Hahahahaha xD

Nice to see a brickfilm making fun of such nonsense.

Very funny. Emmerich isn't a bad director, it's just a bad film.

I absolutely loathe Emmerich's filmography. Oddly enough, the biggest problem with Anonymous isnt Emmerich; its the stupid as hell screenplay. 

Although, Emmerich didn't help with his blind insistence that Shakespeare was a fraud. He completely denied all the literary scholars (none of whom directed Godzilla) and their (very genuine and definite IMO), and his only counter argument is "Its all lies! I - the director of The Day After Tomorrow - am far more credible . Emmerich pretends that the movie is intended to open debate, then calls all the scholars 'liars' and the solid historical evidence 'bulls**t' (how eloquent) and shoves this artless crap in their faces saying "There! My film which shows a more inaccurate portrayal of Elizabethan London than Blackadder proves that your life's work is wrong! SUCK IT!!!"

And then, when buried by an overwealming amount of evidence saying that his childish 'drama' is in fact the only 'lies' around here, he actually admits he is wrong - only to compare his turd of a 'movie' to Amadeus in how a lot of the events in Amadeus never happened, yet that movie is the greatest Costume Drama ever made. This is a COMPLETELY null and void argument when you consider that Amadeus was deliberately not TRYING to be historically accurate, and instead its focus was on Saleri's psychological torment - which was so good that the innacuracies didn't really matter. It wasn't saying "This is what actually happened" (which is what Emmerich, despite his hypocritical rebuttals, was trying to communicate with Anonymous), it was saying "We're not trying to prove anything, we're merely showing an alternate version of events". Milos Foreman wanted to direct Amadeus because it was good drama, and he wanted to celebrate Mozart's genius. Emmerich wanted to direct Anonymous because he believed the conspiracy theory was right, and he wanted to prove that Shakespeare was a fraud.

Also, just the fact that one of the most derivative and intelligence insulting directors of all time is tacking Shakespeare - one of literatures finest figures, is enough to bring my blood to a boil. Maybe if a competent screenwriter and director worked on this, then it may have been interesting. But, its just a terribly made movie - even if you look past its abominably bad attempt to create a controversial debate...

I've bolded the phrases that make sense.

I definetely see your point, Max. Roland did push away people's "replies and ideas" to the Shakespeare dilemma.and But, there are very few turd-ish films Centropolis Entertainment released (next to Independence Day, the 13th Floor, and Eight-Legged Freaks). However, The Day After Tommorow was awesome.

In fact, the way I see it, is that Roland Emmerich is sort of the Stanley Kubrick of today. Both filmmakers had their own beliefs on the topic of world history, so to speak. Their beliefs aren't often...intresting, however.

Disclaimer: I was laughing my socks off at this video.

Last edited by Mickey (March 4, 2012 (02:29pm))

...But Stanley Kubrick is one of the best film directors ever, and Roland Emmerich is a hack. One made several masterpiece-level films, but the other mostly makes bad movies and certainly hasn't excelled above mediocrity.

This doesn't refute anything Sméagol said.
All you're saying is that they had unique views on the past. That doesn't say anything about their talent as directors. Given Sméagol's track record, I'll take his word for it and say that their talent levels are markedly different.