Action / Drama / History / Thriller

Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Rotten 45%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Spilled 53%
IMDb Rating 6.9 10 38774


Uploaded By: OTTO
January 21, 2012 at 11:11 AM


Jamie Campbell Bower as Young Earl of Oxford
Mark Rylance as Condell
David Thewlis as William Cecil
Henry Lloyd-Hughes as Bear Baiter
749.36 MB
English 2.0
23.976 fps
2 hr 10 min
P/S 3 / 17

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by patrick powell 4 / 10

A potentially good film pretty much ruined by an unsubtle blockbuster approach

Is there anyone here who is familiar with the name Fred Quimby. I'm sure it rings a bell. Here's a clue: Tom and Jerry. And what does Mr Quimby have to do with Tom and Jerry? Well, very little, actually.

Those – in my view spectacularly good – cartoons were the creation of William Hanna and Joseph Barbera, as in Hanna-Barbera, when they were working for MGM. Quimby, whose name appears prominently – very prominently – as the producer in the final credits had, on the other hand, very little to do with their creation. He was, in fact, merely the head of the department which produced those gems.

Reputedly, Quimby was a rather humourless man forever at odds with Hanna and Barbera and the suggestion has even been made that although Quimby originally gave the green light to the long series of Tom and Jerry cartoons, he contributed almost nothing to their success. So what has Mr Quimby to do with Roland Emerich's film Anonymous? Well, this… Emerich made his mark with Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow and other rather unsubtle blockbusters, and who can't doubt that he has a certain gift of some kind in that field. Those films are not at all to my taste, but their success cannot be gainsaid.

So on the face of it Anonymous was a rather odd choice for the man. Certainly, he had far more to do with the film's production that Mr Quimby had to do with Tom and Jerry, but those cartoons sprung to mind while I was watching Anonymous in that the whole experience is oddly cartoonish. Subtlety is not Roland's strong suit, and what Anonymous and its 'story' desperately needs is subtlety. So on that score it's 1-0 to failure.

What Emerich can and does bring to Anonymous is spectacle: Elizabethan London with all its squalor is brought to life with vigour, his actors perform with vigour, everything is a rousing spectacle – and so on and on an on. And that is exactly what Anonymous, or rather the film, its theme and suggestion and execution doesn't need. It needed a light touch, not the Germanic vigour so capably and so unnecessarily applied by Emerich.

The suggestion that Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, was, in fact, the true author of the plays attributed to a glover's son from Warwickshire, is a contentious one. It has it's champions, and although I am not one of them, it would be quite amusing to see the theory propounded in a film such as Anonymous. Add to the mix the volatile question in the last years of Queen Elizabeth's reign of who would succeed her, and there is very fertile ground for a good, interesting and amusing film. Sadly, Emerich's film isn't it.

The actors, some of the best in the business it has to be said, are required by Emerich to declaim their lines and outline the plot in a manner which was the hallmark of Hollywood 50 years ago. But filmmaking has since moved on considerably, and a better producer/director might well have made a good fist of Anonymous. But instead we got the dead hand of Emerich.

Oh, all right it is, in its peculiar mish-mash of a way it is entertaining enough - and a mish-mash it most certainly is - but it could have been so, so much better. And there's the shame.

Reviewed by tankace 5 / 10

Fun fiction of a hypothesis .but the rest feels flat.

The film is good looking, the setting is great and quit faithful for the era and even the idea of tackling the ownership of Shakespeare plays, though ,a bit a stretch, could make of fascinating promise. And this is all the good parts of this film.

As for the rest the intrigue after a while becomes more and more absurd to the point that I thought "wait a minute from where did that came from?" Also it was strange that the focus was to the backroom work all the time and not to the work itself of how to make the plays and the manner of the birth of plays that we enjoy still today is boring, for the freaking Shakespeare! OK I get the is the Renaissance and the back- door plays were the norm ,but what about character development?

If anything this film proves the Emmerich was a one hit wander with Independece day and Stargate and considering what has produced after 1996 the less is better.

All in all skip this film it is worthless in both ideas and it seems that it tries to ruin the legacy of of of history greatest storytellers.

Reviewed by dgz78 3 / 10

History For Modern Sensibility

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.

Read more IMDb reviews


Be the first to leave a comment