User Reviews (45)

Add a Review

  • SnoopyStyle6 April 2020
    In 1923 London, socialite Clarissa Dalloway (Vanessa Redgrave) is planning a high class party. She is the wife of MP Richard Dalloway. Her daughter Elizabeth prefers do-gooder Miss Kilman than her. Her old suitor Peter Walsh arrives with a troubled love life and various failures. Meanwhile, former soldier Septimus Warren Smith (Rupert Graves) is haunted by the nightmarish Great War. His wife Rezia is concerned. The movie also flashbacks to a young Clarissa (Natascha McElhone), a young Peter, and best friend Sally (Lena Headey).

    This is adapted from a Virginia Woolf novel. The Septimus side of the story is separated from Clarissa for most of the movie. That kept me at an arm's length as I waited for the two sides to come together. While interested in Septimus, it seems to repeat the same premise. He would be better to be in his own movie about a shell shocked veteran. When the sides finally collide, it's not as compelling as one wish. Of course, it's still interesting as a character study for Clarissa. It may work better in literary form. As for young Clarissa, I'm more interested in Sally than Peter. It may be salacious but that counts. Vanessa Redgrave is able to maintain interest for the most part. I can't say that this is exciting or thrilling in any way. She's a marginally interesting character.
  • roy_wood5 July 2001
    Like most of Virginia Woolf's literary output, I appreciated the film-version of "Mrs. Dalloway" more than I enjoyed it. There are flashes of blinding beauty in this movie, however, the film's "sum" is not equal to its "parts". Of course, Vanessa Redgrave continues to astound me with her talent. And ---yes, the film is beautifully made and attention to period detail is evident. And --- yes, parts of the story are very heart-rending. Yet.... why does this film satisfy me but not move me? Like a guest at one of Mrs. Dalloway's parties, I am more impressed with the effort that went into the production than the product itself.
  • suzy q1239 July 2001
    I enjoyed this movie very much, although I really loved the novel a bit more, but that's always the case it seems. Vanessa Redgrave and Natasha McElhone make a GREAT older/younger version of each other, and Rupert Graves gives a stellar performance as a young man dealing with the impact of war. This is a gently told tale, but it's done very well. Worth a look.
  • Kudos go to all who participated in making this wonderful film. Vanessa Redgrave, as usual, is perfect as an aging dowager who settled for the "safe" path in life instead of seeking adventure and taking risks. When her old flame reappears, she reevaluates her choices and second-guesses the paths that she chose. The film also has a sub-plot about a shell-shocked World War I veteran who is in emotional torment and is inconsolable. The film works on two levels. It shows the interaction between proper British people who speak politely to one another, but the viewer senses that there are fierce and passionate undercurrents and important thoughts that seems to be unspoken. In addition, the film is a clear indictment of the stuffy and snobby British society of Post World War I England, in which a party could be of such importance that a person's reputation could hinge on its success. There is also a feminist slant in the movie. Can a woman who spends her time at home making parties and pleasing her husband ever feel fulfilled? Did Mrs. Dalloway make the right decision in "playing it safe" in life? That is up to the viewer to decide. Meanwhile, revel in the fabulous nuanced performances, the witty dialogue and the beautiful cinematography. This film is a triumph.
  • I appreciate this film for its technical quality, as well as its ambition in trying to film a novel that is written in the stream of consciousness style, however it fails overall because of Ms. Redgrave's performance. Her acting destroys the tone of the movie in a extremely jarring way; the contrast between her just-swallowed-a-bottle-of-Prozac happiness and the other plot lines and draws the viewer out of the experience of the film. The novel's tone is much darker and Clarissa's point-of- view much more based on regret, and more in sync with the post-traumatic-stress and depression of Septimus and the ennui and disenfranchisement of her daughter. Her performance wasn't only in the wrong tone, but it was incredibly phony; a viewer should never see acting happening. This is the same gripe I have with Rupert Grave's performance of Septimus; his acting is too stagy and I never truly believed him when shouting "EVANS! EVANS!"

