Hugo 3D - 4 smiles

Martin Scorsese’s latest film, “Hugo,” is a richly illustrated history lesson in cinema history wrapped around the story of an orphaned boy and is an example of one of the best uses of 3D since Avatar. Based on Brian Selznick’s 2007 illustrated children’s novel, the story takes place inside Paris’ Montparnasse train station in 1931, where 12-year-old Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield), the orphaned son of a clockmaker (Jude Law), lives inside the station’s giant clock, which he also maintains since his alcoholic uncle abandoned him. An early scene takes us on a journey inside the clock, with its maze-like corridors, ladders and gears. This gives us an introduction to Scorsese’s spectacular use of 3D as the entire screen opens up to various moving parts. The station acts like an indoor village, with Hugo darting among the merchants and passengers, pilfering a croissant or bottle of milk. Hugo is also trying to repair an automaton his father was working on at the time of his death. To accomplish this, Hugo must steal gears and other parts from a shopkeeper who turns out to be the legendary director Georges Méliès (Ben Kingsley), fallen on hard times. In Méliès ‘ goddaughter, Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz), Hugo finds an ally. But he also has an enemy, the orphan-hating Station Inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen), who seeks to catch Hugo and send him to an orphanage

In “Hugo,” Scorsese plays homage on several occasions to one of the earliest films, the Lumiere Brothers’ Arrival of a Train at the Station. Scorsese also tells us a lot about Méliès, one of the pioneers of early film technique and special effects. We learn that between 1896 and 1914, Méliès directed more than 530 films but, in order to save himself from bankruptcy, he was forced to sell the film stock that was eventually melted down and turned into shoe heels. Only one print of one of his productions, a 1920’s A Trip to the Moon, exists and he views his life as a failure. By telling Méliès’ story, Scorsese has not only an opportunity to explore the inventiveness of early filmmaking, but also a way to incorporate a message about the importance of preserving films for posterity. “Hugo” is a smart movie with an emotional core and deserves to be seen in 3D. 11/27/11

The Muppets - 3 1/2 smiles

My daughter grew up first with Sesame Street and then with The Muppet Show. So it was with a lot of nostalgic anticipation that I looked forward to seeing “The Muppets” and I wasn’t disappointed. This movie delivers in the same manner that I remember, but adds something new. The movie opens with a slow build to bringing the Muppets on screen by first introducing Jason Segel’s character, Gary, his brother, Walter (who looks a lot like a Muppet) and his girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams). This technique helps us to realize just how much we’ve missed, Kermit, Miss Piggy, Fozzie, Gonzo and the gang. And I hope that this movie marks a return for the Muppets. They’ve been missed.

Gary is taking Mary on a special trip to Los Angeles. Fearing that Walter will feel left out, he agrees to take him along, especially because Walter is a fan of the Muppets and this will allow him to see the Muppet Theater. But when they arrive, they find the facilities are a shell of their former grandeur and that a tycoon (Chris Cooper) intends to demolish the theater and drill for oil. The only way to save the place is to get the Muppets together for a fund-raising telethon. Kermit is the first Muppet that Gary, Walter and Mary approach and he’s cajoled into getting the gang back together. And as they round up everyone and start working on the show, the uniquely Muppet humor shines as celebrities continually pop up in cameos. And Kermit singing “Rainbow Connection” is certainly a high point. Kudos to Jason Segel and his writing partner Nicholas Stoller for writing the script and campaigning for the movie to be made. “The Muppet” movie works in so many ways. 11/24/11

A Dangerous Method - 3 smiles

“A Dangerous Method,” based on John Kerr’s 1994 book A Most Dangerous Method: The Story of Jung, Freud and Sabina Spielrein, examines the relationship between these three people and how far Freud and Jung pushed the boundaries of thinking in the early days of psychoanalysis. Set in 1904 Zurich, the opening scene introduces us to Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley), whose physical abuse and humiliation have left the young Russian woman with a severe case of hysteria. Her father has sent her to Karl Jung’s (Michael Fassbender) clinic, where she become’s Jung’s first effort at using Freud’s (Viggo Mortensen) ‘talking cure,’ a novel concept in the treatment of mental illness. Later, when the two men meet, Jung questions Freud’s insistence that all neuroses are rooted in sexual issues. Freud encourages the younger Jung via their first discussion, which lasted 18 hours and the subsequent constant flow of letters between them. Freud eventually learns that Jung is having an affair with Spielrein, who is training to become a therapist after Jung has successfully treated her. Freud, fearing that this ethical lapse could provide ammunition for the many enemies of psychiatry, urges Jung to break it off, which, of course, upsets Spielrein and she reacts violently. Eventually Jung and Freud split when Jung decides to explore Eastern philosophy and astrology as part of his practice.

