1984 (1956)

Best movie of this year hands down!

Powerful

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

*Also contains minor spoilers from the 84 version of 1984.*"THIS IS A STORY OF THE FUTURE- NOT THE FUTURE OF SPACE SHIPS AND MEN FROM OTHER PLANETS- BUT THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE."A sentence that stays on your screen for over 10 seconds as the film opens, just to ensure you get the idea that this is the future that could be near, in case you've missed the film's title 1984.How could someone who's actually read the book think this is in anyway truthful to the it..? Visually, the Ministry of Truth looks like something off Star Trek, the canteen was ridiculous, seriously? Food tray coming out of a hole? "the girl with black hair" apparently was blonde, Winston is 40 pounds too heavy, and their strange overalls are so seldom shot in full length, I was under the impression that Winston was wearing a sports jacket most of the time. The psychological aspect of the book was never shown through this film, Winston's fear of rats were explained so briefly that it was hideous, "Rat! A rat! it's the one thing I really hate" screams Winston after throwing the coral dome at the rat in the film. It's a phobia, you don't get up and throw things at it like anyone else would, in the book he went into shock, simply from the knowledge of one being near, started sweating and shivering. The sense of oppression and the idea that anyone could be watching was portrayed by a annoying short girl playing a member of the Junior Spies buzzing around Winston the whole time, a character that did not exist in the book. It's details like that which shows whoever made the film thought its audiences are too dumb to understand anything unless it's screamed at their faces. I felt patronised throughout the film, and worst of all, the line at the end by the narrator "This is the story of the future, it could be the story of our children if we fail to preserve their heritage of freedom", I assume everyone who's written the reviews of this film wrote it when internet had been invented? Or when IMDb has been established? Maybe this film was relevant in the 50s, but viewing it now? It's a blatant piece of propaganda that grants very little credit as an adaptation to a great book. It's taken everything that's intellectual from the book, filtered it so that the only message left is "this is what's going to happen if the Russians win", they should really have played God Save the Queen through the credits.Like someone else has pointed out, this is your overly patriotic grandpa's version of 1984, not Orwell's.

Hopefully everyone knows the story of author George Orwell's novel and then the subsequent movie, Nineteen Eighty-Four. Even the cult classic movie Brazil in 1985 has an Orwell type features and themes through the entire fabric of the film. In fact the working title for for the highly futuristic Brazil was 1984 and a half.In the future, the people of Oceania are in a endless, living in a state of poverty, fear, and oppression. Even personal will and thought are monitored for the common good. Meals are rationed and virtually every move is monitored through video cameras and police agents. Winston has memories of when life was better and he expounds about it in a private journal that he keep hidden. Winston begins making eye contact with a younger woman named Julia; it's not long afterward that they are part of the rebellion against the state.George Orwell published his book in 1949. The novel found fame because of its portrayal of everyone watching everyone else and loss of personal rights in the face of a oppressive government. He chose the year 1984 as the target date for Big Brother as he called it.There was a BBC version of the movie followed by the 1956 Edward O'Brien film. Together the movies were able to cause only a minor stir and that was for sending people back to the book to read the full story. This version was directed by Michael Anderson who did such films as Around the World in 80 Days and Logan's Run in 1976. This movie is just not well done, it lacks timing and any degree of suspense. If you can find the BBC version try that one first. Even though there is some combining of characters, Donald Pleasance is in it and does a pretty good job.

First things first, i am amazed at how bad the casting was on this film! Ed O'Brien is not the slimmest and just isn't Winston Smith. Donald Pleasance was terrific as Symes in the 1954 BBC version, here he plays Parsons and he doesn't suit the role at all. Strangely the Inner Party member O'Brien has been renamed O'Connor in this production. More worryingly the Prole Sector is referred to as the People's Area or some such nonsense - why why why? And all the references to "The Bells Of St Clements" at Charrington's antique shop have been removed. The screenplay is not close enough to the book, the film lacks suspense and certainly it is inferior to the marvellous 1954 BBC production which was presumably done on a much lower budget. If you want to see how 1984 can be done see that (if you can) or the more common 1980s film with John Hurt and Richard Burton, this film is a dud!

Dingy, atmospheric version of George Orwells tale concerning two citizens of the New World Order involved in illicit, illegal love. Nothing is pretty in this story, and perhaps O'Brian and Sterling are a bit long in the tooth for the characters the author had in mind, however the superb dramatizations overcome any casting mishaps. The story of life in a totalitarian society rings chillingly familiar today. And, in the conclusion, to quote the poet laureate of our times, Todd Rundgren "Winston Smith Takes it on the Jaw Again!"