MovieChat Forums > Orlando (1993) Discussion > The Film Was awesome...

The Film Was awesome...


ok i got the film off a friend and at first didn't really know what to expect, by the end of the film i was pretty much in awe... the whole thing was peiced together beautifully, there were some things that didn't make sense to me, such as the pregnacy lasting 140 years. but i guess its up to other peoples interpretations of what the film meant to them.. but once again watching this with little to no expectations, just left me in awe at the end of the film.. i would recommend this film to anyone.

reply

[deleted]

Yes. The first time I tried to watch this film, I was at a loss and couldn't finish it. Then I came across it again about a year later, gave it another try and fell completely in love with it. It remains to this day my favorite movie of all time (and Tilda Swinton my favorite actress.) I'd have a hard time explaining why I love it so much, exactly, but every time I watch it I get something new out of it. I works for me very much beneath the surface...I think that it touches on all the universal themes (sex, war, love, death, otherness, etc.) with such beauty and subtle humor, while managing to be both dreamlike and epic. I find it utterly compelling. I haven't had much success convincing other people of all of this however (sigh.)


*beauty doth prevail*

reply

Yes, this film is reeeeally good

reply

great actress in a great movie. the first time i saw it, i knew that tilda swinton would be one of those gems, and the movie too.

reply

are you kidding me? this film is THE worst film i have ever seen in my entire life. it made White Chicks look like The Lord of the Rings it was that bad!

reply

care to explain? or should we just take your word as fact? give a freaking backing before you post somehing as opinionated as that. i personally loved this movie which is why i feel offended. i thought it was deep, and rich with different perspectives. it had wonderful language, imagery, acting and scenery. not the best movie ever made but certainly not the worst

reply

right on brother

reply

definiately the worst. i will explain. if you read my review that i posted and is still up there maybe that will help you understand my posting and why shouldn't i post something that is opinionated? are we all meant to be in awe of this film and merely agree that its great, like sheep or can some of us who disagree voice their own opinions? you cant take anyones word as fact, same as i cant take yours, if i did i would be furious because i found it to be terribly acted with an appalling script and dreadfully paced. thats my opinion and just because its contrary to yours doesn't mean its any less valid. in MY humble opinion this film is the worst i've ever seen and before all you snobs out their start trying to say i don't understand it and i'm not intellectual enough i'm currently halfway through my degree in film and tv production and have three A grade A levels in media so i think i'm intelligent enough to spot pretentious drivel when i see it.

reply

This film gets better and better for me every time I see it. The first time I watched it was at about 1am in the morning on TV and it just confused me,I was tired which didn't help! But it lingered in the mind and I saw it about a year later,I thought it was a work of genius. I only wished it was longer! I still didn't understand it totally,but I kind of liked that. It also made me a fan of Tilda Swinton,and I still think it's her best movie. It's a beautiful,elegant movie in which there seem to be new things to notice with every viewing [well,for me anyway!].

reply

crustysalt, I just read your 'review' and you didn't give any real reasons for your harsh criticisms of the film. Just because something is clearly too intellectually challenging for you to understand, don't go bad mouthing it, but rather say you don't understand and maybe someone will explain it to you.

reply

Aw God bless you you obviously can't read, what you failed to notice in your scathing swipe at me is that I pre-empted your sniping at my intellect and already answered that far from being unintelligent I am, if anything, MORE qualified than you to post my opinion. This film is appalling and anyone who knows anything about film knows that this is dreadful, pretentious rubbish of the highest order and only praised by sniffy, arts types.

reply

If you're still there, I hope you got over yourself. No one is any more qualified than the next person to hold an opinion. Your attitude is ugly.

reply

I take it that you also think education is elitist, kiddo?
Oh - and guess what. That word pretentious you throw at this film? You're projecting.

reply

[deleted]

why is it that if someone disagrees with a review of a film, he/she is immediatly branded an idiot and incompetant . fair enough crusty's opinion was a bit harsh, but its his opinion.

end of the day, the film may be good or bad but you cant attack a reviewer who dislikes a film on the grounds that they dont understand it

if anything i'd say that you (watermelons) is the more pigheaded by jumping down his throat. fair enough he should of backed up his argument to begin with but the whole point of this board is for a debate about the film.
i personally saw the film as mediocre.

i think many more people fell in love with the idea of the film rather than the actual film.