    Probably will be (and perhaps should be) the last time a film adaptation is made of this novel.
  • Compared to 1984 and other boring tripe this film is entertaining. I like how they show the class structure, how one trys not have norms and standards. My wife thought they were snobs, but after years of working with people who act like the audience on the Jerry Springer show I found this movie quite refreshing. I would like to tell Mrs Dalloway life is not that bad, and for her friend to get over her. You tried to make her a person she is not. When you do that you end up with a unhappy life. 7 out of 10
  • MarioB6 June 1999
    This is another movie from the woman who gives us the wonderful "Antonia";. In this romantic "bourgeois"; drama, the director did a marvelous job directing all the cast. She's also very innovative with the way she introduced us to the flashback of the life of Mrs. Dalloway. This is very intelligent cinema! 95 % of the movies from England, in the 1990's, are absolutely great.
  • delores9673424 August 2019
    7/10
    Sad
    Being a senior myself, I watched this, admired the acting, the sets, but felt incredibly sad at the end. What could have been.... Makes you question your decisions in life. I have not read the book, probably never will. I do like British productions so I would recommend this film for others who appreciate British films.
  • While I agree with some of the more perceptive comments made here, I have a few of my own to add. First, the novel on which this film is based is an all-time favorite of mine and I'm happy to have seen it beautifully translated into cinematic form. The contrast between the personal and inner life of an upper class English woman and the horrors produced by war (in this case, symbolized through the experience of one man, brilliantly portrayed) is both moving and exacting. Vanessa Redgrave gives a splendid performance as Clarissa...sensitive, radiant, conservative and uncertain about life decisions as she looks back (nicely depicted in flashback). Michael Kitchen as her would-be lover of old is perfect for the role...quietly romantic, sexy, with just the right British propriety. The troubled young war veteran and his wife are well cast and Marleen Gorris should be credited with graceful directing.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I had never heard either of Virginia Wolf nor of Mrs Dalloway but my mum received a free DVD of this film with her daily newspaper ( a very common practice in the UK apparently ) so she gave me this on a recent visit to England and I thought "Why not" as I have always enjoyed Vanessa Redgrave in the films I have seen of her. I think that to appreciate fully this sort of film you need to be English or have lived many years in England. Much attention is given to recreating the period, the accents, the costumes and decors of the 1920's in that country and the result is truly remarkable. I can understand Americans and other foreigners not appreciating this as it is very far removed from their lifestyle. Also, the plot is rather tame ( I would have preferred more sex and passion ) but presumably the novel in question did not include this. I was also confused by the introduction of a "sub plot" whereby a WW1 soldier with shell shock married to an Italian wife commits suicide and couldn't understand the relation between this and Mrs Dalloway. In spite of these misgivings I actually felt pleasure watching the film. The actress who portrayed Clarissa Dalloway young, Natacha something-or-other, had subliminal beauty which reminded me of the great actresses of the 1940's, something you very rarely see nowadays, and I have always liked a great deal Michael Kitchen every time I have seen him in a film. I would therefore recommend the film to all those who like "period pieces" but would warn that the plot is rather tame and subdued and that if you are looking for passion, sex and romance you might be left disappointed, or at least hungering for more, especially as the ending is rather flat and unoriginal. As you can see, my feelings are rather mixed, there is good and bad but globally my appreciation will be positive, hence a rating of 7 !!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Let me start in this way: Woolf is a writer who is almost impossible to put on screen.It is so because there are hardly any plots in her works--the emphasis is on thoughts, memories, reflections, parallels and contrasts. Even taking this into consideration, I think this film is unsuccessful. First of all, the authors allow themselves too many liberties with the original text.Perhaps the greatest of them is that Clarissa and Septimius MEET in the film ( through the window of the shop). This spoils the whole idea of Woolf that her two main characters NEVER MEET in the novel. This is extremely important in the book and is ,I believe, one of the main themes in it.Second: at the end it is suggested in the film that Clarissa also contemplates suicide which again is NOT present in the book. And there are other "departures" from the text...These are not trifles as they change the whole perspective of the viewer. I am sure that most viewers would find the film boring and dealing with banalities, especially if they have not read the book. Septimius is unconvincing and he should have been EXPLAINED to the spectators more. In general the film leaves me with a taste of superficiality. There are lots of themes in it and important themes at that. But they all are presented very superficially and light-heartedly. As a whole the film can be classified as some kind of comedy and the funny, entertaining music also adds to this impression. But this is horribly wrong I think! Virginia Woolf's works are NEVER comedies and should never be presented as such I think. I myself have an ambiguous attitude to Woolf: I both like and dislike her but I have always considered her a serious author. This film will convince viewers that probably she is not worth reading which is a pity.
  • This is a beautiful little film, which portrays the book admirably. When put up against its counterpart in The Hours I think it compares favourably. For sure it is a much smaller film in both stature and actor profiles, but this does not make it worse, in fact quite the contrary.