Director David Cronenberg has assembled a first-rate cast. As Jung, who juggles Sabina with a beautiful and frequently pregnant wife (Sarah Gadon) in Switzerland, Fassbender gives another memorable performance. (He was also in Jane Eyre and X-Men: First Class.) Mortensen, as the cigar-smoking Freud, presents the father of modern psychiatry as a thoughtful, though often intransient, authority figure. Knightley, always effective in period movies, infuses the masochistic Spielrein with intelligence and independence. (Spielrein becomes a noted psychotherapist in her own right who was executed by Nazis during World War II.) The weakness in “A Dangerous Method” is its almost clinical approach with a lack of an emotional core. Nonetheless, it gives real insight into its subjects, especially Jung. 11/26/11

The Artist - 4 smiles

“The Artist” is a totally enjoyable movie-going experience. It’s a black and white movie (gasp!)…..a silent black and white movie (double gasp!). Written and directed by Michel Hazanavicius, it’s about old Hollywood transitioning from silent movies to talkies and Jean Dujardin is wonderful as George Valentin, the dashing star of countless silent-movie epics. George resists the efforts of studio chief Al Zimmer (John Goodman) to try talkies. Stuck in a loveless marriage, George nonetheless falls in love with Peppy Miller (Argentine Bérénice Bejo), a bit player who hits it big in the sound era while George’s career crumbles. Only Clifton (the always effective James Cromwell), his chauffeur and his dog Uggy (a scene-stealing Jack Russell terrier) stick by George through his fall. Luckily Peppy is around to rescue the man she loves.

“The Artist” makes us realize how powerfully performers once acted through movement and facial expressions. As Valentin, Dujardin shines. His elegant physicality, perhaps reminiscent of Douglas Fairbanks, speaks volumes and his volatile emotions animate his features. The jury at this year’s Cannes Film Festival gave Dujardin the Best Actor award. Bejo embodies the vitality of her character’s name and her radiant smile brightens all corners of the screen. And Uggy, who proves to be quite resourceful, is absolutely adorable. Hazanavicius is French, as are his stars, Dujardin and Bejo, but they shot the movie in Los Angeles and all of the dialogue is in English – that is, dialogue that is never heard but mouthed or shown in subtitles until the last scene. “The Artist,” a most delightful and engaging film, is certainly a must see. It’s another movie that will find itself on Oscar’s list for Best Picture and Best Director. 11/9/11

The Descendants - 4 smiles

“The Descendants,” directed by Alexander Payne and starring George Clooney, is a guaranteed multiple Oscar nominee. It has everything a top film should have: perceptive directing, beautiful acting, insightful script and real emotions. Plus it’s George Clooney’s best work, even better than last year’s Up In the Air. The movie opens with a voiceover in which Matt King (Clooney) attempts to explain that Hawaiians experience all of the trials and tribulations that everyone else faces even though they live in what many consider a paradise. Hawaii is just like any other place – there’s homelessness, disease and heartbreak. Matt’s wife, Elizabeth, is the victim of a boating accident, leaving her in a coma and he suddenly finds himself in charge of 10-year-old Scotty (Amara Miller) and 17-year-old Alexandra (Shailene Woodley). He considers himself the ‘backup parent,’ but it’s obvious that now he has to take a more active role, something he’s not ready for. As part of their Hawaiian legacy, Matt and his extended family of cousins own the largest remaining tract of pristine land on Kauai, which is being held in trust. And time is running out. So adding to Matt’s stress is the decision he must make about this land. His cousins want him to sell it, which would net everyone lots of money. If he doesn’t sell it and the trust ends, the land goes to the state

Despite the dark subject matter about a family who’s facing a loss, the script, written by Payne, Nat Faxon and Jim Rash, manages to be sad without being overly sentimental, funny without being insensitive and a thoroughly enjoyable film. And Clooney is pitch-perfect as a man who discovers the wife he loves has been having an affair, but because she’s in a coma, there’s no way for him to confront her. Clooney’s Matt must process his anger, grief, love and loss simultaneously all while providing support for his daughters. And the supporting cast is full of exceptional performances, especially Woodley, as the troubled but intelligent Alex. Her rapport with Clooney is one of the reasons this film works. Also effective is Nick Krause, as Sid, Alex’s friend. He’s clueless and caring, genuine and sincere and he knows what Alex is going through. Payne, using Hawaiian landscapes, people and most of all music to great effect, has created a multilayered story with perfect doses of comedy and tragedy. 10/26/11