Go back and watch the film back with a critical eye before you decide to disregard other opinions all together.

i thought the film was decent but i'm biased cause its not really to my taste

reply

The point is that crusty still has given absolutely nothing besides the phrase "pretentious drivel" to explain why its actually such a terrible movie. Dont wave your media degree at me boy, i come from aus and any jackass could get into that course/get those marks. Now, if you want to substantiate yourself as someone who is in fact an 'intellectual,' please give some evidence for your argument. In rebuttal to something i read earlier, i think the acting was brilliant (Tilda Swintons looks to camera are perfect), and the storyling good, and not so in your face that it actually made you think

reply

coming from aus means nothing of course any jackass could get on your film-making course your contibution to world cinema is mad max! That's it! and don't start waving Peter Jackson in everyones face 'cause he's from NZ. Evidence of my argument? surely the script was awful, the acting dreadful and the whole thing ridiculous and pretentious IS my evidence you moron. I never once claimed I was an intellectual I said "before you claim I'm not intelligent enough" obviously you can't read and therefore thats why you enjoyed this film, no story just pretty images. go back to looking at your fosters can in awe or beating your wife or saving your baby from a dingo! Cretin.

reply

haha, that post seriously made me laugh. resorting to insulting australia? really..this was a post about a movie. i wasn't saying australia's made the biggest contribution, i'm just saying that here, any moron can do the course you were bragging about. you're american i take it? proud of your statistically proven lowest test scores in the world? i dont like resorting to racial generalisations either, however i'm just so shocked at your outburst that i have to point out how much better a country aus is than yours.

Now, before your neck reddens and your face enflames with that famous american patriotism, i would like to give you some instructions that may make your miniscule mind a little more at home. go to the top of the page, type in "transformers," chat in the threads about the 'sick explosions' and then quietly jerk off to whoever the female lead was. If, after that, you come back here and realise that saying the word 'pretentious' is not worthy evidence of a movie being bad, by all means, take a class in how to construct an argument and then maybe you could give us actual reasons why 'the script was awful' or the 'acting terrible.' myself and everyone else in this thread thinks otherwise.


P.s eaten by a dingo? congrats! you know a native animal of another country! and though there would be a risk of that if i stumbled into a zoo, i'd still much rather that than set foot in your country, where guns are legal and the crime/murder rates are the highest in the world. not to mention you are led by a moron not unlike yourself. good day, you ignorant pimple on the face of society.

reply

*Applauds* crusty, go home

reply

oh dear oh dear I'm afraid that's how ignorant you australians are I'm afraid I'm English and very proud of it, what with our proven HIGH test scores, some of the hardest universities to get into and shipping all our prisoners (your grandad) into inhospitable wildernesses! So what were you saying about our contribution to cinema? do you even know where Sally Potter is from? So you didn't like Transformers? Great, so what? Many people have different views than you and the sooner you come to realise that the better. As for this being a post about a film I agree but I do believe it was you who started on the personal diatribe at my expense so excuse me if i feel the need to retort. Maybe with YOUR low test scores, your dreadful soaps and your pathetic contribution to the world (what exactly have australia ever done apart from destroy the aborigines?) You will now stop the ridiculous ranting that, Oh dear God No, someone dislikes a film you like! By the way is it because all australians are essentially inbred why you are so stupid? Liked the anti-american rant by the way. Loser.

reply

ok, you're obviously just some arrogant 14 year old twerp. lol and by the way, what you just said was possibly the stupidest thing i have EVER heard. australians destroyed the aboriginals? sorry, wasn't that the british, when YOU SETTLED HERE. my god. i cant bear wasting any more of my time in this pointless ordeal. i really dont know which outstrips which; your arrogance or your stupidity.

reply

I'm sorry they obviously teach some modified hisory over there because all the white australians ARE FROM BRITISH DESCENT! you idiot. so unless you're an aborigine then it was your ancestors that destroyed them you fool. Try and hold a cogent arguement together at least. And by the way I'm 30, how old are you because you obviously don't know your own country's history. You complete waste of oxygen. "I like orlando and anyone who doesn't must be an idiot blah blah blah" and as you're probably a white australian then that means you're descendant from rapists and murderers and thieves and you know what they say the apple never falls far from the tree.

