Interesting concept, badly executed. Moves very slowly, and any intrigue built up by the central premise is lost pretty quickly. Good cinematography and costumes though.

Performances are fairly listless.

I'm not sure on what the movie is based on. But be sure that this is a movie. It might not represent what really happened. I actually believe it's just a story, that tries to provoke. Funnily enough not in any explicit (read: violence, nudity) matter, but with its content. Having said that, this was one of the main concerns a female friend of mine had, when we watched the movie together. She thought there wasn't enough "spicy" moments in there (see shows like "Rome" to understand what she means).

Still the movie is intriguing, but might also be a bit difficult at times for those people who're not used to the English being spoken in the movie. So if English isn't your first language there are scenes (that play in the theater) that might be difficult to follow). Other than that, the movie has quite a few tension filled moments and does have a drive. It still seems to be lacking something to push it over the edge and make it really great.

'Anonymous' is a modern play on Broadway where a different version of Shakespeare's real life is presented. After a prologue, it flashbacks to Robert Cecil, the Earl of Salisbury with his men chasing after Ben Jonson (Sebastian Armesto) with a collection of manuscripts. He hides them under the Rose and his pursuers burn down the theater. Then it flashes 5 years earlier, Shakespeare (Rafe Spall) is a drunken actor. It flashes 40 year earlier still, Edward De Vere, the Earl of Oxford (Jamie Campbell Bower/Rhys Ifans) is the real author of Shakespeare's works. It is a film about political intrigue in the English court during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I (Joely Richardson/Vanessa Redgrave).

There are a lot of questionable and complicated history. I almost feel a real need to be more familiar with the British history both royal and literary. There is something wrong with this version of history but I'm not a good enough scholar to pinpoint it. The start of the movie jumps around in time and it's easy to get lost. This is definitely an unique interpretation of history from writer John Orloff. Roland Emmerich's direction really needs to simplify the movie although the complicated story adds to the atmosphere. In some way, all the name dropping is addictive and fascinating. The acting is top notch. Emmerich films it with so much murky realism. It's a very tough call. There is enough great performances and the story is so audacious that I must recommend this.