Though the film has exquisitely stunning visuals and everything looks absolutely beautiful, it just doesn't seem to grasp certain (I think:key) aspects of the book. It might be that their is way too much book to put in one film, but it does make the story less good and certain things would just have been much better, were they done like in the book. Many things just don't get enough time, though other things are added, or changed without making it better. I'd think that when you haven't read the book, you'd enjoy the film more, as always, but that even then you could see that some things could better be done differently. I'd recommend it though, because of the absolutely beautiful way everything is made. The sets are really beautiful and I give my compliments for those. Though the plot and how it is done in general lacks, how stunning everything looks makes it more than worth watching.

One of the best films I have ever seen! I followed a rather obscure reference to an indie film I'd never heard of, and found this fantastic movie. It captures the spirit and the magical realism of Virginia Woolf's novel. Every scene brings up the same question: is this ironic satire, or absurdist black comedy, or a tweaking of conventions, or just plain bizarre? And always the answer turns out to be the same: _all_ of the above ...and all at the same time too.Describing briefly what it's about by saying it's about a person who lives 400 years, half as a man and half as a woman, mostly misses the mark. Saying it's about the history of England, from both the vantage point of an inside participant and the vantage point of an outside observer, gets a little closer. I didn't find any discernible "narrative arc", but it doesn't feel like a collection of disconnected scenes either. It's one of the few more-or-less mainstream films where the label "postmodernist" seems accurate and even helpful.If you wait for the "meaning scene" (or even for a cogent explanation of much of anything) you'll just keep waiting. It's subtler than that. A constant subtext of ambiguous gender and sexuality runs through it, so much so that the role of the first Queen Elizabeth is acted by a famous drag queen, and the film is bracketed by the falsetto singing of a former member of the Bronski Beat, at the beginning as the queen's herald and at the end as a rather fake-looking angel.The photography, sets, music, and costumes are all out of this world. It's so detailed that Tilda Swinton wears a different color of contact lenses in each period. It would be an aesthetic experience even if you didn't understand a word of English. Nothing is exactly similar, but the first films that came to my mind are "Barry Lyndon", "Zelig", "A Single Man", "The Tree of Life", and the recent "Much Ado About Nothing".A couple decades old and never widely released, it's been remastered and is easier to find than ever in 2013.

Tilda Swinton as a man does require a certain denial. She is female lets not deny it. She is not the epitome of femininity but that is not a detraction from the person she portrays. She is plain but from start to finish she is not asexual far from it. She is rounded in her portrayal of Orlando except in the minor aspect of the deficiency in anger that is found in many men or to be more precise the denial of their expectations and acceptance of the reality with which they are met.However, his/her characters adaptability and acceptance of reality despite the negatives of choosing a such a crippled sex in that age is what defines her inherent female persona from start to finish.Quentin Crisp knowing his personal history is the epitome of queen and Billy Zanes acceptance of Orlando for the person that he/she is shows that his nature while that of a hero does not typify a gender pre-requisite stereotype.This is a beautifully rendered film with a delicate touch and attention to detail not just of England's mini ice age but of a richer tapestry that skates just above below the ice.When watching it you are scared to intrude as everything feels so fragile however the warmth, endurance and re-creation of Orlando as a life affirming force of nature is what makes this experience so robust. If anything it says that gender is not the issue but the the will of the individual to move forward in life despite the illusions and obstacles that society presents as the norm.If I have any negative comments on the movie is that it should have been longer and filled in the gaps that were obvious in the life of anyone who is over 400 years old as it fails to emphasize the tearing and pain that such inherent change entails.

Sally Potter's Orlando is a clever and ambitious dissection of love and gender that defies culturally sexed expectations in both content and form. The film owes much of its narrative experimentalism to Virginia Woolf, who first conceived the story of immortal, androgynous Orlando as an exploration of societal prejudice and conduct, satirizing naively patriarchal feelings of romantic ownership and the laughably self- important status of masculine art. Potter deserves credit, however, for translating the story into a Brechtian subversion of traditional viewership modes: the film's drag casting, fourth wall disruption, titles and music all remind us to be conscious and critical of how we engage the film. Orlando is anchored by a charming performance from Tilda Swinton, and some stunning costume and set design. It is a smart film that challenges the sexed gaze, and it genuinely earns the sense of hope it ends on. -TK 10/12/10