reply

i advise you now, seriously, stop talking! your last posts have made me crack up so much, and i assure you you're making a complete fool of yourself. anyone reading this, please speak up. so you say you're thirty? thats actually amazing. i've come across ignorant people in my time, but you have knocked it up a notch. "the apple never falls far from the tree." are you serious?? really? is this just a big joke? if you actually knew anything about history you'd know that the only reason british came to australia was because the crime rate was so high there they couldn't fit people into their prisons. after less than a year, most people were being deported consciously, to get away from england. i am actually descended from someone who was sent here because they stole a bread crust. a BREAD CRUST. so i guess i have an excuse if i turn out to be a rapist, by your pathetic logic.

furthermore, doesn't that fact signify the crappiness of the english state? people wanted to leave so intensely. adding to that, cudos on being the descendent of a people who deport their citizens for stealing bread. though..i guess if they were as screwed up as you are now, you cant really blame them.

moving on, you said i dont know anything about australian history? well..seeing as you had nothing to justify that with, i'll assume you were speaking out of your arse. now, i will educate you. on the issue of aboriginals, i think you will find that the british govt(your grandpa) sent their people(indeed, my grandpa) to australia, under the orders to COLONISE there. now, seeing as you're such a moral genius, tell me which crime is worse;
1) stealing a bread crust to escape the depression of an overpopulated country.
or
2) ordering the genicide of an entire race of people.

as far as 'cogent' arguments go, yours was far from. though i like a good chuckle, and look forward to the contents of your arse that you will undoubtedly serve here later

reply

Oh dear is there no end to your pompous drivel, you critise the english and yet YOU are descended from us! therefore you're critising your own lineage you utter cretin. You ask which is worse how's this for an answer - it was your direct descendants who carried out the genocide, admittedly the british gave the order but it was YOU (the deported) who carried it out! so which is worse, giving the order or actually doing the killing. I'm sure that's what they tell you over there about the british and what not re: overcrowding and people got deported on purpose, but in fact nothing could be further from the truth, people were deported because when captain cook discovered your diseased little island, he reported on how unhospitable it was and that sent a thought going that why should the british taxpayer keep a prisoner, when we could just get rid of them for little to no cost and at the same time expand our empire. The largest the world has ever seen. Now getting back to the matter in hand just because i think orlando is THE worst film i have ever seen that doesn't justify the abuse i have recieved from you and others, the abuse i have given you is merely a retort to the pathetic, bleating you have posted on here. like i said in an earlier post, you slag the english off and say how dreadful we are but at the same time, sally potter, her cast and crew and the film were english! you're critising the very people you came here to defend. so which is it, you're a moron and don't realise what you're saying? or you're a hypocrite? either way isn't good.

reply

i give up. theres no use arguing with someone as dense, arrogant and ignorant as you are. anyone who comes here will instantly see how much of an idiot you are, and i guess thats enough to me (not to mention a phony "30 year old" film buff; i still think your a 14 year old twerp who discovered people cant physically hurt you over the internet).

whatever though, go on with your deluded patriotism, and when you one day realise how pathetic your country is, fly over hear where you can actually see the sun. i suppose when that happens, you'll discover that everyone around you has already come to accept this when you see that all immigration between our two countries is from britain to aus..never the other way around.

reply

Barry humpries, jason donovan, kylie minogue, harry kewell, mark schwarzer, mark viduka, lucas neill, anne charlston, rolf harris, clive james, Natalie Imbruglia, Germaine Greer, bob godfrey and roger cook to name but a few. Yes no one comes from australia to live in england do they? except all the above and many more who i can't be bothered with. Look, for you to keep having a go at me because of my intelligence, which coming from an australian is ridiculous, just because i don't like a film that you did is pathetic. You will also see i said a TWO full months in advance that just because i don't like the film don't say i didn't understand it but yet there you went stating the almost knee-jerk reaction of anyone who critisises an art house film. "oh you quite clearly didn't understand it" and "You can't be intelligent if you think this film is poor" etc. An extreme case of the emperors new clothes i think. Then to start having a go at the english, like i pointed out in the last statement is very hypocritical, is bordering on xenophobia. Nothing you do or say will change my mind and the minds of many other people who sat through the film, IT IS RUBBISH. That is my opinion, i don't need to justify it to you so just accept it and end this childish hatred, like i said, sally potter her cast and crew are all english so you must hate them? or are you just going to ignore that massive hole in your argument and hope no-one notices?

reply

just both drop it. you turned a debate into an insult slinging match. crusty you tool.

reply

why pick on me demon? tell ayeta off too lol. you pompous weasel.

reply

I'm glad the high standard of debate in our British Universities is being manfully upheld by crustysaltmerchant. I would love to see one of your essays, or even your dissertation... 'This film is RUBBISH, I don't need to justify it, just accept it.' Thats worth a 2:1 in anyone's language, surely? At least in film studies.

