Anonymous (2011)

Director: Roland Emmerich
Writer: John Orloff
Cast: Rhys Ifans, Vanessa Redgrave, Sebastian Armesto, Rafe Spall, David Thewlis, Edward Hogg, Xavier Samuel, Sam Reid, Jamie Campbell Bower

Edward De Vere (Rhys Ifans) is the Earl of Oxford and as such it is very much frowned upon that he writes plays, even though the aging Queen Elizabeth (Vanessa Redgrave) loves (his) plays very much. But Edward has the idea of letting the rather unknown writer Ben Jonson (Sebastian Armesto) take credit for his plays. But instead the obnoxious actor William Shakespeare (Rafe Spall) puts his name to it – and that is only where the trouble starts for Edward.

Holy crap, this movie was bad. I mean, I expected it to be bad, but I also expected it to be entertaining with it. But when I wasn’t headdesking, I was bored. Not what I think of as a good time. It does have its moments, but they are few and far between.

The movie makes no sense whatsoever. I mean, the whole theory makes no sense whatsoever, but I was expecting that. Anyone who has ever heard of Occam’s razor knows this. But I did think that at least the film would have a logic in itself. But they didn’t even achieve that.

But even that would have been forgiveable. But crackpot theories have one major duty, and one only – that is to entertain. And for the most part, they failed here.

That is not to say that there was nothing good about the film. Rhys Ifans was excellent, though not quite as good as Rafe Spall. Seriously, he is the embodiment of a buffoon – and buffoon is not a word I usually use. I have to admit that his Shakespeare is almost worth the entire film.

Vanessa Redgrave was a bit disappointing though. Though that might also be due to the way her Elizabeth was written. Which might have been a little more realistic than the rest of the film (since there is evidence that she went a bit loopy towards the end), but I do prefer the feisty Judi Dench version. It is just more entertaining.

Summarising: Roland Emmerich should stick to letting the world end. He’s good with that.

5 thoughts on “Anonymous (2011)

  1. The film may not have been historically accurate (we’ll never know the truth), but then again many of Shakespeares plays were not wholly historically accurate either. But they are entertaining and so is this film. By having a fixed idea that you are not going to like it before you get there you don’t give the film a chance. You should be encouraging people to see it because it is very entertaining and enjoyable.
    Holy crap. You talk crap!

    • I’m not saying that things have to be historically accurate, but when they’re not, they should be entertaining and I just didn’t think this film was.

      And I’m this type of person who despite thinking a film is bad, can still find it entertaining. Usually, Roland Emmerich’s movies squarely fall into that category. This one didn’t.

      • You can find a bad film entertaining?? Pull the other one. And what makes you think that you are so scholarly and well informed that you can pronounce that this film is based on a crackpot theory? You got one thing right though in your biased review and that was ‘Holy crap’ – not about describing the film, but about your critique. You clearly had your mind made up before seeing it and in so doing gave it no chance. A shameful admission.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.