After watching it, I think it's not bad, but thinking about it again, it seems that I really don't know what this movie is trying to say. It can be understood from several angles.
1. An Oedipus-like drama of the CCTV1 court ethics tragedy of marrying a mother and child to seek the country? 2. Gao Fushuai demonstrates the self-cultivation of a young literary and artistic person, who is gradually drifting away on the road of culture and aesthetics, and art and love have achieved double harvests?
3. The duke, who is well versed in the theory of literary tools, will direct a show with love. Don't you see the heroes of the people from ancient times, and the evil prime minister can only drown in the vast ocean of the people even if you are so arrogant?
4. Literary and artistic young people have never been experts in palace fighting, revealing that too young too simple, who are too young and too simple, will eventually go to the historical corner of the losers?
5. How many doors are there in the deep palace, looking at love sadly, and love between two sides is buried in the barbaric era of information asymmetry?
6. Literary and artistic prodigal, let’s see the unfortunate family of the seventeenth generation of glorious nobles, and the money of the dude’s children is gone?
Anyway, I can’t see it through. Brother Sha’s creative career is still left to the second brother for textual research. The creation of movie screenwriters does not need to consider “official history”, anyway, historical movies are used without the responsibility of “faith in history”, so they are free and unrestrained. It is all acceptable. Therefore, it is not difficult to look horizontally and vertically to see a cannibal.
But fortunately, it's a joke, fortunately it's not a time-travel, the whole braided show makes my wisdom teeth a little sore. Let's not mention it, let's talk about "anonymous". In fact, in the presupposition of the plot, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford thought that the literary creation was not worthy of his title and was unwilling to publish it in his own name; but the plot clearly revealed that whether it was Elizabeth and later James were both deeply in love with theatre. In addition, his method of seducing Elizabeth is not bravery or strategy, but love poems and scripts. So it seems that there is no need for anonymous. Why not generously promote literary creation to become the common appreciation of court aristocrats? Maybe I said it very simply, in fact, sometimes, a change is really a very simple thing. Since screenwriters dare to make such rough lines, of course I dare to hope that London will be new for a while.
I don't know if the screenwriter is pretending to be clever and showing off the literary tool wheel, or I pretend to be arrogant and contempt the screenwriter, or the screenwriter expects that my drawing will be broken, and he smiles smugly? Or do I know the screenwriter and he knows me, and he smiles smugly and smugly? In conclusion, I would like to say that the dialogue of the film seems too shallow, too clear, and too instrumental. But to be honest, there are one or two lines that really make my heart flutter. Anyway, we all laughed.
Since it's a joke, it doesn't have to be taken seriously. It's good to say it and listen to it. The screenwriter tells the story happily, the director arranges the film well, and I download a pirated film and consume the good spring, just for each other.
View more about Anonymous reviews
