Anonymous

Who is actually behind all the plays that are attributed to William Shakespeare? Was he a real person, or just a fictional character who took on the guise of a playwright, while the plays were actually written by someone else, someone who had to remain in the background due to their status? Nobles could not be artists, so they could only write secretly. Is William Shakespeare some nobleman who was hiding? Is it a group of people pretending to be one person? Or is the truth completely different? I must admit, I don't care. I don't want to know if William Shakespeare really existed and wrote all the plays himself, or if it was something else entirely. The plays are so brilliant that it doesn't make sense to delve into that. We are so determined to uncover the truth and debunk the myth. But don't some myths deserve to be left untouched? In my opinion, this is one of them. People should live for his works. Roland Emmerich decided to make a film where he wouldn't destroy New York, but instead he would depict one of the possible versions of how it all happened on screen. In addition, he adds a rather intricate political story that is not so significantly related to Shakespeare himself. But fine, the film had to be a bit more lively and action-packed. Surprisingly, the best parts are the sequences where pieces from Shakespeare's works are performed. So Emmerich didn't make a bad film, it's good in terms of costumes, the set design is great, but it's all too long and... well, just uninteresting. Everything is too neatly aligned and there is no room for speculation. I understand that it's about presenting one version, but it could have been made more suspenseful, more interesting, with a point at the end. But no. Instead, Emmerich attacks the emotions in the end, as is his custom. An average spectacle with beautiful set design. More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2012/07/happy-feet-2-bobr-cislo-4-musketyri.html (23/02/2013)

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 not so much that the film is completely out of it in many ways (nothing against anti-Stratfordians, but I just trust Stephen Greenblatt more), but rather that it's out of it in a terribly boring and unimaginative way. It's so conventionally Hollywood that it's not subversive at all, and it brings nothing more than recycling what has been seen a hundred times. Yes, William Shakespeare did it too... but much better. Thankfully the screenwriter figured it out at the end and explained to us why his creation is not worth seeing. Yes, and in terms of design and material facts, Rolko made a much nicer film than Paul W.S. Anderson, in case anyone's wondering. But otherwise, there are too few aliens and too many complex emotions. (02/11/2011)

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)

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)