    The English cast do a great job, on this essentially English story, with strong performances all around, notably from the leads from both eras. It is nicely shot, and the script has been well managed, and achievement for a Virginia Woolf novel.

    I often find myself trying to pick out flaws in films like this, but the only possible complaint I can think of is the lack of continuity in height ratio between the leads over the two eras, petty some might say, and actually a small price you might expect to pay when you cast the wonderful Vanessa Redgrave.

    I can't help feel sorry for those people who don't get this film. If Virginia Woolf isn't your cup of tea fair enough, but to think this and therefore the book is boring can only mean a lack of understanding or appreciation of Woolf's views on the point of life.

    In essence when I watched this film it charmed me for an hour and a half, and then when it was finished left me questioning the value of my life, and important decision I had made, and was yet to make, which if you have ever read it is exactly what the book does.
  • If you are looking for a charming movie to watch, you might want to check out this light-hearted adaptation of Virginia Woolf's classic novel Mrs. Dalloway. It is a perfect choice for a relaxing evening with a glass of red wine.

    The movie follows the life of Clarissa Dalloway, a high-society lady who is preparing to host a party in the evening. The story switches between two timelines: one in the present day, where Clarissa reflects on her choices and regrets, and one in the past, where we see her as a young and adventurous woman who shared a close bond with her friend Sally.

    The film captures the contrast and nostalgia between the two phases of Clarissa's life, as well as her unresolved feelings for Peter Walsh, a former suitor who returns to London after years abroad.

    The movie invites you to reflect on your own life and how you have changed over time. You might feel nostalgic about your younger days and the choices you made, but you might also accept that life goes on and what matters are the memories and friendships that last.

    The movie explores the themes of nostalgia, memory, love, and loss, as well as the impact of war on the psyche of the character. One of the most poignant subplots is that of Septimus Warren Smith, a shell-shocked veteran who suffers from hallucinations and despair. His fate is intertwined with Clarissa's in a subtle and poignant way.

    The movie features excellent performances from Vanessa Redgrave as the older Clarissa, Natascha McElhone as the younger Clarissa, and Michael Kitchen as Peter Walsh, Clarissa's former suitor who still harbours feelings for her.

    "I knew that I loved her once, and that it stayed with me all my life, and coloured everything."
    • Peter Walsh


    The director succeeds in creating a serene and graceful atmosphere that contrasts the two phases of Clarissa's life: youth and old age. It is a movie that will make you appreciate the beauty and fragility of life.
  • Clarissa (Vanessa Redgrave and Natascha McElhone) is a shallow woman, divided between the love of his friend Peter Walsh and Richard Dalloway, a prominent young man from the upper class. Clarissa is showed in two periods: when she was a teenager and as an old lady, worried about parties. There is also a parallel plot of an honored English soldier, Septimus Warren Smith (Rupert Graves), showing the cold and insensible English system. The story is very shallow and boring. The reaction of the bored Peter Walsh, in old Clarissa's party in the end of the movie, when he says, `How boring are the English!' may be extended to `How boring is this movie!'. I never read Virginia Woof's novel and indeed, after watching `The Hours' and `Mrs. Dalloway', I certainly will not. However, there is a beautiful reconstitution of the period from the end of the Nineteenth Century to the after First World War, and a good performance of excellent actors and actress. Recommended only for fans of Virginia Woof and her novels. My vote is five.
  • Virginia Woolf is thought of as a high-brow rather than popular novelist yet the novel this film is based on sold well when first published in 1924. It is easy to see why – there is nothing rarefied in the treatment of its themes, making choices and breaking with the past.

