Roland Emmerich seems like an unlikely filmmaker to tackle the heady worlds of literary conspiracy, historical fiction, and the Elizabethan line of succession. In fact, I would say that the man behind Godzilla and The Day After Tomorrow would be the last person I would expect to tackle this material. In fact, the marketing for the movie almost presented it as a sort of Dan Brown-esque mess of elaborate clues and mysteries set around the writing of Shakespeare's plays (I half expected the bulk of the movie to involve characters in the present trying to decipher clues in the Tower of London leading them to Kit Marlowe).

Instead, Emmerich has made a (conjectural) historical drama that uses Shakespeare's work as a mask for what the movie is really interested in: namely the thorny issue of royal succession during the end of Queen Elizabeth (Vanessa Redgrave's) reign. It's very much a post-Tudors movie, full of all of the sex and violence that its PG-13 will allow (one of the major missteps here is rating it for the 13 and up audience when it should really have played to an older crowd, I think). Shakespeare's body of work informs the plot in as much we are permitted to see how it was in turn informed by the events of the life of the Earl of Oxford (Rhys Ifans), the anonymous penman the movie purports wrote the plays that Shakespeare put his name on (portrayed here as a semi-literate poon hound by Rafe Spall). The other point in our drama is poet and playwright Ben Johnson (Sebastian Armesto) who initially has the opportunity to assume proxy authorship of the Earl's work but a combination of pride and jealousy prevent him from doing so.

The movie is structured as a series of nested flashbacks, starting with a present day orator on a stage listing some of the inconsistencies that Shakespearean scholars have used to hold up the belief that the man from Stratford Upon Avon was responsible for all or much of his body of work, segueing then to Elizabethan England where the masses are amused by bawdy plays and the Queen is ailing and there's a lot of movement in the background to prop up Scotland's King James as next in line. For the Earl of Oxford (and presumably us), the better option would be the Earl of Southampton (Xavier Samuel), although as huffy and impetuous as he's portrayed here, I don't think he was a much better option.

Oxford uses his plays (and therefore Shakespeare) to rouse the people of London against the Puritanical Cecils, first William (David Thewliss), then Robert (Edward Hogg), dour men who served as his foster father and brother respectively, and hate Oxford for his lack of seriousness. They also hate him because of the other reason he writes his highly political plays: he's compelled to. At one point, he confesses that he might be possessed but in any event he can't stop, even when the knives come out against him.

If some of this sounds pretty overwrought, it does toe (and sometimes leaps emphatically over) the line defining "overwrought," and I haven't even begun to talk about the subplots involving traitors, hidden parentage, and Oxford's love affair with the Queen (when they were both younger, of course in some of the flashbacks woven throughout the plot). The story comes out you in a rush of Earls of this and Dukes of that while Johnson looks on forlornly and Shakespeare angles for more money, and it all somehow kind of works for reasons I'm having a hard time pinning down.

I think maybe it's because for the first third or so, the movie knows to have fun with its premise, to let us see (the possibly blameless) Shakespeare frankly played for a dick, while it all builds up to the fairly intimate historical drama it becomes in the last act (where it's really only about two people and neither of them is, of course, Shakespeare). Handsomely staged with a story that works as an enjoyable piece of historical fiction instead of an actual argument for who penned Shakespeare's work, Anonymous succeeds even when it's mildly ridiculous.

Audio and Video

Besides being packed with some pretty nifty features, this very pretty movie comes to Blu-ray with a very crisp picture. "Rich" is the word I'd use to describe the visual presentation on this disc, and if pressed, "lush." You'll benefit from having a couple of nice speakers on the sides given that there's a lot of incidental chatter in the movie and background music which could suffer if stuffed into the front speakers.

Anonymous is available now on DVD, Blu-ray, and VOD.

This isn't precisely a review of writer/director/producer Andrew Niccol's sci-fi misfire In Time but I will be discussing my opinion of this terrible movie and how a poorly-envisioned and articulated concept of the future can completely derail any potential the material might have possessed.

In the case of In Time, it's some indeterminate point in the future where time itself has been made into a commodity, which each person's lifespan acting as a currency once they reach 18 years of age, with the haves amassing decades, even centuries of time and the have not's literally living day-to-day. Also, everyone's genetic clock is set so that they are perpetually 25. As far as high concepts go it's not terrible (maybe a bit on the nose, but we can get past that). It's in the execution and the elaboration of those plot elements, in realizing some of the implications of the pitch, and even the look and feel of the future where In Time feels less like a movie and more like a quickly assembled jumble of ideas thrown on the screen.

Starting with the basic of idea of time as a commodity, the hook in the film is that you're able to "spend" your time through a green, LED-style clock in your wrist which constantly ticks down the remaining days, hours, and minutes that you have left to live. There are quite a few scenes of characters panicking as their times steadily count down to their last minutes and seconds. As a system of currency goes, it's far less convenient than say, a wallet since if you're mugged, your assailant can simply grab your wrist and take all of your time. In theory, it creates high stakes situation among the slums where gangsters are willing to take extra time off your hands if you're not careful. In practice, it's a pretty dumb system that probably wouldn't have gotten beyond the design stage by whatever mad scientist came up with it.