Take Shelter - 2 smiles

Although Michael Shannon does an amazing job in “Take Shelter,” the script, written by director Jeff Nichols, doesn’t play fair with the audience. For 95 percent of the running time, Nichols builds a strong case that Curtis (Shannon) is developing mental problems. And, then, at the conclusion, you’re left with the possibility that, well, maybe he’s not crazy after all…or is he? In addition, the story develops at a snail’s pace and, at two hours, seems overly long.

Curtis is a skilled construction worker with a wife (Jessica Chastain), a daughter and a dog. He is a seemingly happy man, but there’s one big problem. Curtis is having menacing dreams in which an impending storm threatens to destroy his family. The dreams vary in content, but they’re ominous enough that Curtis begins to confuse them for reality and he’s frantic to keep his family safe. At the same time, Curtis suspects that he’s sick and is determined to seek treatment. Nonetheless, he can’t shake the conviction that his fears have meaning. Shannon is wonderful as a man whose mind and life seem to unravel before our eyes. You feel sorry for him even as you’re also afraid of him. On one hand, it’s possible to see this story as an allegory for a looming disaster – economic or environmental – with its accompanying anxiety. If so, then perhaps the script makes a little more sense. On the other hand, given the parameters of the story, the ambiguity of the ending is bothersome. 11/17/11

Oranges and Sunshine - 2 smiles

A true story this horrific deserves a better script. “Oranges and Sunshine,” starring Emily Watson and Hugo Weaving, is a sluggish film that tells the true story of approximately 130,000 British children, wards of the state in the 40s and 50s, who were told their parents had died and that ‘oranges and sunshine’ awaited them in Australia. Unfortunately, when they arrived, they found themselves in orphanages where they suffered sexual abuse and were forced into years of hard labor. Decades later, in 1986, social worker Margaret Humphreys (Watson) uncovered and exposed this dirty little secret. And, finally, in 2010, the British Prime Minister apologized to the thousands of children who had been treated so cruelly.

Director Jim Loach has his heart in the right place, but he seems overly concerned with handling the material as it happened, which is not a compelling way to tell the story. Once Margaret discovers that children were sent to Australia by the British government and she discovers this early on, there’s little drama in the narrative. And it’s hard to create tension when the villain is a faceless bureaucracy. “Oranges and Sunshine” is a well-intentioned but uninspired effort. 11/19/11

Like Crazy - 1 1/2 smiles

“Like Crazy” is, like, annoying. This movie, starring Anton Yelchin and Felicity Jones, is supposed to be about a monumental love and you’re supposed to want them to overcome all obstacles and be together. However, these two are so irritating that you’d much rather see them apart. And the separate lives Yelchin’s Jacob and Jones’ Anna are living, in different cities on different continents, makes more sense. But writer/director Drake Doremus keeps finding ways to shove them back together so much of “Like Crazy” feels artificial.

Jacob and Anna both attend a Los Angeles college and they fall in love. Because Anna, a Brit, is attending on a visa, she is supposed to return to London when it runs out. But that seems unreasonable for them – they’re young and in love and the rules shouldn’t apply. So she violates the terms of her visa. When she does return to England, she is not allowed to re-enter the US. What follows are text messages, terse phone messages and missed connections. Their exchanges are frequently sulky and ill-tempered for no good reason. It would have been more poignant if the reason for their estrangement wasn't so avoidable. All Anna had to do was go to London for the summer and return a few months later. It's obvious that the love Anna and Jacob experience is young love, full of impetuous actions that can’t be sustained without proximity. The foundation for their love is not strong enough to weather the challenges that ensue. “Like Crazy” is ultimately exasperating and tiresome. 11/20/11

The Immortals - 1 1/2 smiles

Director Tarsem Singh creates stunning visuals for “The Immortals,” his loosely-based-on-Greek-mythology spectacle that pays more attention to decapitations, castrations, eviscerations and muscular beefcake than to his narrative. That Theseus slew the Minotaur is the only accurate reference to Greek mythology in this film and that’s debatable when you consider the Minotaur looks like a man wearing a cage-like bull mask. The story involves an attempt by King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) to destroy the gods and the battle to stop him led by a peasant named Theseus (Henry Cavill). Much depends on the possession of the Epirus Bow, which will free the Titans, ancient enemies of the gods and capable of killing them. Zeus (Luke Evans) forbids the other gods from interfering in the affairs of men although he coaches Theseus disguised as an elderly man (John Hurt).

