Rating: 
Summary: Kudos to No Soundtrack Alternative comment
Review: I agree with the review of this DVD concerning the lack of the Eurythmics soundtrack. Absolute blasphemy! Radford has not only made a huge miscalculation in judgment -- he's showing his true colors. His hatred of the Eurythmics soundtrack was only the beginning. He has completely taken Dave Stewart and Annie Lennox out of the film! He has somehow digitally removed them!
Rating: 
Summary: A visually stunning, faithful adaptation of the book.
Review: This movie, a favorite of mine, is one of the best film adaptations of a novel I've ever seen. While a film of roughly two hours can only hope to scratch the surface of a novel as complex as "1984", this movie provides a good distillation of the book. It's all here, from the book's oppressive atmosphere of hopelessness and paranoia, to its timeless theme of the individual against the system. 1984 is a visually stunning movie you won't want to miss, particularly if you liked the book. (WARNING: Several people I know who hadn't read the book prior to seeing the movie found it confusing and boring, so if you haven't read the book yet, you may want to put off watching the movie until you've done so.)The acting is first rate. John Hurt does an excellent job as the protagonist, Winston Smith (?), who wages a futile yet heroic battle against Big Brother. And Richard Burton is masterful as the cold, sadistic party leader who interrogates and eventually breaks Winston. (Incidentally, this was Richard Burton's last film role, and the movie is dedicated to his memory.) The music, composed in part by the Eurythmics (get the soundtrack; it's some of their best work), is haunting, and stays with you long after viewing the movie (Juuulllliiiiiaaaaa.....). One interesting note: the movie was filmed in the year 1984, in and around London, the exact time period and setting of the novel. Don't miss this movie. It's a modern classic!
Rating: 
Summary: *sigh* Get the VHS!
Review: I've seen the VHS version a dozen times, and waited a LONG time to get my hands on the DVD. Well, I finally saw it two days ago. I regret to say, I'm glad I only rented it. In short, the DVD version of this film is completely, utterly LIFELESS. Not boring, but passionless and without the vitality of the original. I suspect it is a combination of the inappropriately bright, clear colors (not suggestively muted and washed-out as in the VHS) and the new, quietly ponderous "serious" soundtrack which is just plain...well...weak. Overall, this version is about as impressive as a good made for TV movie, if that can be called a compliment. Please do not judge Radford's 1984 by the DVD, even if he is reported to prefer this version (something I will NEVER understand). The life has been literally SUCKED from this film. If you can find a copy of the VHS, watch it instead. It is literally a different movie - try it and see. The only good thing about the DVD is the addition of subtitles which do clarify many scenes. That I liked.
Rating:
Summary: meaningless without the novel
Review: A film by Michael Radford Clever. Very clever. This movie was filmed in 1984 during the months that were specified in George Orwell's novel. It was also released in 1984. This fit perfectly with the title and gave a nice contrast between Orwell's vision of the future and what the world was like at that very time. The question, however, is: Is "1984" any good as a movie? Well, yes and no, and it has everything to do with what was included in the movie. The year is 1984 and the setting is London. At least, the city used to be London. Now it is just a city in Oceania. Oceania is a communist style society where propaganda rules the day and history is re-written daily to reflect the views of "The Party". One day Oceania may be at war with Eurasia, and the next Oceania is at war with East Asia and has always been at war with East Asia. History is changed and officially, the past never happened if "The Party" says that it didn't happen. Winston Smith (John Hurt) is a worker. It is his job to change history's headlines. Through Winston's eyes we see "The Party" outlaw personal relationships, emotional attachment, and even thought that does not mirror the party line. The latter is called "thought crime". Winston is a thought criminal. He secretly writes in a journal about the revisionist policies and he visits a store that sells (on the sly) items that are older than Oceania (one piece is said to be 100 years old). Winston is secretly seditious and he meets Julia (Suzanna Hamilton), who, like Winston, is defying Oceania as she can. Her method is sex. Sex for pleasure is highly illegal and this is the foundation of their relationship. We know that a movie set in a world with this sort of a society, they have to be caught because we have to no what the repercussions of their actions will be. The main difference between this film and the novel is simply that in the film we are seeing what Orwell described, and in the book all we have is the words of George Orwell. The reason this is a difference is that in the movie we know what a thing looks like, but not what it is. One example of this is the "two minute hate". Orwell