As for the film, I found it interesting and beautifully shot, but after reading the book the film seems sadly two-dimensional. Of course, books are difficult to adapt but it seems like Sally Potter's choice of material to include or exclude - or the scenes she created for the film - were sometimes a little hard to understand.

For example, in the novel there is a transition from the 18th to the 19th century that is beautifully described, sets up themes to come in the story and which would also work amazingly in film - it is very visual - but which was left out. I suppose after reading the book, the film seems more of an 'adapted from...' or 'inspired by...' rather than 'a film of Orlando'. Of course, this takes nothing away from the sumptuous look of the film ( particularly the scenes in the snow and ice with the Russian ambassador's daughter ) and I'm not denying its right to stand as a film on its own merits, just that I would encourage everyone who enjoyed the film to go now and read Virginia Woolf's novel and see how the themes were originally presented.

reply

oh dear another moron who's paraphrasing incorrectly if you care to read my post it says "the film is rubbish, that is my OPINION and nothing you say will change my mind I don't need to justify it to you" so have another read and if you can find fault try again. Maybe next time you'll have more luck. cretin.

reply

[deleted]

To interrupt your hair pulling spat and return to the film. Does it anywhere pick up from the novel that Orlando was meant to be the Zeitgeist or Spirit of the Age ( which accounts for the change of sex) ?
I visit Australia annually from Britain and I think it's a wonderful place to be. If I were only young enough to up sticks I'd be off.

reply

Hi crustysalty. Yeah, I paraphrased you, but then you completely missed the point of my post. I think we all know that this is your OPINION because that is what this site is made up of - opinions. And, as the man said, opinions are like *beep* we all have one. ( Theres probably something else there about being full of crap, but you can add that punchline yourself.

So we know that this is your OPINION and not an objective fact about the movie, what I would like to know is why this is your OPINION. And the further point I was making is that you told us you are a film studies student at degree level, so I was highlighting your inability to construct a cohesive, coherent critical argument about these OPINIONS you hold, and what this in turn says about both yourself, and the level of expectation of film studies undergraduates.

This is not even touching on the fact that any intelligent person willing to engage in an argument is prepared to, if necessary, change their OPINION.

Plus the bottom line is, you are very easy to wind up, which is fun because you then post stuff about cretinous morons, or moronous cretins, without being able to see that it is you, in fact, who has missed the point. Oh the irony! Hence this little message. I wasn't going to reply to you, but felt that, being accused of cretinous morony, or moronous cretiny, I ought to give you some back.
Why don't you reply, and then its like practice for one of your essays!

Morleys - re the zeitgeist. No, this is where you don't get as much depth as in the novel. You get the feeling that Orlando just happens to be in a different time ( or period ), rather than reflecting any particular spirit of the age. The closest is a scene where Orlando is at a tea part with Pope and, I think, Swift and Addison, but this is a scene invented by Potter that condenses many different moments in the novel into one event in the film, and even here you get the sense that Orlando is responding to the manners and mores of the time rather than forming or representing the zeitgeist.

I know someone who has also read the novel, and has just seen the film, and they feel the same way as I do - nice film, looks stunning, but doesn't quite capture the book in the way you would like.

reply

All white Australians are OF British descent? No they are not. You have Italians, Greeks, and so on and so forth who actually chose to migrate to that great country and they were not rapists or murderers or the descendants of them.

Oh yes, and Orlando is a GREAT film. Masterpiece :-)

reply

you lost all your credibility when you decided to criticize the directing, photography,acting of orlando, sally potter and australia and it's people.
it might be not the best film ever made, but it's clearly a beautiful one and if you don't even notice the beauty of it's photography nor it's acting, it's quite obvious your lack of understanding the art of film making.

reply

I'd totally buy the hate if there is the assertion that it was well made but the message was not agreed with (as messages are basically opinions).

I personally hate Beloved--it is smartly written, yet I do not care for the story or the characters. Nothing I'm interested in.

reply


No problem, Crusty. Opinions differ. It's just that your previous post was extremely negative, w/out going into detail.
If you want someone to read a previous post, I suggest you provide a link.

