Anonymus

Es hätte ein bemerkenswerter historischer Film werden können, mit der interessanten Figur von Shakespeare und seinem Mythos. Die Darstellung der Zeit ist ausgezeichnet, die Hauptfigur (Rhys Ifans) super, der Film hat keine technischen Fehler. Man kann es fast nicht glauben, dass dahinter der Autor von 10,000 B.C. steckt. Deshalb ist es schade, dass der Film zwischen verschiedenen Zeitebenen wechselt und die Figuren und ihre Beziehungen unübersichtlich sind. Das ist seine einzige, aber fatale Schwäche… (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)

Es geht gar nicht so sehr darum, dass der Film in vielerlei Hinsicht völlig neben der Kappe ist (nichts gegen die Anti-Stratfordianer, doch ich vertraue Stephen Greenblatt einfach mehr), sondern dass er auf eine schrecklich langweilige und einfallslose Weise rüberkommt. Es ist ein so sehr konventioneller Hollywoodfilm, dass er nicht mal ein wenig subversiv ist, er bringt nichts weiteres als das hundertmal Gesehene. Schon, William Shakespeare hat das gleiche getan ... allerdings viel besser. Glücklicherweise ist der Drehbuchautor am Ende zu eben diesem Schluss gekommen und hat uns erklärt, warum es sich nicht lohnt, sich sein Werk anzuschauen. Und in der Tat - Rolko hat hier einen bei weitem schöneren Film als Paul W.S. Anderson im Bezug zum Design und Realien gedreht, sofern denn diese Info jemanden interessiert. Jedoch ansonsten - es gibt hier zu wenige UFOs und zu viele komplexe Emotionen zu sehen. (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)

Der traditionelle Satz, dass die Geschichte, die Figuren und ihr Handeln fiktiv sind, der am Ende des Abspanns der meisten Filme erscheint, war wahrscheinlich noch nie so treffend wie bei Anonymus. Dieser Film hat mir aus mehreren Gründen gefallen: 1) Ich denke, da ist was dran; 2) Ich liebe alles, was mit dem Elisabethanischen Zeitalter zusammenhängt; 3) Rhys Ifans gehört zu den Schauspielern, die alles mit nur einem Blick sagen; 4) Es hat mir gefallen, wie William Cecil dargestellt wird. Das Drehbuch zeigt ihn nicht nur als traditionellen weisen Berater, sondern auch als erfahrenen Intriganten (sein Sohn muss es ja von jemandem geerbt haben); 5) Ich habe geglaubt, dass es Roland Emmerich packt (seit Der Patriot wissen alle, dass er imstande ist, eine historische Stimmung zu schaffen, aber nur die wenigsten sagen es auch laut), und er hat es auch gepackt; die Tricks sind hervorragend, London ist glaubhaft, die Szene mit dem Aufstand hat eine tolle Steigerung, die Schauspieler*innen sind großartig, Wankers und Klosers Musik… An Anonymus kann ich eigentlich nur das anfängliche Figuren-Chaos kritisieren (beim zweiten Mal wird es aber besser sein). (14.12.2011)

What can I tell you, I was quite confused when Roland Emmerich, arguably the greatest pyrotechnics specialist Hollywood has ever seen, released an intimate dramatic tale from a theatrical setting. But watch out, this is not bad at all! The premise and the structure of the film are more than intriguing, and if it is really based on true events (which of course I highly doubt), it would undoubtedly be a shocking discovery. The most famous writer in the history of mankind as a mere figment of the imagination, while the real author of all the plays had a love affair in his youth with the Queen herself, and had to shun politics, resulting in his hatred, resentment and loathing of the theatre? Anonymous abounds in motifs and Emmerich, who shows a completely new face, handles and weaves them together often very skilfully and engagingly, while sometimes relying on a not-so-successful interweaving of the past with the present, which often takes away from the pace of the story. I also didn't like the protracted final part, when I kept telling myself to let it be over for God's sake, but in the end it dragged on to almost 130 minutes. From the point of view of cinematography nothing groundbreaking, but, from the point of view of history, it’s interesting filmmaking that I certainly don't consider redundant. Strong 3*. (21.12.2011)

Who is actually behind all the plays that are attributed to William Shakespeare? Was he a real person, or just a fictional character who took on the guise of a playwright, while the plays were actually written by someone else, someone who had to remain in the background due to their status? Nobles could not be artists, so they could only write secretly. Is William Shakespeare some nobleman who was hiding? Is it a group of people pretending to be one person? Or is the truth completely different? I must admit, I don't care. I don't want to know if William Shakespeare really existed and wrote all the plays himself, or if it was something else entirely. The plays are so brilliant that it doesn't make sense to delve into that. We are so determined to uncover the truth and debunk the myth. But don't some myths deserve to be left untouched? In my opinion, this is one of them. People should live for his works. Roland Emmerich decided to make a film where he wouldn't destroy New York, but instead he would depict one of the possible versions of how it all happened on screen. In addition, he adds a rather intricate political story that is not so significantly related to Shakespeare himself. But fine, the film had to be a bit more lively and action-packed. Surprisingly, the best parts are the sequences where pieces from Shakespeare's works are performed. So Emmerich didn't make a bad film, it's good in terms of costumes, the set design is great, but it's all too long and... well, just uninteresting. Everything is too neatly aligned and there is no room for speculation. I understand that it's about presenting one version, but it could have been made more suspenseful, more interesting, with a point at the end. But no. Instead, Emmerich attacks the emotions in the end, as is his custom. An average spectacle with beautiful set design. More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2012/07/happy-feet-2-bobr-cislo-4-musketyri.html (23.02.2013)