Singh’s use of mythology allows him to create a series of eye-catching tableaux, much like an elaborate painting, especially a Greek village carved from the sides of precipitous cliffs. While the numerous battle scenes are often interminable and bloody (and not totally comprehensible), Mickey Rourke, chewing up scenery as he goes, is a formidable villain. And Cavill’s sleekly oiled muscular physique proves that he has the right look to play the next Superman, but I hope his acting improves. It’s too bad that “The Immortals” has a great look but muddled story. 11/11/11

J. Edgar - 2 smiles

With his latest, “J. Edgar,” director Clint Eastwood attempts to capture one of 20^th century America’s most enigmatic figures. Unfortunately, he doesn’t succeed. The film is built around Hoover dictating his version of his life story to a young agent shortly before his death in 1972. However, Hoover is not trustworthy when it comes to the truth. The narrative jumps from the Red Scare ‘Palmer Raids’ of 1919 and 1920 and touching on the early days of the bureau, the Lindbergh kidnapping, the war on John Dillinger and Pretty Boy Floyd, the Kennedys and the civil rights movement, which Hoover saw as a communist conspiracy. Hoover’s life is molded largely by his smothering mother (Judi Dench) who sees her son as the family’s ticket to prominence. The only woman other than his mother to play a significant role in Hoover’s life is his loyal secretary Helen Gandy (a very good Naomi Watts), who worked with him from the first days of the bureau to the time of his death. The most important person in his life, though, is Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer), a smart, fashion-conscious, upwardly mobile law school graduate, who becomes Hoover’s life-long companion.

By movie’s end, Hoover is still shrouded in mystery. At most, the movie manages an overview of Hoover’s career while his motivations, sexual orientation and manipulative paranoid personality are made no clearer. Maybe it’s because the unfocused script hopscotches from time period to time period, without much narrative coherence. Maybe it’s because we never really get to know J. Edgar, a man who used the FBI as his personal secret police, compiling files on his ‘enemies’ that he used to intimidate (or blackmail) eight different presidents. Maybe it’s because Eastwood’s directorial style keeps us at a distance, preventing Hoover from becoming a figure we can understand. And maybe it’s because DiCaprio is miscast although he pours himself into the role. (Anyone want to consider how Phillip Seymour Hoffman would be as Hoover?) As a history lesson, this movie might have some value. But the huge amount of material becomes somewhat numbing, especially without any great revelations. It also doesn’t help that the actors spend much of the film laboring beneath mounds of aging makeup. It’s not that “J. Edgar” is such a bad movie. It’s just ineffectual. 11/10/11

The Revenge of the Electric Car - 3 smiles

Chris Paine’s 2006 documentary, Who Killed the Electric Car presented a scathing portrait of the US auto industry’s calculated decision to destroy the momentum of electronic vehicles, especially GM’s recall of its pioneering EV1 model. He’s now returned with a far more upbeat sequel that optimistically depicts how automakers are finally coming around to the concept. Of course, it helps that the bottom line aligns with the greater good. Paine focuses on a group of industry leaders, including Bob Lutz, a veteran GM executive who describes himself as ‘an environmentalist, within limits’ who makes the decision to champion the Volt; Elon Musk, a dot-com millionaire who invests his vast personal fortune on his Silicon start-up car company, Tesla Motors; and Carlos Ghosn, the CEO of Nissan who decides to risk his company’s fate on the affordable Leaf. Also included is the inventor and entrepreneur Greg ‘Gadget’ Abbott, who converts gas-run cars into electric vehicles in his own makeshift facility.

