ironhorse_iv
I have to give credit where credit is due, Director Roland Emmerich known for his semi-entertaining disaster flicks, took a risky undertaking, making a political historical drama thriller about William Shakespeare not be the writer of his own's plays. That's take a lot of guts! The movie is set against the backdrop of Elizabethan England during the Essex rebellion against the aging Queen Elizabeth (Vanessa Redgrave) and her crude adviser William Cecil (David Thewlis) and his son, Robert Cecil (Edward Hogg). The film states out the theory that it was in fact Edward De Vere, Earl of Oxford, (Rhys Ifans), who penned Shakespeare's plays so that he convince the people of England to overthrow their ruler in favor of the Earl of Essex (Sam Reid) than the Cecil's pick of King James. The movie might not be historically accurate as it should be, the film presents a nearly absent King James as the Cecils' candidate, and Earl of Essex (Sam Reid) as a threat to his succession. In truth, Essex was King James of Scotland's most avid supporter in England during the closing years of Elizabeth's reign. I do find the absent nature of King James kinda annoying. He should had a bigger role since the plot revolve around him. Most of the characters are portray in an unlikeable role, even Edward De Vere was a bit of a jerk and cowardly. The idea that he has to hide under anonymous identify for the safety reasons is outrageous not hero like and not true to his real life counterpart. The worst had to be William Shakespeare (Rafe Spall). I really hated how negative, he was portray in the film. Even if he didn't write the plays in a film, he was still a brilliant actor and writer not a clueless selfish murderer. Yes, Shakespeare is suggested as the murderer of Christopher Marlowe (Trystan Gravelle) in this movie, despite in real life, Marlowe died in 1593 in a different neighborhood, than Shakespeare was staying. The movie really re-date a lot of plays and events to fit the 1601 Essex Rebellion, but the film fails to mention that he wrote a lot of plays that had no hints that it could relate to being against the current government at the time. The movie portray William Shakespeare/Edward De Vere as an innovator as people are surprise that he wrote a whole play in blank verse. In truth, blank verses been around since 1516, way before Shakespeare was born. Not only do the movie question William Shakespeare status as a writer, but also in the fact that the Virgin Queen, might not be a virgin, after all. That was pretty daring. Despite the historic inaccuracies, the movie had a lot of twist and turns that could be viewpoint as realistic and really were shocking! None of these controversial theories sound too outrageous when you think about it, but let it be known that the movie plot is indeed fiction, unless told over-wise by historians. The film was indeed entertaining well made. I really got into the time period with the set, costume, and visual/special effect design. The script was smarten more-well written than a lot of Roland Emmerich's previous films. Love how Shakespeare's plays themes are mixed with this script. Mad props to screenwriter John Orloff for that. Still, there were some faults to the script, such as the structure of the movie narrative, making it look like its being portray as a play within a play within a play. It's such a time-jumping format. I also didn't like the fact that the movie was nearly humorless beside William Shakespeare is well-known for his humor. Another is how the movie doesn't understand, symbolism like the Tudor rose, which it isn't a real flower. Still, there were lots of action, sexual tension and great acting to make it watchable. It's sad that a lot of people crap on it, without giving the movie a chance. There was a lot of unneeded heat when this movie came out due to the fact that a lot of one-sided biased William Shakespeare supporters AKA Stratfordians stubbornly couldn't open their eyes to a different viewpoint and the fact that It was Roland Emmerich film. Let's remember, he did make some good movies and made some stinkers before, but this movie is far from a stinker! Still, I'm not going to overlook the faults of the film, and praise it, like cult-like indoctrinate Oxfordians AKA people that believe that somebody else wrote the plays. While it's not that far off, that Shakespeare didn't write his plays due to the facts: that there are few records of Shakespeare's private life besides his taxes return, the layout of education in that time period with royals are must likely to able to travel, and get proper training in literacy in aristocratic sensibility, or familiarity with the royal court. Also that others works from author like Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe and others could mistake for William Shakespeare over the years is possible. People like Sigmund Freud, Mark Twain and Whit Whitman believe somebody else wrote William Shakespeare, but I have found in my own belief, that William Shakespeare indeed work his plays due to other well-documented evidence like title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians, and no evidence links Oxford to Shakespeare's works. The most compelling evidence against the Oxfordian Theory is de Vere's death in 1604, since the generally accepted chronology of Shakespeare's plays places the composition of approximately twelve of the plays after that date. I do think, William Shakespeare did steal some ideas & had influences from other writers from the time. Plus, half of his work are just rehash re-tellings of historical events or earlier manuscripts works from other authors like Edward De Vere. So, there is no real wrong answer to this. Overall: I had look at this film in open approach, and despite my overall belief, found it, worth watching despite its fails.
