dgz78 Okay, this is not as bad as Amadeus where Mozart was portrayed as a boorish and lewd playboy and Salieri as a hack composer willing to kill. And the history of wanting to attribute the writings of William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon to some other partial contemporary has been going on for a couple of centuries. This film puts Edward de Vere instead of Bacon, Marlowe or Stanley in the role of the secret author. And like all other names submitted, the Earl of Oxford's case for authorship falls short.I'll give the movie a 3 out of 10 since the cinematography, sound and acting are all fine. It's just that the plot is pure fiction and like The Davinci Code would like us all to believe it fact.Somehow, against any and all evidence, it is presumed a fact that Shakespeare's writings are all autobiographical and that his plays all contain things that he was incapable of imagining. I guess this relates back to our 7th grade teachers telling us to write about what we know so of course that must apply to Shakespeare. Hogwash!How do plays make it to the stage? Before Shakespeare's time through today a play does not get written, turned over to an acting company or director and then produced a few weeks later. Instead, the company of actors and the director sit with the author during rehearsals making changes for all sorts of reasons from the capabilities of the actors to the pacing of the play. To think de Vere could write a play, give it to Shakespeare and have it be successfully produced is ridiculous.And how did de Vere write those great plays after he had died in 1604? Because after the Kings Men moved into Blackfriars in 1608 the plays were written for the smaller stage and the different actors in the company.Shakespeare did not live in an age of biography. He did not even own his plays that were performed by the acting company. For a different example, try and find Christoper Marlowe's name as the author of Tamburlaine. Good luck because such a script never existed. If you are interested in the works of Shakespeare enjoy this movie as a work of fiction just as Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet or Taming of the Shrew are. It is not history as de Vere was not the author of the works by the man from Stratford. At least the producers did not market this as a documentary as the people that produced Last Will and Testament. Now that really is a case of false advertising.

wespain I'll admit that a major pet-peeve is any movie being blatantly inaccurate when accuracy is readily available with a little decent research. Anonymous is so false in so many ways it would waste too much time to name them all. Sure, you can take certain liberties for the sake of a story arc, but the script is so over-the-top wrong it drives right into a ditch. And what's especially worrisome is that unsuspecting viewers might buy all this malarkey as truth. Shakespeare as illiterate? Are you kidding me? Queen Elizabeth, a long reigning and strong monarch, as a dupe to slimy obsequious advisers whose motives are totally obvious? Ridiculous. Well-known historic and literary figures like Jonson, Marlowe, and Shakespeare himself, played as petty sniveling punks? Really? Other historic figures distorted completely out of their true contexts? This movie bombed for good reasons.

clanciai Everything is wrong but extremely well made. This is certainly Roland Emmerich's masterpiece, and although almost nothing is according to that part of reality which in spite of all is known to us of those days, it's a great story very well written. A few things are convincing, though.Above all, Rhys Ifans makes a very convincing Edward De Vere as the absolute nobleman he was, making a complete tragedy of his life. Edward Hogg as Robert Cecil is perhaps the most convincing character of all oiling the way of his intrigues in serpentine slyness. Vanessa Redgrave and Joely Richardson as the Queen, Sebastian Armesto as Ben Jonson, Southampton and Essex, Burleigh, well, all the actors make a perfect job, and Will Shakespeare is finally exposed as the fake he most probably was. The rest is fiction.The film makes Elizabeth the mother of various bastards including all the major earls in a plot of all round incests, while more disturbing is the blatant historical incorrectness of making Shakespeare murder Marlowe ten years after his official death and the performance of Richard III at the moment of rebellion – it was actually Richard II. Of course, everything is exaggerated, there were no overwhelming massacres at Essex' demonstration, but never mind – it's a great film widely transcending and surpassing the obvious construction of the absurdly tall story of "Shakespeare in Love" and made more convincing, above all by the superb acting by all the actors (includiong Derek Jacobi, who actually only states the facts, and Mark Rylance as Condell – you immediately recognize his voice.) Only Bacon is missing. This is self-evidently a full score film and for all times.To sum it up: Most viewers seem to agree that this is Roland Emmerich's masterpiece - a feast for the eyes and intensive action all the way, great dramaturgy, the theatre scenes are all flamboyant parties and the highlights of the film, a fantastic although hardly plausible story, and at last a debunking of the phoney Shakespeare cult. The exaggerations, although overdone as always in Emmerich's films, are dramaturgically no detriment to the film but only add to a perfect theatrical drama of both splendour, knavery, humanity and tragedy.

joyfuljaymac I traded my 'Cloud Atlas' for this film from my Nana...But she came through with this one.'Anonymous'is set back around the time of Shakespeare, the famous play write..Or was he? According to this film... he was illiterate! Well, he could read but writing? According to this, a man named Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, was one who wrote the great plays. Edward played by Rhys Ifans, who i normally don't find interesting or like, gave a capturing performance as Edward. He was able to give the presents, the power and the authority needed to play this role. As well as Jamie Campbell Bower who plays his younger self, who managed to capture the seductive and charming side of Edward.Vanessa Redgrave plays Elizabeth the first, who performance was different from others I've seen. She shows the queen's...Fun side, if i may put it like that. As well as being authoritative when needed to be. Joely Richardson who plays the younger Elizabeth, and who is Vanessa'a real life daughter, managed to do the same. She shows her beauty, her devilish side and maybe a bit rebellious nature. As the film goes on, there are a lot of plot twists that i never seen coming. This film capture the beauty, the dark side and the passion of the Shakespearean era and if you've ever done of Shakespeare's alleged plays, many are mentioned and will have you reciting along.