Carpe Noctem

reply

Rich with different perspectives? Name some.

reply

you claim to have read my earlier posts? so like i said earlier, the script is awful and full of THE most pretentious, pompous and ridiculous dialogue i have ever had the misfortune to hear. Not only that their are great long scenes where people just sit about and do nothing, say nothing and we the viewer are meant to be entertained by the so called great imagery. Sally potter might as well have just filmed a load of paintings and put them on as a slide show! Now the acting, Tilda Swinton is so wooden that Potter might as well have filmed a tree stump for 90 minutes. The "Supporting" cast is universally dreadful (Oh aren't we clever we have males playing women and vice versa)and the whole thing comes across as some mordern art film the likes of which Tracey Emin would be applauded for. Yes the film is visually good to look at but it is also incredibly dull and seems far longer than the 90 minutes i wasted watching it. Are they good enough reasons or are you now going to start swiping at my intellect because you can't fault me any other way?

reply

No, thats very good, I'm happy that you've taken the time to explain why you didn't like the film without calling me a cretin or a moron.

But now think about the film and how it is supposed to represent the passage of time - over three hundred years - and how one character changes from a man to a woman, and what this might be saying about the role of gender in shaping character and society. Orlando went from being an ambassador in Turkey to sipping tea in a polite social gathering because she became a woman - and thus lost her status / power ( and was in danger of losing her home and income ). So his / her sex defined his / her position. This is reflected in the interesting blurring of gender distinction and boundaries in other characters - Quentin Crisp as Queen Elizabeth, were there any others? I can't remember. Interesting, though, that a female monarch is played by a male ( albeit famously homosexual ) - confirming that women can't really have any power?

Time passing is also a major theme and this is illustrated by the scenes where nothing happens - consider the fact that the film covers over three centuries, yet we only see 'society' ( dress, manners, custom ) and not 'history' ( the events happen in the background, or even out of shot, as it were ).

I agree with you about Tilda Swinton, she doesn't represent Orlando well and is not really suited to the role - in the novel, it is made clear that Orlando has a dark complexion, possible from gypsy heritage. And the looks / asides to camera do not work at all. Yet there is something about her androgyny and her very particular look that makes her a good Orlando... so she works despite herself, if that makes sense.

The angel at the end is pretty crappy though. Didn't work for me at all.

Its a pity you found it pretentious and pompous, but the film raises some interesting questions. Did you not think, at any point, WHY has this character changed from a man into a woman and lived for over three hundred years? Without anyone seeming to find it unusual? I'm not going to swipe at your intellect, ( when you've come back with sound reasons for not liking the film when you could have just abused me ) but I would say that sometimes if you don't like something its a good idea to question what you don't like, and why you don't like it. In film, everything is there for a reason - every detail, no matter how small, has been placed there by the director, so you can ask 'Why is the director doing this? What is meant by it?' - rather than just saying 'I don't like it'.




reply

I agree with you about the mise-en-scene being provided by the director but i disagree that everything is there for a reason. This is one of my major bones of contention with my contextual studies tutor, I believe that sometimes things/objects are just there and have no hidden meaning to them. Not every film has to have hidden layers to it and i certainly didn't get that from this film. Like i said before it feels more like a collection of artistic slides rather than a film as there is very little to hold or involve the viewer other than the so called majestic sets. If you have a look at the quotes from the film part on this page you will see the dialogue is laughably bad and is very childlike in the way it written. I did think why is this character aging but that very very quickly left me when i realised that it wouldn't be explained and i became bored and more than a little annoyed that i was being forced to watch a film that i would never have chosen to watch in a million years. I made me angry that this film is hailed by some as a masterpiece because to me films should do three things 1 - entertain, 2 - engage and 3 - provoke a reaction. Now this film fails on two of those accounts, the only thing it did was to provoke a reaction - a negative one. The characters were unsympathetic and i didn't care whether orlando lived or died i just wanted it to end and it couldn't have failed more spectacularly to entertain if it tried. Long periods of silence where two actors look at some snow or sit down is not entertainment. I know its supposed to convey time and infinity and what not but to me it just shows lazy film-making. The film seems much much longer than the 90+ minutes it runs for and this is due to it's dreadful pacing, a good story will always lift itself from the mire but this story really isn't as clever as it thinks and neither is the film. Thats why in so many of the posts on here it takes swipes at my intellect despite me saying a full 3 months in advance that just because i didn't like the film doesn't mean i didn't understand it. It's the emperors new clothes feeling that if you critise an art house film then you must be stupid, great some people like it but equally some people don't and their views are just as valid. This isn't directed at you just in general as i proved by the responses i got off most people on here.

reply

it made White Chicks look like The Lord of the Rings it was that bad!