Similarly problematic are questions of how inheritance and transferred wealth work on a global scale. In some of the more ridiculous scenes, we see banks where our leads Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried (both actually much better and more charismatic than the material they're trapped in here) rob banks containing devices that contain time on them, but all transactions in the movie are done directly (wrist to wrist or wrist to the standardized, clunky money scanners).

I know I seem hung up on this detail, but it speaks to just a lack of anyone on the In Time production putting even the barest thought into how their world work.

Now consider a counterpoint, something like Logan's Run or Children of Men: both have pretty simple starting premises (a world where no one is allowed to age and a world where no new children are born, respectively) and in each case the plot hinges on shocks to those respective systems (what if some people want to get older, what if a child is miraculously on the way).

***Some spoilers here***

Now let's think about In Time: in a world (and you're free to read this in ominous narrator voice) where time is money (ugh) one man gets a lot more money-time. Then he loses all of his money-time, then he starts robbing banks and giving money-time away. And the police--um, Time Keepers--want to stop him because he's going to bring down the system by causing inflation. He keeps robbing banks, presumably causing more inflation, then end.

***End spoilers***

Niccol (who also wrote and directed the far smarter Gattaca) doesn't seem to know what to do with his concept or the world he's created. Even at the basic level of how it looks and feels (it's like L.A. except cars have matte finish and LEDs in their grills), In Time is incredibly thin. Back to our counterpoints, Logan's Run and Children of Men: the former is (initially, at least), brightly-colored, the population regimented by bright colors, all of the living spaces looking bright, shiny, and impersonal like the world set up in the movie; then there's Children which is more or less our now, albeit with a ton more terrorist attacks and partitioned-off sections for refugees. It's the plausible, near-future future so it doesn't really require any flourish. But then you look at In Time and there's elements sort of cobbled haphazardly from other fiction, and some of the fashion is contemporary while other clothing is 30's retro, the cars mostly all look alike but they have a jet engine sound for some reason. And on it goes.

I'd encourage you to avoid In Time because of how thoroughly it misses telling any kind of interesting story with its basic setup or or sidesteps fleshing out its world in favor of a quick stab at an action movie and a lot of time-related puns (I'm half convinced the movie was sold as a time-related pun generating device). It's completely inessential and feels like (ugh) a waste of time for anyone involved.

In Time is available on Blu-ray, DVD, and VOD now.

Review - If DRIVE weren't made in English; Hollywood would without doubt have bought its remake rights and turned it into a Michael Bay-type blockbuster that features lots of 'graceful, stylish and engaging' action scenes. And why not, it has a central character who can do anything when behind the wheel, a tender love affair, and a bunch of villains for our hero to take care of. But do not be fooled by its title or trailer, DRIVE is not FAST FIVE; not like FAST FIVE; and not even an art-house version of FAST FIVE. DRIVE is much more a drama concerned about the nameless central character known as 'Driver' than driving. Also, it is violent without being action-packed.

Nicolas Winding Refn's direction of DRIVE oozes freshness, style and sensitivity; and he draws incredibly good performances from all his cast. Ryan Gosling is amazingly cool as the quiet hero who doesn't talk much or show much emotion. Without many dialogues or facial expressions, Gosling manages to subtly draw viewers into the mysterious world of his character. In my opinion, he certainly deserves to be nominated for and win the Best Actor Oscar for his compelling performance. Beautiful actress Carey Mulligan is likeable as Irene, Driver's love interest. The chemistry between Gosling and Mulligan in their roles is both natural and palpable, and many of their scenes together have incredibly few dialogues and yet tell us much about their developing relationship. The supporting cast of actors are also solid, with the standouts being Bryan Cranston as a down and out former stuntman, and Albert Brooks in a rather surprising (and ingeniously cast) role as a villain.

One particular scene deserves a special mention. In what is destined to become a classic scene in film history, we see Driver in the lift with Irene. A long passionate kiss is followed by a sudden burst of violence. While watching that scene, a couple of thoughts crossed my mind. Besides secretly wishing that I were Gosling, the scene also reminded me of a memorable scene from Wong Kar Wai's impressive (and underrated) directorial debut AS TEARS GO BY, in which Andy Lau kisses Maggie Cheung in a phone booth for a good 45 seconds. The violence that follows is easy to anticipate but still manages to shock. That scene really seems to encapsulate the essence of the whole film in just a few minutes.

Before watching DRIVE, I had the impression that almost every film critic out there was raving about it. After watching the film, I have become one of a large group of film critics who love DRIVE. To me, its juxtaposition of romantic tenderness and brutal violence is mesmerizing, and in the end, DRIVE manages to leave me completely breathless.

DRIVE is distributed in Australia and New Zealand by Pinnacle Films, and will be available on DVD and Blu-ray from March 2012.