The tagline reads: "˜Was Shakespeare a fraud?' Well, Anonymous never really asks its-self
that particular question. Nor does it ever attempt to answer it.
The story was certainly good in theory but was very poorly
executed. Some of the characters were unnecessary and none of the tones played
right. I didn't laugh or cry when the film obviously wanted me to. The entire
lack of emotion is exactly why this movie lands right in the "˜Who cares?' pile.
First, the way this film has been marketed is surely misleading. Anonymous is over two hours and packs in
about five million stories. It can't find a central plot line to tie all the
others together and never clarifies how this other man, not William
Shakespeare, could perhaps have written plays like Romeo and Juliet. With a PG-13 rating they keep the film much too
tame and not interesting enough for its target audience.
I wouldn't fault the film in the least if it was a suspenseful
mystery. But it was trying to be taken seriously, which was its first mistake.
It moved back and forth between time and had too much information for anyone to
want to keep straight. After awhile, I just began admiring the costumes and the
makeup because at least they seemed to get that right.
The acting was mediocre. The best chemistry was between a young
Queen Elizabeth and an even younger Edward, Earl of Oxford. Rhys Ifans didn't
get much screen time in total and his character was made up of the same facial
expressions. The lack of character development only added to the overall
indifference I had for this film.
Anonymous started out
with all of the right ideas. Yet, thanks to the shortage in commitment to one
central story and a mishmash of acting, it failed to engage any kind of
interest into whatever message it wanted to portray.
