"Anonymous"

I just saw this today.  What did YOU think of it?  Please share with us...

 

 Anonymous Official Site

Overall, the movie was a B. The acting was an A-.  Vanessa Redgrave (above) as Elizabeth Tudor was a FLAT D.  I just did not connect her with Elizabeth AT ALL.  Prior actresses (Mirren, Blanchett, Jackson, etc.) that have played Elizabeth have done a much better job and made it so much more surreal; it's as if they were the real Elizabeth.  I did not get this vibe with V. Redgrave.  She was just an actress playing a "Queen"- Certainly not Queen Elizabeth I.
Moving on, the movie was not solely about Elizabeth I, it was about whether Shakespeare was a fraud, but for you Tudor fans, it does indicate that Elizabeth had son's.  
I'll leave it at that as I highly recommend Tudor lovers to see this movie as it is during the Elizabethan Age. Just remember, it's FICTITIOUS!  
For further details, see the below site. It gives us a better understanding about what the movie indicates and what some modern historians seem to be accurate and true, that Elizabeth I, in fact did have son's. 

 Prince Tudor theory    (words below are directly from the site, wikipedia) Also known as the Tudor Rose theory is a variant of the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, which asserts that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford was the true author of the works published under the name of William Shakespeare. The Prince Tudor variant holds that Oxford and Queen Elizabeth I were lovers and had a child who was raised as Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton. The theory followed earlier arguments that Francis Bacon was a son of the queen. A later version of the theory, known as "Prince Tudor II" states that Oxford was himself a son of the queen, and thus the father of his own half-brother.  Click on the site for more reading (highly recommend to read as it's interesting but certainly not the truth, at least in my opinion)