Anonymous

Emmerich has expertly surpassed his years of infamously built shadow. Although I don't share his conspiracy theory about the authenticity of the authorship of Shakespeare's works, at least the meticulous production design and the performances (especially Rhys Ifans) deserve praise. I don’t share some of the criticisms here about the lack of clarity. The seemingly complicated flashback narrative is not that difficult to grasp at the first viewing, you only need to remember about 5 names and be a little bit alert while watching the flashback jumps (and the ubiquitous political ploys) and there’s no risk of getting lost. And I also give a thumbs up to Emmerich for his courage to come up with such an inflammatory material in today's cinemas, where the deployment of commercial films is more like a controlled production process. I'm surprised at myself, but giving Emmerich a chance this time was worth it. (06/02/2012)

This could have been a noteworthy historical film and an interesting look at Shakespeare and the myths that surround him. It captures the period perfectly, the main character (played by Rhys Ifans) is great and there is absolutely nothing to criticize in technical terms. It’s hard to believe that the creator of 10,000 BC is behind this. It’s thus all the more a shame about the unfortunate jumping around in time and the lack of clarity in the characters and their relationships – i.e. the film’s only, yet fatal weakness. (05/12/2011)

The traditional phrase "This story is fiction, the characters and their actions are fictional... etc.", which appears at the end of the credits of most films, has perhaps never been more appropriate than in the case of Anonymous. I liked the film for several reasons: 1) I think there's something to it; 2) I love anything related to the Elizabethan era; 3) Rhys Ifans is one of those actors who says it all with one glance; 4) I liked the conceptualization of William Cecil, whom the script showed not only as a traditional wise counselor, but also as a hard-bitten schemer (his son must have inherited that from someone); 5) I believed Roland Emmerich could do it (everyone knows he can do historical atmospheres since The Patriot, but few will say it out loud), and he did; the special effects were great, London was believable, the uprising scene was well done, the film had great actors, there was Wanker and Kloser's great music... Actually, I can only criticize Anonymous for the initial chaos in the characters (which is fixed the second time around). (14/12/2011)

It’s a well-known fact that Roland Emmerich, apart from Independence Day, has never been very strong in scripts, so we have a mess of characters and timelines that only improves in the second half of the film. But what good is that when we are served such confusing aesthetics and incredibly clear compositions and panoramas? That's when every other viewer is willing to overlook the plot holes and confusion, or at least brush them off. Thematically, it's quite unconventional and not a completely bad attempt, surprisingly not an outright clichéd mess like 10,000 BC, but let's move on to the second installment of The Martian instead. (15/09/2014)

What can I tell you, I was quite confused when Roland Emmerich, arguably the greatest pyrotechnics specialist Hollywood has ever seen, released an intimate dramatic tale from a theatrical setting. But watch out, this is not bad at all! The premise and the structure of the film are more than intriguing, and if it is really based on true events (which of course I highly doubt), it would undoubtedly be a shocking discovery. The most famous writer in the history of mankind as a mere figment of the imagination, while the real author of all the plays had a love affair in his youth with the Queen herself, and had to shun politics, resulting in his hatred, resentment and loathing of the theatre? Anonymous abounds in motifs and Emmerich, who shows a completely new face, handles and weaves them together often very skilfully and engagingly, while sometimes relying on a not-so-successful interweaving of the past with the present, which often takes away from the pace of the story. I also didn't like the protracted final part, when I kept telling myself to let it be over for God's sake, but in the end it dragged on to almost 130 minutes. From the point of view of cinematography nothing groundbreaking, but, from the point of view of history, it’s interesting filmmaking that I certainly don't consider redundant. Strong 3*. (21/12/2011)