Emmerich's turn from destroyer of the world to Shakespearian conspiracy theories is not bad at all despite some pretty poor performances. But now, back to making the world end again Roland!

First, I would like to nominate Sebastian Armesto for worst supporting actor of this year: you worked hard for it. Then about the movie, the main idea is interesting, but it seems chaotic, specially at first, not always making you have clues to know which moment in the story we are and not having any idea why a part of it is told until the end (it looks so unnecessary all the time). It goes far beyond Oxford theory by the way. Not that bad, but it could have been done much better than this.

It's not bad for the bizarre piece of historical fiction it is, though the way it buys into the whole "nobility=better than" ideal is a bit creepy once you realize it. Otherwise it's interesting enough to watch with low expectations but the pacing and focus is too disjointed to let it go beyond ok.

If you don't mind history being interpreted loosely and you can suspend your disbelief then you might be able to enjoy this. It's not terrible, but it'll kill a couple hours.

62.500

A very interesting take on the Shakespeare legend.

The only thing Roland Emmerich tries to destroy this time is the legacy of William Shakespeare. To my big suprise he manages to do it in a pretty exciting way.

A world class whiff. It plays as exactly what it is--a hacky filmmaker taking a shot at Masterpiece Theater cinema and falling flat on his fat one. Ignoring all the glaring historical inaccuracies, we've got some of the hammiest acting you'll ever see, an incomprehensibly muddy royal conspiracy plot, and a story that swishes back and forth in time so frequently and arbitrarily, you'll be completely lost. Really, really bad--Shakespeare barely even seems to figure in it.

Good film.

Cool concept, the movie starts of in the theater and ends in one.

Fantastic, not a great historical piece but great to watch. Great acting and good directing makes for an interesting movie.

A bit of historical fantasy that's difficult to swallow if you watch it expecting accuracy. It does have a certain engrossing quality, mostly due to excellent costumes and sets, but once again Jamie Campbell Bower (King Arthur in Camelot) managed to massively fail in every scene he was in.

I guess I was expecting more from this.

You know that girl that you, and everyone, describes as a 'hot mess'? ...That's what this film is like... A part of you wants to, (and, maybe you will/did), but afterwards, you feel dirty, and conflicted...

"This deeply dopey travesty's worst instincts are nearly its only entertaining ones." - Bill Weber

19 december 2011, randevu film fest. Majestik / Better than other roland emmerich works but it doesn't mean anonymous is a good film. It is still too bad. Plasticated history for typical hollywood audience.

Suspend your disbelief and enjoy this beautiful period drama. Unfortunately, De Vere suffers from too many things to do and I found he failed to connect to the audience on a meaningful level. Better here is the story of Ben Jonson and Shakespeare himself. The other storylines suffer from exposition. Although, never has exposition looked so pretty.

If you give an idiot a paint brush, a canvas and throw money at him, eventually he will paint something that despite of its stupidity is somehow not totally fucking awful... Ladies and gentleman I give you Roland Emmerich and "Anonymous".

This could have been a great film if it wasn't for two things, a requisite degree in British royalty, and a long list of historical inaccuracies. Keeping track of who is who while flashing back and forth over 40 years is a daunting task otherwise. It's strength is its portrayal of the mythical mystery that "Shakespeare" has become.

Roland Emmerich must be given credit here for trying to make a literate, complex film, but the script is a mess, the pace drags, and the very POINT of the film--the Shakespeare-authorship debate--is not explored in depth; the film unquestioningly gives Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, as the actual writer. That failing (and the MANY historical inaccuracies) aside, there are compensations in some of the acting (Rhys Ifans, Sebastian Arnesto), the Globe Theater scenes, and the lavish production.

I'm not quite sure what to think of this movie. The production is excellent, the writing and acting too, but for some reason I felt unsatisfied once it ended. This may be because I know its arguments about Oxford's authorship are so easily refutable, and thus everything in the film is ultimately, forgive me, much ado about nothing. There's also the problem of the portrayal of Shakespeare as a drunk, lecherous murderer - Emmerich doesn't need this and a more serious Will would've been better.

Roland Emmerich to Shakespeare aficionados: u mad? XD

A nice period piece with lots of filth and bad teeth. Worth a look at.

Who thought Roland Emerich's (Independence Day, 2012) best film would be a period costume drama about Shakespeare being a fake? Impeccable craft design and an entertaining take on history.

Despite being an unabashed fan of Emmerich's, something about Anonymous doesn't quite click -- maybe because I'm familiar with the Oxfordian theory and remain skeptical -- but Anonymous seems to tell a familiar story uninvolvingly. I can see the appeal this film would hold to someone unfamiliar with Oxfordian theory, but I can't imagine the mystery inviting a repeat viewing.

Among Emmerich's best, which isn't saying that much.

difficult to keep track jumping back and forth, creating flaws in character development, however overall a good production worth watching... the script is not wonderful but there are some good quotes and the integration of the wonderful poem "O mistress Mine" is very timely..

From the guy who gave you Independence Day, Godzilla, The Day after Tomorrow and 2012 now comes a movie about William Shakespeare being a fraud... nuff said..