So much average

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

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.

Anonymous makes for an interesting drama, especially for those fascinated by a theory that the works of William Shakespeare's were actually not his work. The film may seem a little dry at certain points, but it makes for an interesting movie. Historical accuracy has never been a problem of mine, and it continues to do so as the filmmakers took liberty to make some changes. But the costumes and production design were excellent, as they recreated accurately Elizabeth-era London to near perfection.It's interesting to note how the film was directed by Roland Emmerich, who normally does much bigger films. He directs a film that centers on the theory that Shakespeare's works were actually written by Edward De Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. Shakespeare himself is made out to be an idiot by the name of Ben Jonson. All of this happens during the backdrop of the Essex Revolution.The film is well-acted. Rhys Ifans does a really good job as De Vere, as the story his told from his time as a child prodigy to his deathbed. Vanessa Redgrave does a solid job as Elizabeth I, and Joely Richardson does the same as the younger version. David Thewlis is excellent as one of the queen's main advisers.Overall, Anonymous is pretty interesting movie, especially for those interested in this kind of history. Now who knows if there is truth to this theory, but it does raise some questions for historians. As a lover of history, I was not too concerned about the historical accuracy. After all, movies are made to entertain, not to teach. It was a little boring and slow in some parts, but the film works thanks to excellent acting and a lavish production set to transport viewers back to the past. I rate this film 8/10.

I have seen this movie a dozen times and own it on DVD, and I still watch every moment in awe. Although the movie contains much speculation about many things, it is well designed, executed and the actors as well as the production should have mopped the Oscars the year that it was released. There are deep moments, joyful moments, humor etc etc...and you reach the end and only wish to watch it again. If you are looking for the usual story of Shakespeare, this movie is not for you. If you are looking to expand your concept of what could have been, have your perception of Shakespeare jarred with a deeper and more intricate account with historical truth, and are willing to watch this movie with an open mind, then you will agree that Anonymous is pure excellence, and it gives me hope as a movie viewer that talent lives.

Anonymous was about the myth that William Shakespeare did not in fact write any of his works, that he was just a front man for an Earl who, to respect his station in society, could not reveal that he was a playwright. I wouldn't venture as far as to say that I believe that myth, but I would say that it made for an extremely compelling film and I left feeling quite inspired to go read Shakespeare's complete works.Rhys Ifans played the Earl of Oxford, the "man behind the magic" in Anonymous. Having only seen him in a few minor roles in movies like Notting Hill and Elizabeth: The Golden Age, I was delighted to see him take a lead role by the reins and really own it. He was wonderfully pompous, dark and tormented. I was amused by the make-up artist's choice to have him wear black eye-shadow the entire movie, but somehow it worked. He was kind of like the "emo-kid" of his day, wearing all black and pouring his soul into his art, his writing.The rest of cast were quite excellent as well, with Vanessa Redgrave and Joely Richardson sharing the role of Queen Elizabeth I, and Rafe Spall as the ridiculous William Shakespeare. The Shakespeare in Anonymous was a self-centered, drunken buffoon, a depiction which I felt was both ballsy and amusing. It takes some nerve to write a pivotal literary and historical figure as a complete idiot. Never-the-less, it was essential to the story and I enjoyed the different take on history.The artistic elements were stunning. The drama was thrilling. The content was very thought-provoking. I highly recommend Anonymous, especially to those who love historical dramas/period films. I'm saddened it only showed in select theaters. It just goes to show what the general populous is drawn to and it's not historical dramas. If you are a hard-core traditionalist when it comes to history and Shakespeare, watch the movie with a grain of salt. The writers rewrote much of history.