DVD - 2012
Average Rating:
Rate this:
Was Shakespeare a fraud? Who really wrote about cloak-and-dagger political intrigue, illicit romances in the Royal Court, and the schemes of greedy nobles hungry for the power of the throne? Set against the backdrop of the succession of Queen Elizabeth I, and the Essex Rebellion against her, intrigue and suspense advance the theory that it was really Edward De Vere, Earl of Oxford, who penned Shakespeare's plays.
Publisher: [California] :, Columbia Pictures Industries,, [2012]
Edition: Widescreen version.
Branch Call Number: DVD FEATURE ANO
Characteristics: 1 videodisc (130 min.) : sound, color ; 4 3/4 in.
Dolby digital 5.1
video file,rdaft,
DVD video


From the critics

Community Activity


Add a Comment
Apr 28, 2017

This trash is only worth watching for its period interest. There are credible people who have tried to denigrate William Shakespeare, like Henry James; what would their motive be? Jealousy? The vast majority of experts have no doubts that all of Shakespeare's works were written by the genius: William Shakespeare, so the tenet of this garbage is just plain lies.

May 07, 2016

I was pleasantly surprised with this title. Interesting take on Shakespeare's life! Not to be taken seriously! Would I watch this title again? Probably not. It was enjoyable the first time around! :)

Oct 14, 2015

This film was fun and not meant to be taken too seriously. The idea that "Shakespeare" was a nobleman whose education enabled him to write such complex and wonderful works isn't new. Well done. Just relax and enjoy it.

May 01, 2015

Better known perhaps for his apocalyptic “monsters and explosions” epics, director Roland Emmerich proves he is equally adept at sprawling historical dramas. His CGI invocation of old London, both from the air and at ground level, is an impressive mix of country estates, garbage-strewn alleys, and a vibrant core of Tudor squalor all bound in perpetual mist and rain. An amazing cast, impeccably dressed in rags or satins, shift back and forth through time as Emmerich backtracks in order to fill in the details: here a decaying Elizabeth (a star turn from Vanessa Redgrave) reminisces with a wistful de Vere when suddenly she is a young queen once more (played by her real life daughter Joely Richardson) grappling beneath the sheets with her equally passionate paramour. And throughout we catch glimpses of Jonson’s troupe performing key scenes from Shakespeare’s (de Vere’s?) plays before an appreciative audience; their wit and pathos enriching the film’s context immeasurably. Although diehard "Oxfordian Theorists" are relatively few in number they include the director himself and actor Derek Jacobi who, as a contemporary narrator, opens and closes the film in a suitably theatrical manner. The conspiracy aspect may be suspect (most scholars laugh it off) but as an exercise in alternative history this is still an intelligently written and hugely entertaining work shown bigger than life as befits any tall tale.

Jan 29, 2015

In some ways it was well made, the production design/CGI and costumes were impressive. I'm no expert on these theories and only vaguely interested, but just the fact that this film attempts to attach a Freudian Oedipal relationship between Queen Elizabeth and Shakespeare, after Hamlet was to have been written, is the easiest indication of this being kitsch. And from just a little research the prejudices of nobility vs. commoners should be obvious. Edward de Vere was praised as the greatest poet in the Queen's court by his contemporaries, AND he was known to foolishly squander his large fortune and be a patron of the arts....hmmm, I wonder why anyone in the arts would want to flatter him? And according to experts, none of de Vere's works are known to survive, except the one's that did and are considered mediocre, but other than that none of them survived. No mere peasant could have written the greatest poetry of all time, it must have been royal blood, what what! Its not ever offensive that people still obsess over the idea of royalty at this point in 2015, its just plain weird.

Nov 08, 2014

Completely unfounded, but still entertaining, which is the point of historical fiction. This one does play fast and loose with history... But! Interesting and entertaining. Good for a rewatch or two.

Apr 06, 2014

What a brilliant put down of the man, William Shakespeare. Will was hardly literate let alone the writer he was purported to be. I also liked the irreverent look at The Fairy Queen herself. Virgin Queen? Never. She turns out to be an incestuous trollop ... a 16th century Fanny Hill with a golden crown! God's teeth ... it was brutal!

Nov 07, 2013

Interesting idea on the true identity of Shakespeare but the more intriquing is the snake pit of immorality inside the Royal Circle. (The lines that I entered as a quote sums it up nicely --- somewhat spoiler.)

Aug 13, 2013

Excellent presentation of the authorship issue--Oxfordians vs. Startfordians.. Oxfordians argument more plausible

Aug 05, 2013

Tried, twice, but no go.

View All Comments


Add Notices
May 28, 2012

Sexual Content: Lots sketchy stuff


Add a Quote
Nov 07, 2013

“Prince Tudor theory” states that the 17th Earl of Oxford (aka "Shakespeare") is Elizabeth's son - or not only her son but also her incestuous lover ...


Add Age Suitability

There are no ages for this title yet.


Add a Summary

There are no summaries for this title yet.

Explore Further

Browse by Call Number


Subject Headings


Find it at APL

To Top