LOTR is crap. That's a poor illustration of your point.

BTW, I've got a degree in film as well as a doctorate in philosophy and my uncle was in the Air Force and he worked at Roswell and says the government is covering up an alien conspiracy!

...Just claiming that you are halfway through your film degree doesn't replace a discussion of why you think it's a bad movie. For all we know, you're lying.

reply

hhm nice touch about your uncle and roswell. very relevant to this discussion. idiot.

reply

Everyone, just give up. if anything, in this thread we have at least proved that crusty's idiocy goes beyond any of our comprehension. i gave up a long time ago, after he used the argument "Britain is better than Australia" to try and prove Orlando was bad, though came back here to tell you to all stop wasting your time. His marble sized brain will not be happy unless he gets the last word, to fulfill his unsubstantiated egotistical nature, and we should just let him have it, as we go away with the quite confidence that he is nothing but a complete jackass.

reply

I thought you'd gone to protest at an art exhibition? i'm sorry i never used the britain is better than australia argument that was you when you went off on your anti-american rant. some people just can't take critismand you sir are one of them. this film was awful and i'm not the only one to think so. in the respected bbc radio times film guide it agrees with me, badly written, badly acted and directed. oh dear a target that you can't aim personal abuse at what are you going to do now?

reply

Each to their own. Art is a matter of taste. Some would laugh at tragedy and some would cry at a comedy. Intellectuality might have some effect to the overall artistic experience. But 'tis not vital. Everyone is entitled to their own unique experience. You, are entitled to yours.

And so am I.
Which might mean that I like pomp. For I absolutely adore this movie.

reply

so i hear britain is inferior to australia in every concievable way. interesting.

reply

except obviously in the power stakes, financial markets, history and arts. the only thing you have is the weather. go geography!

reply

Awesome? Oh puhleeze...this was "Myra Breckenridge" with better costuming.

If this was supposed to be a fantasy, then be a fantasy; if this was supposed to be an exploration of deep ideas, then be an exploration of deep ideas; if this was supposed to be a meditation on gender, then be a meditation on gender. What this was, however, was an incomprehensible, meandering mess that did little justice to Virginia Woolf or her ideas.

Don't think that just because something is British and/or was written by a famed and talented author that it's automatically a masterpiece. This one needs retooling from top to bottom.

reply

Hey, I first saw this movie 15 years ago. And I love this movie, one of my favorites.

reply

I like the old adage "you can wrestle with a pig, but you'll both end up covered in pigpoop"

The film is interesting in the way it plays fast and loose with stereotypical conventions. For the unimaginative, the desperate need to decipher meaning and intent, may override the simple artistic motives of director and crew.
A frame of reference beyond populist junk like LOTR might prove useful.

I don't think it's a masterpiece, but I do very much like the art direction, costumes, sets and cinematography, so I can easily enjoy it without feeling the need to justify my tastes, or seek deeper meaning in the depths of my no doubt boundless intellect. I might get angry if I couldn't understand it, and that would be vewy vewy bad.

I'd place it in the same grey area of historical bizarre as Jubilee, Map of the Human Heart, and Branagh's Richard III, where historical accuracy and conventional narrative are most certainly not intended as the most obvious points of reference. The flow is smooth, and the off kilter historical allusions to turning points in British history always cause me to snicker over my warm beer and bland food.

If you want nuance-free simplistic comic book memes, try any of the Power Rangers movies. A good explosion may be welcome in isolation, but as a basis for an entire movie, it hardly merits comments deeper than "dat woz gr8" or "it woz briliyunt"

While i don't expect anyone to share my opinions down to the last huzzah, I do think that simplistic and poorly thought out critiques tend to prove only the absence of a logical analaytical process. In this case, the empty vessel certainly makes the most noise, and the dysfunctional racist drivel contained within its noissome ramblings serve only to highlight that loudness is no substitute for articulacy.

