Anonymous

Cela aurait pu être un film historique remarquable, avec un regard intéressant sur Shakespeare et son mythe. La représentation de l'époque est excellente, le personnage principal (Rhys Ifans) est formidable, techniquement il n'y a absolument rien à reprocher. On a du mal à croire que cela soit l'œuvre du même auteur que "10,000 B.C.". C'est d'autant plus dommage à cause des sauts temporels malheureux, de l'opacité des personnages et de leurs relations - la seule et fatale faiblesse du film... (05/12/2011)

Emmerich has expertly surpassed his years of infamously built shadow. Although I don't share his conspiracy theory about the authenticity of the authorship of Shakespeare's works, at least the meticulous production design and the performances (especially Rhys Ifans) deserve praise. I don’t share some of the criticisms here about the lack of clarity. The seemingly complicated flashback narrative is not that difficult to grasp at the first viewing, you only need to remember about 5 names and be a little bit alert while watching the flashback jumps (and the ubiquitous political ploys) and there’s no risk of getting lost. And I also give a thumbs up to Emmerich for his courage to come up with such an inflammatory material in today's cinemas, where the deployment of commercial films is more like a controlled production process. I'm surprised at myself, but giving Emmerich a chance this time was worth it. (06/02/2012)

The traditional phrase "This story is fiction, the characters and their actions are fictional... etc.", which appears at the end of the credits of most films, has perhaps never been more appropriate than in the case of Anonymous. I liked the film for several reasons: 1) I think there's something to it; 2) I love anything related to the Elizabethan era; 3) Rhys Ifans is one of those actors who says it all with one glance; 4) I liked the conceptualization of William Cecil, whom the script showed not only as a traditional wise counselor, but also as a hard-bitten schemer (his son must have inherited that from someone); 5) I believed Roland Emmerich could do it (everyone knows he can do historical atmospheres since The Patriot, but few will say it out loud), and he did; the special effects were great, London was believable, the uprising scene was well done, the film had great actors, there was Wanker and Kloser's great music... Actually, I can only criticize Anonymous for the initial chaos in the characters (which is fixed the second time around). (14/12/2011)

It's not so much that the film is completely out of it in many ways (nothing against anti-Stratfordians, but I just trust Stephen Greenblatt more), but rather that it's out of it in a terribly boring and unimaginative way. It's so conventionally Hollywood that it's not subversive at all, and it brings nothing more than recycling what has been seen a hundred times. Yes, William Shakespeare did it too... but much better. Thankfully the screenwriter figured it out at the end and explained to us why his creation is not worth seeing. Yes, and in terms of design and material facts, Rolko made a much nicer film than Paul W.S. Anderson, in case anyone's wondering. But otherwise, there are too few aliens and too many complex emotions. (02/11/2011)

It’s a well-known fact that Roland Emmerich, apart from Independence Day, has never been very strong in scripts, so we have a mess of characters and timelines that only improves in the second half of the film. But what good is that when we are served such confusing aesthetics and incredibly clear compositions and panoramas? That's when every other viewer is willing to overlook the plot holes and confusion, or at least brush them off. Thematically, it's quite unconventional and not a completely bad attempt, surprisingly not an outright clichéd mess like 10,000 BC, but let's move on to the second installment of The Martian instead. (15/09/2014)