describes several scenes in which the workers are given a forum where they must vent and scream and express their hatred for the enemies of Oceania. It is a form of social control. We get a sense of what is going on, and why. In the movie, we see what happens and how it affects the workers, but the detail which makes the scene meaningful is missing. This is fairly typical of the film and is the biggest flaw. If I hadn't read the novel, the film would be confusing and meaningless. It is only because I have read the source material that I know what these scenes are and why they are important. We do get a good sense of the type of society that Orwell envisioned as a potential future, and the visualization of the characters and the world is excellent. It is just lacking the meaning that is available in Orwell's text. Film is a different medium than a novel and a movie should not be dependant on the novel to make it comprehensible and meaningful. Unfortunately, "1984" fails in this regard. It is faithful to the source material, but the film can't succeed without the novel. -Joe Sherry
Rating:
Summary: The Dead Who Have Yet To Be Born
Review: Or even better still, also read the book by George Orwell, an inspiring piece of worldly paranoia, that is truth, quoted well into the twenty first century as the future, and it is, not because mankind doesn't think it will ever go this way, but because we know full well we are, but somehow are allowing it to happen everyday. It is decentralization of power from the human being, in all aspects of one's life, to a higher power, a bigger cause, communism called the great Lucifer because all was given to the collective body and not to God, now God is the great Lucifer because we give ourselves to the collective body of something that we can not prove, so Science is the great Lucifer, producing weapons to kill the world a million times over, toxins to poison us a million times over, are all forms of giving to a collective body the nature of death? Is it the giving to a collective body that robs the soul of its power? Is it giving oneself wholly and utterly to something other than one's own self the conduit of decent into the investment of despair. 1984 sees men and women working their themselves to skin and bone to achieve a greater good that never emerges, the ultimate failings masked by a strict authoritative regime, BIG BROTHER, the power all seeing and ever controlling, rewriting history, editing the world around them, at war with this nation one minute and switching to another the next, neighbours up and vanish and protagonists invest in each other for but a fleeting glimpse of love only to be captured by the THOUGHT POLICE for engaging in illegal activity, men at the top of this society using torture and mind control to enforce a pathology of unquestionable and undeniable supremacy of all the power to the BIG BROTHER system, and that this is the system and that is why they are alive at all, at which point we question if it is worth living at all to which Orwell delivers a resounding, no, of course it is not worth living this life, why bother at all, and that this is a piece of work that must be understood by everyone and anyone who can read and is certainly mandatory reading for anyone in least bit interested in politics or political science.
Unfortunately however we tend to vote in military commanders, lawyers and extreme capitalists into government and then ask why it is all going down hill.
The problem is there is no terminology in the English language to describe the act of one human being killing their unborn future children by process of setting up a bad management system with a legal body incorporated into that system before they die. This prison kills, yet it is justified. 1984 is maybe that word, filicide being the closest English equivalent.
Rating:
Summary: Incisive and haunting nightmare!
Review: In a future not so far there will be the Big Brother, the private eye of each one of us , controlling every little movement.
The liberties will be restricted. The free will be just an illusion. A totalitarian vision will build the basis for a new world. The triumph of the silent majority will impose and the thinking minorities will be sent to prison. The wise words of Henrik Ibsen will be an obsesive statement in your mind: the majority never owns the reason.
In middle of this horror atmosphere , there will be an outlaw who will defy the Status Quo.
Richard Burton I his last appearance shares honors with John Hurt in a tour de force dark and gloomy film.
Dazzling direction of Michael Radford!
Rating:
Summary: An Underrated Masterpiece
Review: I saw this film when it first came out in 1984 and was very impressed with it. It is probably the best film adaptation of a novel, ever. It captures all of the gloom, claustrophobia, and paranoia of Orwell's world perfectly. Each scene seems to jump right off the pages of the book. The casting was particularly good: John Hurt, Richard Burton, and Suzanna Hamilton each fit their roles like a glove. In fact, I recall reading the book for the first time in the early 1970's and imagining Richard Burton in the role of O'Brien: the role that he later played.