I look forward to seeing some of Krusty the Klown's future masterpieces in my local arthouse. I shall of course heckle all the way through, simply for the sake of obstroperous imbecility. We Brits obviously have the bestest and vainest evening class flim studies geniuses evah, so I feel it necessary sometimes to point out that their feet of clay are somewhat at odds with the egotistical monomania they so effortlessly exhibit.
But then, I do enjoy watching people make complete asses of themselves on teh interweb, with scant regard for minor details like cogency, grammar and manners.
As my kindergarten Shakespearean studies tutor might not have said:
" what the Puck is he on about?"

feel the love.

reply

well, well, well, we have finally found someone with a bigger ego than Robbie Williams! Congratulations on that. Interesting isn't it how in my VERY FIRST ORIGINAL POST I said that no doubt I would have my intelligence attacked for my views and hey-ho-whaddya-know that's what's happened again. First of all I didn't do "Film Studies" and it certainly wasn't an evening class. I have just graduated from Teesside University - The University of the Year according to the Guardian, with a BA (Hons)in TV and Film Production. That's right read it again if you must. That means instead of watching films part time at evening class we actually wrote, produced and directed films. So pardon me if I think I know a little bit more than some armchair critic who seems to think that just because he can question others intelligence then that makes him superior. What was the last film you made squelcho?

Secondly the LOTR refence was due to the fact that the film Orlando, calls itself an epic, it isn't. I could have quite easily have said, Once upon a time in America, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, Lawrence of Arabia, The Great Escape, The Godfather, Apocalypse Now or are all those too "populist" for you?
Would you prefer a nice night in watching Eraserhead followed by Un Chien Andalou? Just because I don't like art house films doesn't mean I don't understand them, by your rationale Grayson Perry or Damien Hirst must be the worlds greatest artists because they've won the Turner Prize with their nonsense! Pretentious pap masquerading as challenging work does not make an entertaining film. That is my entire point, this is a film like it or not film is the biggest sector of the ENTERTAINMENT industry. Do you see what I did there? That's right if a film doesn't entertain then, quite frankly it has failed. This film failed big time, it was so bad as to be almost unwatchable and guess what as soon as anybody says anything derogatory then film snobs like you start accusing us of "Not understaning" or "Having no imagination". Can people not have a different opinion? Or are we mere mortals not deserving to voice it your lordship?

reply

I understood the plot quite well. Although i do like slow moving films, but they need to have more going for it. Swept from the sea is perfect example of what i'm talking about. It was slow moving, but awesome.
Orlando was absolutely dreadful. It was far too drawn out,since it had no real movement or intense enough scenes.
The acting wasn't bad, it's the script that was terrible. What makes them think someone wants to sit through some long dry boring film like this? Reminds me of that Hugh Jackman movie, The Fountain. That was another terribly boring film like this one.
The movies such as "Interview with the vampire", are perfect examples that a movie about someone living over 400 years,does not have to be boring. That film was well done ,and Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise are far worse actors next to Tilda Swinton. So had the script writer wrote a better script,and the film had more excitement in it, or more going on, the film wouldn't have been so bad.
The only way you can like this movie,is if you are into watching boring quiet dry films that have no real intense romance scenes. The romance in this films was boring. They should have added some extra spice into it.
They should create a new genre name for movies like this,or any movie thats going to be boring in this way. They could call it "Boring Films" so everyone that isn't looking for something boring,will know ahead of time.

Boring movies that are great. Dangerous Beauty, The Tutors(TV series),Swept from the sea, Solomon and Gaenor, Interview with the vampire, The Pianist, Housekeeping, Memoirs of a Geisha,The Joy Luck Club, Running on empty etc.

reply

[deleted]

The first time I saw this movie, I couldn't make heads or tails of it. Not having read the book it is based on, I couldn't understand things such as why the Orlando character kept changing from womens to mens clothes. Now I have seen it 4-5 times in total and I've got it on DVD. On repeated viewings I have managed to catch the story and I find it to have a profound depth.

Orlando is at the same time the main character and not really a part of this world. He/she goes through the centuries trying to connect to people but at the same time being different and separated from them, as if caught in a glass bubble. Not until Orlando becomes a mother, he/she truly becomes a part of this world.

It is not a movie for everyone. If you want a "good film", i.e. something easily digestible, you might not like it or even hate it. If you are prepared to be open and let the movie "sink into you", you might like it very much.

reply

Brilliant movie. Loved every minute of it. It's the kind of picture you can watch over and over and always get something new from.
Tilda Swinton is arguably the best actress around, at present. First saw her effort in Young Adam and was blown away.

Cheers
Osmooms

reply