Although the filmmaker gives some historical context via clips from his previous movie, he’s more interested in providing character studies of men who make decisions based on pragmatism rather than strident propaganda usually associated with environmentalists. Paine enjoyed clear access to his subjects, resulting in a behind-the-scenes look at important men making important decisions. Narrated by Tim Robbins, the film includes cameos by Arnold Schwarzenegger, Adrian Grenier, Jon Favreau and Danny DeVito. And even the biggest fan of gas-guzzling autos will root for this group of risk-takers who are leading the long delayed transition from a reliance on oil to a new technology. 11/6/11

Puss in Boots - 1 1/2 smiles

The Shrek movies were huge successes so a spinoff was inevitable. Unfortunately, Puss is too much of a one-dimensional character to sustain a whole movie. Now, I like Antonio Bandaras and I like Antonio Bandaras as Puss, a Latin-lover so romantic and vain that he’s totally unaware that he’s a kitty cat. And while this bit plays well in Shrek, it wears thin after the first 15 minutes. The script, written by Tom Wheeler, Brian Lynch and Will Davies, gives Puss a convoluted back-story that involves growing up in an orphanage and becoming close friends with Humpty Dumpty (voiced by Zach Galifianakis) who later betrays him.

When the back-story threatens to take over, the narrative shifts to the present, throwing in Jack and Jill (Billy Bob Thornton and Amy Sedaris) as corpulent grown-up grouches, magic beans and a beanstalk, a girl kitty (Salma Hayek) dressed as Catwoman (??) and a whole lot more. Directed by Chris Miller, “Puss in Boots” is beautifully animated, but the jokes aren’t very funny. I’m not sure if it’s supposed to be an action flick, a children’s cartoon movie or and origin tale. If it’s the latter, Miller doesn’t even bother to explain how Puss got his boots. Oh, well. I say wait for cable. 10/21/11

Tower Heist - 2 1/2 smiles

“Tower Heist” is one of the biggest feel-good comedies of the year. Yes, it has a lot of plot holes and yes, there’s a lot of silliness. But you’re going to want to cheer for our heroes, the average working folks who hope to steal their own money back from a Madoff-type billionaire. Josh Kovacs (Stiller), the general manager of the Tower, a posh apartment complex, oversees a motley staff that includes his flakey brother-in-law Charlie (Casey Afflick); a Jamaican-born maid named Odessa (Gabourey Sidibe) and new-hire Enrique (Michael Pena). Josh is proud of the way they cater to every whim of their elite clientele, the richest of whom is the penthouse dweller Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda). Then the FBI arrests Shaw for fraud and the staff pensions Josh invested with him disappear. Josh’s solution: with the help of a small-time thief named Slide (Murphy), they’ll break into Shaw’s hidden safe and recover the money he has stolen. Of course, things don’t go as smoothly as planned.

The script seems patched together from any number of heist movies, including Ocean’s Eleven and the pacing is uneven. Nonetheless, there’s something enjoyable about a robbery plan where the thieves are motivated by outrage rather than by greed. And the movie benefits from some terrific performances, especially Eddie Murphy, who got laughs as Donkey in the Shrek series, but squandered his movie capital on one crummy film after another. He’s in top form here as a street criminal who lends his expertise to the caper. Matthew Broderick, as a down-on-his-luck executive who’s now squatting in his former Tower apartment, is perfect as a defeated milquetoast, and Pena steals every scene he’s in as the group’s dumb bunny. Alan Alda is good as the silver-tongued bad guy. With Occupy Wall Street still going on, “Tower Heist” is populist fluff…make that entertaining populist fluff. 11/4/11

In Time - 2 1/2 smiles

“In Time,” starring Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried, takes place in the distant future where time is literally money. Time can be bought, sold, traded and stolen. Rent might cost several days and three hours might buy a short bus ride. For the working class, it’s a constant struggle to keep the clock from hitting zero, which results in death. For the rich, with hundreds or thousands of hours in the bank, life moves slowly and is carefree. However, one man who has more than a century left to live, is tired and wants to die so he gives Will Salas (Timberlake) his time. Will leaves the ghetto and heads for the zone where the wealthy live. There, he’s invited to a party at the home of one of the wealthiest men, Philippe Weis (Vincent Kartheiser). When a Timekeeper (Cillian Murphy) accuses Will of murder and time theft, Will takes Weis’ daughter, Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried), hostage and goes on the run. She quickly becomes his accomplice and the two go on a crime spree, stealing time from banks owned by Philippe and giving it to the poor.