Wendy Yd New Style
Writing plays and poetry is the passion of the Edward, 17th Earl of Oxford but he can't share it with the world and is forced to let someone else take the credit. And there is Elizabeth I, strong as ever but in this movie with a very very interesting interpretation. I always like it when a movie offers an interesting view. Historic events are always seen from "a" point of view and written by winners/powerful. Who says that some of these elements weren't true? Note for this movie: don't leave your brain at home because there are lots of up and down flash backs. Don't get often confused but at a point I notices that I was trying to match scenes. Due to the plot, I didn't mind that much in the end. "It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves" ... who needs stars if there a queen to give destiny a hand.I like to hear Shakespeare. Fair enough, makes "easier" script writing but better to steal well than create badly. Loved being in a Elizabethan theater, but wasn't so amazed due to previously seeing 'Shakespeare in love'. Still the interacting between public and players, so very different from a film experience in NL. In house scenes were beautifully dressed. The CGI for outdoor palace/tower were well done. Costumes were elegant but not elaborate; liked Vanessa's black dress that she wears at the end.Rhys Ifans (Earl of Oxford) is brilliant, liked him in Notting Hill and can hardly believe it's the same man. Vanessa Redgrave was a good fragile older queen but not a good harsh one. Joely Richardson as the younger Bess was lovely and flirty enough. Jonson, David Thewlis and Edward Hogg (William & Robert Cecil) were solid, liked the "Henry V" player but not all actors. Not outstanding ... but Xavier Samuel (Southampton) looked delightful. It's a 8,5 movie due to the time line multi-cut-up but still a 9 because of the interesting twist. Maybe a bit too ambitious but still strong enough movie that I will enjoy watching again.
sergepesic
In order to enjoy this pseudo-historical thriller, one has to suspend natural desire for logic and order. For a start this is not history. The mystery of Shakespeare, the greatest writer in English language, will probably stay mystery. So, this simplistic movie,doesn't give any answers, nor pose any valid questions, it just tries to dazzle with bright colors. And it makes it's questionable claim with the heaviest of feet. The character of Shakespeare is made to be a step up from village idiot, dumb and illiterate. Little more subtlety wouldn't hurt. But this is Hollywood, a land where moneymakers rule over talent. So, simpler the better, says the one that holds the purse strings. It is hard to do art without money, but when money rules,art becomes obsolete.
Adriaenssens Benjamin
My taught on Anonymous The movie name 'Anonymous' quite inspired me about the unknown truth behind Shakespeare. I personally found it interesting. Also the soundtracks were quite good to give you a great feeling about how is was back then. In this movie you can also find some great actors, a few funny moments, quotes about Shakespeare what I really liked a lot and great historical references. Still, I think this movie could be better. When I was in the middle of the movie I had trouble following the time indication whenever it was a flashback or present. There are a lot of actors during the movie and It was difficult to distinguish them. Also I had a hard time understanding all the relationships with each other. I personally think you have to watch this movie twice if you truly want to understand all of it. Written by a 18 year old Dutch student, trying to improve his English writing skills.
