate among scholars whether this was a different person entirely… More
  The mystery surrounding Shakespeare and if one man, under this name, actually wrote the collection of poems and plays that have defined English literature has always been intriguing to me. It is clearly a topic of much debate among scholars whether this was a different person entirely with Shakespeare as a front or if there could have been several different writers who all collaborated on these stories. The truth is we will probably never know, but that doesn't make it fun to speculate and speculate is what "Anonymous" does beautifully. This type of scandal was destined for the big screen and writer John Orloff (A Mighty Heart, Legend of the Guardians) has fashioned a fine drama from the history books. Now, clearly we cannot accept the film as fact and even the bits that are historically accurate we must take with a grain of salt. This is historical fiction, but it is fun history and it is nothing short of entertaining. To see the time period rendered with such vivid imagination and style by Roland Emmerich (a man who has made a career out of documenting disasters) is refreshing. Though the topic may feel a bit taboo in his hands this is a delicious bit of scandal and mystery that the film tries to offer a version of. That is all this is, speculation around what could be one of the greatest scams ever and emmerich has enrolled a Grade-A cast with Rhys Ifans in the lead role as the Earl of Oxford, the man who had the experience, status, and education to write the type of plays Shakespeare produced. There is also the combination of Joely Richardson and Vanessa Redgrave playing versions of Queen Elizabeth I and the wonderful David Thewlis as William Cecil. The narrative can become slightly confusing at parts but the tight direction and beautiful cinematography wind this all together for a rather satisfying conclusion that will have you googling Shakespeare conspiracies the moments those credits start to roll.

• Joe S

  
  An intriguing theory on who created the works of William Shakespeare, which is presented as a Shakespeare-like play itself. After a bit of a convoluted start, where it's a bit hard keeping track of who's who, it's easy to get drawn into the politics of the royal court,… More
  An intriguing theory on who created the works of William Shakespeare, which is presented as a Shakespeare-like play itself. After a bit of a convoluted start, where it's a bit hard keeping track of who's who, it's easy to get drawn into the politics of the royal court, with Elizabeth I at the helm, as Shakespeare's plays are used to attempt to manipulate Elizabeth's succession. I'm disagreeing with most critics apparently -- since it only has a 45 percent fresh rating here -- but I expect Anonymous will get quite a few Oscar nominations, including Vanessa Redgrave as the Queen, and Ed Hogg as Robert Cecil -- the Iago/Richard III type character.

• Alec B

  
  Whether or not the Earl of Oxford is the true writer of Shakespeare's work doesn't matter for this review (although I seriously doubt it) what matters is that film is a tedious melodrama that treats historical figures like Christopher Marlowe (as a mustache twirling… More
  Whether or not the Earl of Oxford is the true writer of Shakespeare's work doesn't matter for this review (although I seriously doubt it) what matters is that film is a tedious melodrama that treats historical figures like Christopher Marlowe (as a mustache twirling opportunist) and Queen Elizabeth (as a sex starved maniac) so unfairly that its difficult to accept so much of what takes place. The film isn't even remotely entertaining, as it tries to be both absurd thriller and serious exploration at the same time.

• Sunil J

  
  Ambitious story and awesome sets and production put into this but was really drawn out and not so entertaining.

• m h

  
  An interesting take on the authorship of Shakespeare's work. It does make you question the possibility. I think the main problem of the film for me, was that there was a lot of parts that dragged. And also the film didn't just focus on Shakespeare. It almost felt like a… More
  An interesting take on the authorship of Shakespeare's work. It does make you question the possibility. I think the main problem of the film for me, was that there was a lot of parts that dragged. And also the film didn't just focus on Shakespeare. It almost felt like a secondary point to the film. And considering that the film was supposed to be about how Shakespeare was a fraud, you'd think they would put more focus on that. Then again, I thought the back stories scenes were probably the most interesting. As for aesthetics, the film delivers. The sets, costumes and cinematography were all beautiful. Really transported you into that time period. The acting was superb from everyone, though I disliked Rafe Spall as William Shakespeare the most. I didn't like that he was such a doofus in the film. I get that is what Roland Emmerich was going for...but it just seemed too silly at times. I'd still say give this film a watch. It was interesting, and in the very least the backdrop should whet your appetite.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings