Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984)

I love this movie so much

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Many years back, I got chatting to a man in a pub. We got chatting about things we liked and disliked. One of the things I told him was that I was a massive fan of Gregor Fisher. It was then that he recommended this film to me. His exact words were: ''It's ideal viewing for Gregor Fisher fans!''. With this, I duly gained a copy and tuned in. Sadly, as the end credits rolled, I came away feeling greatly disappointed.'1984' ( made the same year ironically as it's title ) is based on George Orwell's 1940's novel of the same name. John Hurt was leading man Winston Smith. I won't even bother to describe the plot as I am sure many are already familiar with the book.I really could not follow the film at all. Much of what was in the book clearly did not make it to the screen ( the film would have been too long otherwise ) but it seems much of what was left out was the more vital parts which would have the film semi-logical.Aside from boring me, much of the movie got my blood boiling. For instance, the scene in which a member of the Thought Police punches Julia in the stomach had me seething with anger!John Hurt is extremely robotic as Winston and Suzanna Hamilton failed to do much better as Julia. Richard Burton was in ill health at the time and died shortly after production so his performance seemed somewhat tired. Gregor Fisher did his best with the little he was given ( I know, I'm biased ) but his efforts were in vain. The worst offender in the cast was Cyril Cusack as the two-faced Mr. Charrington.I don't denounce those who like this film. If it is your bag, then more power to you. Personally, it is just not my cup of tea.

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!

I always recommend that every person read 1984, it is one of the darkest and most depressing stories ever written, I was never required to read it in school, I read it on my own. I just bought it one day while I was traveling across country in a Barnes and Noble, and it certainly changed my perspective and changed my life, in a way, because it changed the way I thought. Both "1984" and "A Brave New World" are based off the novel "We", but if "A Brave New World" is through control of genetics, hedonism, and exposing them to constant stimulation, emotional and otherwise, then 1984 is the other side of the coin, a story about control through absolute coercion and lies, crushing the will. Both exist in perverted society, but they often co-mingle and exist together more than apart, most of modern media exemplifies this well, manipulation of both the truth and emotions.I think it it would be very difficult to ever truly do the book 1984 perfect justice because the vast majority of this story revolves around what we think, and in the case of Wintston, what he knows he should not think, but he cannot help thinking, and doesn't want to stop thinking. This is extremely difficult to convey without a lot more voice overs of Winston's internal monologues or more external dialogue than a film adaptation of 1984 should have, ever. It is also very hard to depict the ever shifting "histories" portrayed in the book "He who controls the past controls the present, he who controls the present controls the future." That is best shown in the movie when Winston ask if Julia believes the resistance is real, and she answers by saying "No. None of it is real." and Winston's thoughts about the truth being erased and changed to a lie and then back again. The movie does a decent job of conveying it, but it is certainly not as effective as the book. What this movie does do well is get is the bleak, dark, depressing, and oppressive tone of the book. The visual look nails exactly what the the book conveys, and Winston looks about as pathetic as he is described in the book. John Hurt does a fantastic job because humans in this world, in a way, are not humans at all, but rather shadows of themselves, and you can see the internal conflict, very slightly, on his face, even as he hides it. Winston was fascinated with the Proles, in the book, because he was fascinated with with freedoms, their seeming joy, even though they were uneducated, and unaware, he was jealous of that lack of awareness and freedom that it gave. This is not something that is conveyed extremely well in this film sadly, as it was an integral part of the book, just as much as his relationship with Julia, the Proles almost take on a mythical proportion to him in the book. Despite those caveats, I still feel this version is the best one out there. It really captures the overall feel of the book fairly well. It feels hopeless and oppressive. The difference between the book and the film is, for me, the middle section of the book, and some part early on, up until the final 1/4, there was a lot of hope in Winston's thoughts. I knew nothing about the outcome or content of the book, and this created a very unique experience, while the film did not match it the first or second time, and I felt at times, lingered away from Winston too much, with images of tanks and explosions. The final act of the film, for me, captured very well the feel of the book, and it made me just as angry watching it, as I felt reading the book, even if the ending is altered a big. I would be curious to see how people whom have never read the book would react to this, but this is one case where I would recommend reading the book first, if because the impact of the book would be reduced a little bit by knowing the majority of the events already. The idea that there is "no truth", and changing history to suit a person's or country's agenda, is extremely prevalent today, telling people they need to believe something that isn't actually true, and will hurt those who do not. The movie still conveys these things well, and I do feel it is worth watching.God Bless ~Amy

This movie is OK only if you have already read the book. It goes over the introduction and the basic information quite fast and if you don't know what the book is about it would take some time to get it and even then you wouldn't really fully get it. Beside from the way to fast paced movie, the main actor did a good job. But as I said the movie could have been so much more. Disappointed. The book is very good and it's a shame that there was not a movie to really capture the emotion and the thoughts that are presented in Orwell's work. I am still hoping that one day a good director can actually make this film into a better version.