Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
Got more questions about news letters?
Already have an account? Log in here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
We encourage our community to report abusive content and/ or spam. Our team will review flagged items and determine whether or not they meet our community guidelines.
Please choose best explanation for why you are flagging this review.
Thank you for your submission. This post has been submitted for our review.
Sincerely, The Rotten Tomatoes Team
Based on the novel written by Virginia Woolf, this bizarre period drama is something quite unique and poetic. Queen Elizabeth magically commands a nobleman to never grow old and he goes through the centuries of British history experiencing different artistic and social lives and even switching sex. No one better for the role than Tilda Swinton. The costumes and the sets are the highlight of the movie, that successfully match each period.
Nice movie , watch full at : http://goterotic.com/drama/orlando-1992-full-hd/
Stunning film which feels so ï¿ 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2~richï¿ 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2(TM) and draws me in every time Iï¿ 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2(TM)ve watched it. Tilda Swinton never puts a foot wrong, and Quentin Crisp was born to play Queen Elizabeth the first.
The film is definitely on the strange side. The english hero is much too nice, feeble and intellectual to be english. Long life span, camera talk, slow moving, the film advance through the ages. Tilda has quite the delightful qualities though.
"Orlando" is a quirky but well-directed film. The costumes and set decoration are excellent, the soundtrack is nice and the fact that the script doesn't bother to explain the protagonist's eternal youth or the sex change that miraculously occurs halfway through is of interest. If you can accept the fact that this is an allegorical if rather simplistic fantasy film you will get carried away by the visual flair and the clear-cut century-spanning structure even if the story is far from fascinating.
The sixteenth century English nobleman Orlando (both the star of Virginia Woolf's "Orlando: A Biography"  and Sally Potter's emboldened 1992 film adaptation) lived the kind of life all are simultaneously desperate to live and entirely afraid of. Born a man, Orlando (Tilda Swinton) was ordered by Elizabeth I (here comedically played by Quentin Crisp) to stay forever long, to make a mark on every century to cross his path. To succeed would provide him with one of Elizabeth's prized estates, and, being a young man with an affinity for unrefusable offers, he did, even changing sexes toward the middle of his run from the late 1400s to the film's present-day. And what a beguiling thing that is, watching as gender roles, times, and obstacles change over centuries through the eyes of both the female and the male.
Though unfamiliar with Woolf's novella, its being one hundred eighty-four pages and its reputational standing as a fictional biographical account styled as a romp calls for safe assumptions that writer/director Potter's acclimatization does justice to its game-changing source material. With the book holding court as a feminist classic thanks not only to its being written by a woman but also by its giving substance to gender fluidity and general inequalities between the sexes and the classes, then the cinematic "Orlando" does too.
While there's a certain visual extravagance -- augmented by tongue-in-cheek humor sustained by a smart usage of fourth-wall breaking -- to maintain its slightly surreal textures, splendid is the way it explores androgyny itself without batting an eye but still takes the time to ponder gender dynamics and their transformations from 1500 to now. The film jumps ahead fifty years or so every twentysomething minutes, but even its brisk analyzations don't hinder its many stimuli. It provocates and it dazzles, all the while cultivating an effortlessly light tone that renders it as being ambitious but not off-puttingly so.
But because of its rather nomadic structuring, we never get much of a grip on Orlando themselves, as it oftentimes goes for characters more representation than person. We never get to be much attached to them because such little effort is put forth to de-alienize them -- we're unremittingly confronted by a charming symbol that never serves as anything other than a catalyst for Woolf and Potter's machinations. Swinton, though, is interminably likable, always watchable (even when the person she's playing seems like a piece of paper in comparison to her wonderfully mysterious persona).
But while the latter's striking and while Potter's visual treatment is sensational, with fitting touches of unreality, "Orlando" itself is a mixed bag. It's expertly performed and pieced together, but the peripatetic nature of its origin disallows it from consequentiality. I speculate it more likely will appeal to those well-versed in Woolf's oeuvre. Outsiders, however, might find it zesty but shallow.
Movies about transgender people don't number that many (at least in mainstream cinema), and even less so the further back you go, so ORLANDO is somewhat unique by virtue of its very existence. Based on a Virginia Woolf novel (which I haven't yet read, but definitely want to), it tells the story of Orlando, an English nobleman blessed/cursed with immortality and who changes sex from male to female. Without going into spoiler territory (e.g., when and why Orlando changes), the film is largely concerned with social roles and expectations of men and women, unfairness in how women have been treated, etc. I thought it was rather interesting to for Orlando to be possessive of a woman he fancies early in the film, only to be on the receiving end of a similar proposal later on as a woman. And then there was my favorite scene where Orlando sits in on a discussion between several famous writers/poets (including Alexander Pope). All of the feminist discussion and thematic content alone makes this worth a watch, but there are a few minor quibbles to be had. The chief one is due to the main character's immortality. You get several sections in different time periods that show Orlando's progress, but it gives the film an episodic feel at times. I also wasn't terribly satisfied with the way it ended, although I'd be at a loss to posit an alternate ending without extending the running time further (and I thought it was a good length already). Suffice it to say, this is one of the best performances I've ever seen out of Tilda Swinton, although she was less convincing as a man than a woman (for obvious reasons). Still, her character isn't the only fun the film has with gender fluidity, as Queen Elizabeth is played by Quentin Crisp and there are a couple castrati who provide some diegetic music. Aside from the performances, the production design, sets, costumes, and score were all equally good. For more open-minded viewers, I can wholeheartedly recommend this. It will definitely affect the way you think about gender/gender roles.
Utilizing gorgeous period costumes, a dreamy atmosphere, and a heavily stylized production to intentionally shove off sweeping generalizations stemming from sexist ideology regarding the female and the nature of her success being tied to the male, Sally Potter presents Orlando as a multi-generational expression of female ownership in the face of oppressive power structures. She repeatedly positions "unconventional" notions of the fluidity of gender and sexuality as natural (as opposed to unnatural, as they're so often accused of being), and though she tethers the notion of sex to the physical body, she makes a greater connection between sex and the mind (and rightfully so). The culmination of this bizarre period piece is an unflinching expression of female agency, the female asserting dominance by way of filming her surroundings, a fitting act of ownership given the medium the character exists within. Through its uncompromising nature, Orlando all but demands its place as the strange and artful alternative to more conventional pieces of feminist filmmaking, becoming something truly special in the process.
I liked this film more than the book.
Beautiful images, Tilda Swinton is convincing as a man as much as a woman (even more, at times)
Has periods and moments of greatness, but is consistently let down by several weak elements, like the asinine breaking of the fourth wall and Billy Zane, who I'm not violently opposed to, but whose presence here seems completely out of place and actively lowers the tone and one's estimation of Orlando the character. The first two acts are really good, especially Swinton's performance (when she's not looking at the camera) but it doesn't manage to pull off the ending.