Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

MusicChat It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

qmtv I read the book many years ago. I remember the main plot but forgot the ending. The only other thing I recall is that they raised the price of chocolate from 25 to 30 and Winston had to rewrite the history and state they're reducing the price from 50 to 30.Richard Burton was great but seriously underused. Excellent voice and delivery. John Hurt did fine, mostly towards the end. He's a fine actor, the problem is in the script and direction. Suzanna Hamilton was decent, not great. A few other minor characters, did not add anything to the film.Visually it was OK, not great. At times it looks like a cheap TV movie. There was some atmosphere in the film, but not all the way through. A lot of cheap scenes. Everybody praises the cinematography. I can't. It looked OK. Nothing great. A few days ago I rewatched The Shining. That has great cinematography. I would also recommend Messiah of Evil for great camera work. 1984 cinematography was OK at best. The music was OK, annoying at times. The dialogue was mumbled and hard to understand at points.Now, onto the story. We don't get a good idea what is going on. We know this is in a future time when 3 world powers are at war, and the people are brainwashed. But we don't get a full picture of Hurts character. We see some backstory of his mother and sister, and a scene with a prostitute. We see him at work rewriting history. But these scenes are very boring and it's all cheap TV show format. I'm reading other reviews now. One critic mentioned that when Winston went into the proletarian area he didn't look too cautions or paranoid, like he did in the book. He just came and went like it was normal. Apparently in the book things were more stark, and he would have been more cautious in this area of town.I've seen this movie years ago on TV and don't remember it much. Watching it yesterday I was thinking, OK, this is fine, but I saw the deficit in it. It is very slow, and boring. I will now need to reread the book.Worth checking out, if you read the book. If not, I would not recommend it. As it is my rating is 4 stars, maybe a C. The problem is the director. He also wrote the script. I do not recommend directors, write and produce their own films. No checks and balances.OK, after watching this mess of a film last week, I viewed 3 other versions and rewatched this yesterday. The 1956 US film. The best Peter Cushing 1954 British TV version. And the 1953 US TV version. All of the previous versions were superior to the 1984 mess. Simply put everything was better, from the script and the acting to cinematography, costumes, music, directing, dialogue, story, and comprehension of what the hell is going on. I recommend watching all versions to compare. I don't know why John Hurt is elevated to such heights. He was a decent actor but give me a break. The best version of Winston Smith was Peter Cushing. The Eddie Albert 1953 and Edmond O'Brien 1956 also acted well, much better than Hurt. I thought Richard Burton as O'Brien did well until I checked out the other versions. Best was Andre Morell 1954 against Cushing, he was cool and calculating. Lorne Greene 1953, and Michael Redgrave 1956 were also good. I thought the best Julia was Norma Crane 1953. But Yvonne Mictchell 1954, and Jane Sterling 1956 did well. Suzanna Hamilton 1984 was OK, but the worst, the only thing she did well was when she took her clothes off. That just doesn't make the film. Donald Pleasence as Syme in the 1954 version was excellent. Great stuff. Gregor Fisher as Parsons in 1984 version was a complete joke, what a mess. All the Charringtons did well, but the best was 1954.Not having read the book in so long, I cannot comment on the differences with the book. But after watching the 4 versions available, I saw what the 84 version missed on. The meeting at O'Briens home, the previous versions had Julia accompany Smith, this one didn't and it was much shorter. There was some intense dialogue in the earlier versions. When Charrigton enters the room towards the end, this version is shorter, the previous versions had more impact. Gratuitous nude scenes. At the end one of the thought police gut punches Julia. I wonder who thought this was a good idea? The torture scene in this one was ridiculous, repetitive nonsense. There was more impact in the older versions.So, my revised rating is a D or 3 stars. For balance for all the praise given I will give 1 star. This movie is a joke. It looks disgusting. The flashback scenes of Smith as a kid and then visiting a prostitute, all add up to a bunch of crap. Missing information, the audience is left to read the book, or just be awed by the visuals, which is honestly not that impressive. Zero chemistry between Smith and Julia. This director wrote the screenplay. Big Freaking Mistake. Maybe he should have viewed the other versions. Or, how about reading the book. Or, maybe get a professional screenwriter, rather than try to slap some stupid scenes together that make no sense. Forget the D, this is an F.

FireFan This scary and darkly displayed movie of forcing a lifestyle on the people made of propaganda and suppression works effectively well. Winston, the main character played by John Hurt, has an unfortunate plight. He is like a leftover attempt to change this tyranny of Big Brother who is demonstrated well in the movie as 'always watching you'. So many of the new dictionary "Newspeak" terms used in this rigid society which shape everyone's thinking, and which the fanatical O'Brien believes in, are inhibiting instead of liberating... Winston dares to hope for the something better which seems never to have existed. The props and atmosphere put into this movie and the loneliness are nicely created in the film. It is seriously, but entertainingly so, depressing to viewers given what every citizen in this society faces as cold, stark reality concocted from lies. The author George Orwell is like a 20th century "Jonathan Swift" in his novel and the movie which communicates through symbolic meaning a warning as to what might could possibly happen to our own world if it is left unguarded and unchecked!

raymond_chandler Filmed in London during the Spring of 1984, and released later that year. An enormously powerful and chilling adaptation of Orwell's novel. The best translation of a book to screen that I have ever seen.Written in 1948, the novel depicts a society where all but the Inner Party scratch out a meager existence. War is constant, and all goods are rationed harshly. Big Brother is the face of the omnipresent State, which monitors its subjects with large telescreens (two-way TVs). Political orthodoxy is brutally enforced, and no dissent is tolerated.The film stars John Hurt, who is understated and spectacular at the same time. His Winston Smith is a man who has learned to mask his feelings, but he has not succeeded in numbing them. He is a bit too old for the part as written, but it works for the film, with his haggard look suggesting a life of toil and deprivation.>>>SPOILER<<< In his last role, Sir Richard Burton plays O'Brien, the Inner Party member who takes an interest in Winston. He is soft-spoken, polite, and utterly matter-of-fact as he tortures Winston in the final third of the film. These scenes in the Ministry of Love are so brutally realistic that I have great difficulty watching the last part of the movie. >>>SPOILER<<<The original theatrical release (when I first saw it) incorporated songs by the Eurhythmics written just for the film. If you can locate that version, I highly recommend it. I believe their stuff was removed from more recent DVD/Blu-Ray releases, but I am not sure why or which versions.I read the novel in junior high, and was very taken with it. I am a lifelong science fiction fan. "Nineteen Eighty-Four" is Must-See.

bkoganbing It's 1984 and George Orwell's vision of the future hasn't quite arrived yet. Maybe Orwell should have been slightly more optimistic and named his futuristic pessimistic novel 2084.In any event the world is now in three different conglomerate countries and John Hurt as our protagonist Winston Smith is in the country of Oceania. It's all one continual war as Oceania is forever fighting with one or both the other two and sometimes one of the other two is in alliance. All we know is what the Faux News tells us. One thing is constant, you've got to keep up the martial spirit of the citizenry to hate the designated enemy at the moment.John Hurt has a nice bureaucratic job, but he's starting to question just what is being given out for news and a whole lot more about certain assumptions this totalitarian society is based on. He's even taken to fornicating for the pleasure of it, specifically with Suzanna Hamilton. They've even set up a love nest of sorts.But you can't keep away from the all seeing eye of Big Brother. And soon both of them are being rehabilitated by the State of Oceania.The state here is represented by Richard Burton who was ill at the time and gives an almost somnambulant performance. I suspect health was the reason. John Hurt however is fine as Winston Smith and he's a fine everyman protagonist for a very frightening future.