    Clarissa Dalloway, a society matron, played with startled radiance by Vanessa Redgrave, is throwing a party and while making the arrangements she remembers back to the choice she made 30 years ago as a young woman between two men. One, Peter, charming, intelligent, adventurous, is the sort who went out and conquered India, or at least seduced the Major's wife. The other, Richard, good-looking, loving, a bit boofy, devoid of flair, is the sort that gravitates into politics. Naturally, the young Clarissa (played by Natasha Mc Elhone) has chosen the safe one, but Peter, after a chequered career, has turned up in London and pays her a call. She invites him to the party. Parallel to Clarisa's reminiscences is the story of Septimus (Rupert Graves) a returned soldier from World War I, whose wartime experiences are eating into his sanity.

    Clarisa is put up as a `modern woman' who refuses Peter's love because she sees it as all demanding and all consuming, despite his attractive personality. Yet she accepts Richard, who wants and needs a dutiful, supportive wife. She also passes up the possibility of love with her close friend Sally. Though shaken when she hears of Stephen's fate from his psychiatrist, a guest at the party, and touched when she meets her old lovers again, she sees her life as going on before, safe and unexciting.

    For a film-maker the amount of interior musing generated by Woolf's `stream of consciousness' writing technique presents a challenge and here Marleen Gorris has effectively used flashback to externalise Clarisa's memories. We get two stories artfully intercut, though there is not much tension in either of them - costumes, but not much drama. One does, however, get the feel of how it might have been to be in the upper class during the Edwardian late summer; as if just being there was enough (we even meet the Prime Minister at the party). Woolf and Gorris have evoked the atmosphere precisely, even if, as Lytton Strachey said, there isn't much of a plot. Even the minor characters sparkle. Robert Hardy as Sewell's psychiatist exudes bonhomie and guile, and Margaret Tyzak as the meddlesome Lady Bruton gives us a fine example of the old-fashioned female power broker at work. Overall, the film is rather slow, especially at the start, and I did wonder whether it would have been made without all the government and foundation money listed in the credits, but the quality of the performances redeem it to some extent.
  • I doubt that any film version of "Mrs Dalloway" can convey the breadth, depth, complexity, and radical vision of Virginia Woolf's novel. Although Gorris's version of it does seem to surpass typical expectations--and can stand on its own right as a rare adult character study movie, it still lacks Woolf's punch when it comes to dealing with her raw reality, her human presences, and her attacks on the bloodless psychiatric profession. Gorris is mainstream saddled, but more critically, she's limited by images that cannot take the measure of either the experimental content or more committed thoughts which only written forms can account for. For instance, there are more generics in the movie version, more single note characters and situations. And while Clarissa Dalloway and Septimus Warren Smith are the exclusive possessors of embodied consciousness and memory in the movie, this is hardly the case with the book.

    I guess to comprehend what's going on (not easy because the movie's past--a simultaneous time period, seems a bit arbitrary, and character physical mismatches are not helpful) it's important to know that Woolf herself led something of a double life. Socially, she tended to hover on the surface as more of a performer or entertainer--and thus the "snob" epithet that is oft hurled her way; but privately she was, of course, the deeply conscious writer and thinker plagued with recurring mental illness, attempted suicides, and marriage upheavals which were so critical to the self she understood to be both real and dark.

    Woolf wrote "Mrs Dalloway" as perhaps both an escape from her more tormented self and from the fashion of post-war disillusionment. Indeed, Mrs. Dalloway, the vibrant, party-loving social mediator, who Woolf herself, if not for certain life turns, could have become, initially stood alone in Woolf's novel. But this sunny version could not be tolerated. For Woolf, the writer, knew and understood too much of reality, too much of the war's devastation, too much of the underclass, and too much of the ice cold world of psychiatry, to let the party woman Clarissa's vibrancy take hold. Septimus Warren Smith was introduced to the novel not only as her counter figure, but also as a crucial part of Mrs Dalloway's consciousness without which she would be too glib, too shallow, too lacking in a sense of self.

