Ehirerapp Waste of time

VividSimon Simply Perfect

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Rexanne It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

tjagudilla #EAPP11_REV2016 Written by John Orloff, Ronald Emmerich's Anonymous was a potboiler, mouth gnashing, teeth grinding drama thriller about the conspiracy theory about the authorship of Edward de Vere for some well-known, most watched, most read and most anticipated plays, sonnets, and literary works that has been known for decades as William's Shakespeare masterpieces. Anonymous is also a historical drama about the time when England was in a succession crisis and in the time when there are doubts of who will be the true successor rightful to the throne.Anonymous was indeed a good movie as they meticulously brought us back to the good old times of the Elizabethan London. They richly evoked the London of its time, when the splendor of the court lived in a metropolis of appalling scarcity and the streets were ankle- deep in mud. It creates a resounding and genuine atmosphere, which established how intimate it was. The groundings could almost reach out and touch the players, and in the box seats, such as Oxford himself could witness the power of ,based on the story, was his work.Anonymous was also marvelous in its cinematography and depiction of the characters. The dialogues, acting and etc. was splendid making the movie more effective and making its audience as tense and thrilled as intended for a drama thriller. And another thing that makes the movie interesting is the way how the story line goes hooking the audience to watch in order to find out the mysteries and to answer questions on their mind created by the story itself. But on the other hand, there's a quite mix-ups and muddles in its flashing back of time in the earlier lives of the characters that make it somehow hard to follow and hard to apprehend. The movie is very splendid even though others, especially the fans of William Shakespeare might found it trampling their favorite William Shakespeare. I think they shouldn't be offended of the concepts of Anonymous. First things first, How can we say that what we read on books, internet about William Shakespeare are true? Are there really evidences or just like the concept of these movie they are just mere conjectures? Are the sources really reliable or are they just some secondary sources passed person by person without knowing if it's the mere truth or if something was changed or omitted or misunderstood? For me the movie, although having that introduction of Derek Jacobi, is not really intended to trample the reputation of the Great William Shakespeare. Because if we will analyzed the title of the story, it is not quite applicable because as we can see there's really no anonymous in the movie, all are revealed. Edward de Vere though used the pen name anonymous but it is not significant enough to be a title as a whole. For me Anonymous was whoever the author of the plays, sonnets, and etc. Because as of now, though many believed its Shakespeare, there are still debates of who really has the right to claim the authorship, and Edward de Vere is one of them. And for the movie, the author believed its de Vere. This movie doesn't really tried to destroy Shakespeare but just trying to support the Oxfordian theory that it was De Vere who wrote those. If there are films that support Shakespeare, this are just another version of the conspiracy theory that it was de Vere. There are many questions in our minds right now. If it really was Shakespeare or de Vere, or any other author who make those fantastic work? But it really doesn't matter now, whoever the author of these fantastic masterpieces, whoever this genius man who make fame on writing that his works are still marking on the heart of its reader. What important is that there's these works present up to this century that keeps on inspiring and motivating each and every one of the readers. Anonymous is a great movie, the story line, the cinematography, the depiction of the characters and the setting, the plot twists, the hype was generally great for me regardless of how inaccurate it was,

L S Shakespeare is considered as the soul of the age. But after having seen this movie, you would really begin to doubt. The movie is a political thriller in which they assume that Shakespeare didn't wrote his plays, but Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford did. He wrote those plays in order to begin a rebellion against Queen Elizabeth I. I, personally, really liked the movie. It was definitely interesting to watch and it left me thinking whether or not Shakespeare actually wrote those 35 plays, 154 sonnets and several narrative poems standing on his name. Before watching this movie I had already heard of this theory that he didn't wrote all those pieces himself. But I refused to believe that. The idea seemed so beautiful that there ever lived such a talented man who wrote so many wonderful and brilliant pieces. But now that I've seen this movie I'm beginning to doubt increasingly. Because, first of all, why would a man so talented and passionated by writing leave his two daughters illiterate? Someone else would nevertheless have wanted that they learned how to read and write so that maybe at least one of them would be willing to follow their dad as a writer. Or that they could at least read the great pieces their father wrote. Secondly, if somebody is so loved and adored by the public of his time, he would surely have wanted to be remembered, because then he would surely have left some written evidence that he actually existed. But on the contrary, not a single manuscript of any kind has ever been found written in Shakespeare's own hand, in 400 years, not one document. Also his will famously left his second- best bed to his widow, but it made no mention of a single book or manuscript. Why is that? Isn't it strange that there is not even a single letter found written by the greatest writer of the 16th century? Didn't he even wrote a single time to his wife or children when he was so far away from home? Thirdly, how can a man that wasn't a member of the upper classes be so familiar with the aristocracy, kings, queens and life at the court? Why didn't he wrote plays about the normal working men like other writers as Ben Jonson of his time did? If writing comes from the heart, why didn't he write anything reflecting to his life in Stratford? How comes that this great artist didn't take any inspiration of his own life, like all other artists do? Fourthly, the only handwriting we have of William Shakespeare are 6 shaky signatures. How can a man that wrote such a brilliant plays have difficulties signing his own name? Fifthly, there is no proof that he did attempt the Stratford grammar school as they use to say, but his work shows us such a big acknowledge on different subjects. He even got a very rich vocabulary. How can it even be possible that he wrote such a brilliant things without at least have some form of learning? Sixthly, William Shakespeare didn't spent the remainder of his days in the playhouses of London but in the small town of his birth, Stratford-upon-Avon as a businessman and grain merchant. Why would you all of the sudden give up your great passion? Finally, no record shows that William Shakespeare has ever crossed the borders of his homeland, England. But how can he, in several of his plays, describe places like France and Italy in such great detail if he has never been there? This discussion is probably far from over. But the question that we should perhaps better ask ourselves instead of 'to be or not to be' is 'Is Shakespeare really the soul of the age, or is he more like the betrayer and fraud of the age'

bowmanblue I don't know why I ever watched this. It was only because it was a new film that I bothered to put it in the DVD player. Therefore I had absolutely no expectations from it.At first I was confused. Everyone in the past apparently looked the same, i.e. beards and ruffs and Baldrick lookalikes for servants. However, I stuck with it. And I'm glad I did.I'm not big on history, so I won't (or can't) comment on its historical accuracy, but it was a damn enjoyable romp nonetheless.It makes the claim that Shakespeare didn't write is plays, but, instead, there was a larger conspiracy at work and someone else did. Now, I don't know whether this was really true or not, but, it's fun to watch.Once you establish which beard is which and which beard is actually a younger incarnation of a beard in the future (as there are a lot of flashbacks showing what the beards were doing when they were younger), you can actually follow the conspiracy and see which beard comes out on top. As it's filled with plenty of beheading, back-stabbing and political treachery, it's actually more entertaining than you might think.A happy filmic surprise.

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.