The biggest problem with “In Time” is that an interesting premise quickly devolves into a routine Bonnie & Clyde-meets-Robin-Hood action flick with car chases, heists, and gunplay. Timberlake and Seyfried make a cute couple, but they aren’t given much to do other than play the generic action hero and his equally generic love interest. Writer-director Andrew Niccol doesn’t take enough time to make their relationship credible. However, Seyfried looks gorgeous with her dark, red, blunt-cut bob and fashionable clothes. The downside of that, though, is that she has to run in heels – a lot. Which was a distraction for me because I kept asking, ‘How can she run in those heels?’ But if you can get past that and the many time puns (‘Have you got a minute?’ or ‘You’re taking forever’), you might enjoy this movie. 10/29/11

Who Wrote Shakespeare's Plays?

A host of brilliant minds, including Sigmund Freud, Charles Dickens, Mark Twain and Orson Welles, agree that William Shakespeare did not write the plays that many so admire. Of the documents related to Shakespeare, none are literary. They reveal a man who is mainly a businessman, one delinquent in paying his taxes, one cited for hoarding grain during a famine. And he is the only writer of his time for whom there is no contemporary evidence of letter writing and during Elizabethan England, anyone who was literate wrote letters. There is no record of Shakespeare owning any books and, according to John Orloff, who wrote the screenplay for “Anonymous,’ there were two colleges during Shakespeare’s time and his name is not listed as having attended. Shakespeare was a country boy so how did he learn the languages, receive the vast education (e.g., astronomy, geography, literature), gain his exposure to the lifestyle of the rich upper class and learn the intricacies of court intrigue to write such masterpieces as Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar, Macbeth and Hamlet?

Mark Twain is said to have favored Sir Francis Bacon. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is an Oxfordian, that is, he believes the works ascribed to William Shakespeare were actually written by the 17^th Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere. ‘Where are the books? You can’t be a scholar of that depth and not have any books in your home,’ Justice Stevens says. ‘He never had any correspondence with this contemporaries, he never was shown to be present at any major event – the coronation of James or any of that stuff. I think the evidence that he was not the author is beyond a reasonable doubt.’

The epitaph on Shakespeare’s gravestone reads:

Good friend, for Jesus’ sake, forebear

To dig the dust enclosed here.

Blessed be the man who spares these stones,

And cursed be he, who moves my bones.

Those who doubt that Shakespeare is a great writer point to this rough doggerel and wonder how can it be from a man who wrote:

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools

The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle.

Life’s but a walking shadow…. (Macbeth)

Nonetheless, supporters of Shakespeare argue that his authorship was not questioned during his lifetime or for centuries after his death and no supporting evidence exists for any other candidate.

What do you think?

Anonymous - 3 smiles

As an English teacher, I’m all for anything that will pique students’ interest in great literature. And, it seems, “Anonymous” has hit a sore spot with Shakespeare’s supporters because it proposes that Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, is the true author of the poems, sonnets and plays attributed to William Shakespeare. And he might well be the author, but, then again, maybe not. There is a free study guide (http://www.ymiclassroom.com/pdf/AnonymousCollege.pdf) distributed by Young Minds Inspired, whose curriculum specialists have helped students explore history through films like Schindler’s List and Ken Burns’ documentary about Lewis and Clark. It’s editor is Dr. Dominic Kensley, who once taught Shakespeare at Yale and it is designed to help students weight the evidence on both sides of the Shakespeare debate to ‘gain a fresh perspective on Shakespeare and his times.’ For the average movie-goer, however, “Anonymous,” a period piece directed by disaster-movie maestro Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, 2012), may not convince anyone, but with it’s political backstabbing, romantic tragedy, class warfare and all manner of taboos mixed in, it’s certainly entertaining.

The Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere (an effective Rhys Ifans) is a nobleman with a passion for the written word, a pastime far below his station. Unable to publish, but wanting to hear his words on stage, he gives his plays to a reluctant Ben Jonson (Sebastian Armesto), but an opportunistic actor named Shakespeare (Rafe Spall) takes credit for them. Meanwhile, as Elizabeth (Vanessa Redgrave) approaches the end of her reign, various candidates for the next monarch appear. James VI of Scotland is favored by Elizabeth’s closest adviser, William Cecil (David Thewlis) and his son, Robert (Edward Hogg). The other main contender is one of Elizabeth’s illegitimate sons, the Earl of Essex (Sam Reid), favored by de Vere. The production design is superb, with Emmerich and his crew effectively transforming a soundstage into Elizabethan England. You have real people in a digital environment, which explains why such a sumptuous looking movie only cost $30 million to produce. Historians and academics may quibble about the accuracy of “Anonymous,” but the rest of us can enjoy the performances and the spectacular look of the movie. 10/28/11