    One telling example of how the movie cannot handle the novel's radicalism is its take on Septimus Warren Smith's guilt. Gorris offers Smith's hallucinogenic encounters with Evans, which are both gripping and melodramatic, as the obvious causation (shell-shock) of his mental breakdown. But in Woolf's text what's more at stake for Smith is his emotional abandonment of his Italian wife, Rezia. Septimus, his war traumas not withstanding, exerts his own form of trauma onto his wife. It's this act of dehumanization, more personal than war, in which he shuts down communication with and discards his only ally, that drives his guilt. This is not a false self-blame, but a true self -blame, and a true guilt. But that such disengagement is socially acceptable and thus totally outside the narrow scope of his acquisitive, neurosis-classifiers psychiatrists, who deny any bitter complexities, only compounds his madness. So, Septimus' productive guilt, which should be most amenable to treatment, gets stifled by a power-based professional elite. And who understood this perverse, anti-human corps of experts better than Virginia Woolf, the writer, and author of the novel "Mrs. Dalloway," who was also thought to be lacking in proportion, and unable to adjust.
  • Everyone doesn't like everything, so I'm not surprised that some people find the movie of Mrs. Dalloway boring. They probably would find the book boring too. But it's depressing. So they won't agree with some of us who see the novel as one of the great works of the 20th century, and the film as a truly remarkable and beautiful capturing of it. The only touch I regretted was the opening of the film with the Septimus Warren-Smith war scenes. The opening really belongs with Mrs. D. and her first words, "I will buy the flowers myself." After that moment, it's a quiet day but a beautiful and sensitive one.
  • Since I was just finishing the book, `Mrs. Dalloway' by Virginia Woolf, I was excited to see that it was on one of the movie channels last weekend. What I encountered, however, is a film that was boring, incomprehensible and non-sensical. One cannot entirely blame the film, it tried the best it could with the material it had, but when the source material is Virginia Woolf, and is almost entirely written in stream-of-conscience style with extended periods of internalizing and little actual dialogue, one would certainly think that there shouldn't be a film made from it just because a film can be made from it.

    Vanessa Redgrave, who plays the title character, does not deserve any blame for the failure of this film, nor do any of the other actors. It is just simply a film that could not intelligibly be made from the story that Woolfe wrote, and should not have even been attempted. Don't watch the movie, read the book.

    --Shelly
  • patherto12 September 2004
    Marleen Gorliss has pulled off a most successful adaptation of one of Woolf's most diaphanous novels. I'm not a fan of voice-over, but here the device is used discretely and to great effect. The magnificent performances of Redgraves and the rest of the cast bring to life this delicate tale. Probably a chick flick in its focus on love and the meaning of things, this film will not appeal to all tastes. But if you liked 'The Hours,' you'll love 'Mrs. Dalloway.
  • During filming, was Vanessa Redgrave taking mogadon? It was like she was reading from an autocue. I've seen more life in a wooden spoon. Or perhaps that was all part of the character? whatever, it was very very annoying, I kept wanting to shake the screen to hurry her up. I read the book a long time ago & didn't like much about it except that Septimus's descent into madness was very well done - but I don't think Rupert Graves showed this very well, his acting was all on the surface. The connection between his life and Clarissa's is not very well done either but I suspect the attempt is to show the sacrifice soldiers made to enable people like Clarissa to continue their vapid lives. The film is very bitty and has no real unity to it. Hated it.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Though I haven't read the book, I felt the movie had a lot to offer and should not be so easily dismissed as "boring." Maybe I am biased, I am an ardent fan of Vanessa Redgrave. But the real star in my opinion was Natasha McElhone. She really internalized the role of a blossoming of young girl, who is not a child not yet a woman. She is mischievous, mature yet artless in certain ways and also innately different from the "mature" Mrs Dalloway essayed by Vanessa Redgrave. I also liked Rupert Graves character. I would not have guessed the abrupt ending of his life.My one observation about the movie is till the end I was not too clear about the depth of emotions that Clarissa had for Peter!! Maybe the book also leaves it vague, but some information would have helped me understand why on one hand she treats him in such a cavalier fashion but then again she shows her tender side in her overwhelming concern for him at the end. Hope other people like it as much as I did.
  • tedg11 August 2003
    Warning: Spoilers
    Spoilers herein.

    Woolf was an interesting writer, in a way. She occupied herself with ordinary stories about people with ordinary problems, like the river of thousands of other writers. But at the same time, she devised a rather extraordinary manner of circumnavigating those same issues. Safety on the one hand, risk on the other.

    And that's incidentally what this story is about: bracketing life between the damage from taking risks and the damage from not taking them. Oddly, Woolf created her own detractors because many will come to this book and this movie expecting Evelyn Waugh, or Edith Wharton. These are safe readers/viewers. They want the simple taste of a pleasant story, but this is precisely the vacuousness that drives Woolf out of her story.

    Other writers were experimenting with what it means for the narrative to leave the grounding of the story and become its own character with its own drive. Joyce would leave the story to encounter fragments of a dream life, but those fragments would be well ordered according to geometric cosmologies and the geography of Dublin. Proust would similarly layer the story but with fragments of annotated recollection. The order in his case came from rather mechanical folding of time and awarenesses.

    Woolf is at once between them (annotated memory, but fabricated from yearnings) and apart: her narrative wanders. It has a mothlike quality -- deep insight with an attention deficit. The capriciousness of the thread was result of the capriciousness of fate the irrelevance of decision. Why would I mention all this? Because each of these features has a cinematic counterpart.

    Hitchcock and Tarkovsky invented the camera that has its own motivation and is likely to take interest or be distracted. Altman and now Anderson developed the cinematic conventions for shifting characters while maintaining the same issues and perspectives. (See "Things You Can Tell" for the best: many stories and characters, all the same woman.)

    Several filmmakers have successfully experimented with the kind of layering Woolf used: folding between the imaginer and the imagined. Pinter specifically quotes Woolf in his "French Lieutenant's Woman," and even brushes her sleeve in his unproduced screen play of Proust. There was lots for Ms Gorris to work with in approaching this project. There was plenty she could have safely done to emulate the experimental approach of Woolf.

    But no. She chose extreme safety. She chose the Dalloway life. "The Hours" played the game. It invented nothing new cinematically, merely understood that the story didn't matter a whit. That's the point. And that Woolf introduces her own presence in the narrative. "The Hours" was a far superior flight, but still not nearly as risky as its source. All that business about Richard Brown had too much purpose. Septimus Smith being in the trenches was as arbitrary as Clarissa's appearance in the flower shop.

    Bottom line: yet another project that doesn't take the risks whose depiction is the purpose.

    Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
  • It is not easy to write a movie script for a book where time is not linear and time is seen through the eyes of the characters.

    Virginia Woolf is not your every day Author, her writhing style is dense. The effects of World war rear it's head all over this time period. Tackling themes like post traumatic stress disorder was quite impressive.

    I liked the Book more and appreciate the book at the screens. Not an easy one to put on the screen...
  • Mrs. Dalloway is a very well-written and performed adaptation of the Virginia Woolf novel. Kudos to screenwriter Eileen Atkins for her faithfulness to the original story. The double casting of the central characters is realistic and makes the flashback scenes easy to follow. Every actor was completely believable in his/her role. But the most brilliant performance of all was Rupert Graves as Septimus Warren Smith, the tragic young war hero suffering from delayed shell shock. (For the full impact of his inner torment, try watching this movie with a combat veteran, as I did.) A quality movie. Don't miss it!
  • I couldn't believe this was the same director as Antonia's Line.

    This film has it all, a boring plot, disjointed flashbacks, a subplot that has nothing to do with the main plot what so ever, and totally uninteresting characters. It was painful to watch. Soooo, painful.
An error has occured. Please try again.