Having said this, I purchased the DVD version with some trepidation, as many of the Amazon.com reviews I had read complained about the substitution of a classical score for the original Eurythmics score, at the request of the director, Michael Radford. Having now seen both versions, I can say that I liked the Eurythmics score a little better. It created an edgy, surreal atmosphere which fit the story well, as everything in this world which Orwell created is a lie. However, the difference is minor: both scores are rather muted and subdued. Don't let the score substitution stop you from buying the DVD. I have always believed that this film has been underrated by critics and filmgoers alike. The principal criticism is that the film (especially the second half) is very bleak and depressing. As Orwell's story is about the dehumanization of individuals living under a Totalitarian Communist regime, I don't see how it could be anything but bleak! I applaud Michael Radford for staying true to Orwell's vision, and creating this great film. Imagine if 1984 were remade by Hollywood, today. Winston Smith would be played by Brad Pitt or perhaps Denzel Washington. Julia would be played by (who else?) Julia Roberts (No nudity: this would violate the actors contracts, earn an NC-17 rating, and offend the largely American audience). While in the Ministry of Love, Winston and Julia would wrestle automatic weapons away from their guards, and, after mowing down legions of stormtrooper-types would blow up the Ministry of Love and escape! Well...you get my point.
Rating: 
Summary: 1984 as an anti-American work
Review: I have read the novel more than four times and was eager to watch the movie. I guess that the movie was faithful to the original work of Orwell. there is no doubt that Orwell wrote the book to attack the totalitarian governments. During his lifetime Orwell saw such governments in USSR and aimed at criticizing the ploicies of totalitarian states. 1984 was a book to be pointed at if you liked to tell people to read something that highlights the individual as a helpless creature facing the tyranny of the state. But after USSR dissolved and USA became the only power in the world one can't help thinking about Lord Acton's words "power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absoluetly." The systematic process of brainwashing that is depicted in Orwell's 1984 is paralleled by the USA today:information distorted; American ideology justified (wars in the name of Christ and human rights); media is herded and is herding the masses..etc. The irony is that Orwell's 1984 was once used by capitalists and Americans to attack USSR and communism. Now, unfortunately, 1984 is a work that backfired the so called American civilized values.
Rating: 
Summary: How freakin' DARE they??
Review: I've just read the reviews detailing how the woefully misguided director ruined an awesome adaptation of Orwell's classic novel by removing the Eurythmics soundtrack as well as making totally inappropriate stylistic changes to the look of the film. (A brightly lit 1984? How many ways can one say "bad idea"??) I refuse to buy this DVD and insist that the production company release a DVD that remains true to the VHS version.
Rating:
Summary: I'm a purist and Orwell lover and I still loved this
Review: Look, few movie adaptations ever touch the book (Jaws, The Shawshank Redemption are exceptions) but that is no reason to go into a book-adaptation looking for the flaws and differences inherent in turning a brilliant piece of literature into a film. Take this movie for what it is, an exceptional adaptation and piece of filmmaking.
The only complaint that I have agaisnt the film is that it might be a little confusing to a viewer who hasn't read the book. However, I truly mean that that's my only complaint about the film. John Hurt is spectacular as Winston Smith, perfectly displaying Winston's inner turmoil and gaunt appearance. Eqaully spectacular is Richard Burton, in his final film role, as the enigmatic O'Brien. Suzanna Hamilton is decent as Julia, not unrealistically beautiful and with a flippant sense of rebellion that is her charm. The sets of a bombed out London are extremely convincing: never does the viewer question this decrepit and depressing dystopia.
Although some of the things added to the film were surprising (the physical crossing of the arms to make a "V"), some actually improved on the novel, an example being the set-up of Winston's deep fear for rats. The physical likeness of Big Brother, an amalgam of historical tyrants, is well done, and the soundtrack (done by Eurythmics of all people) perfectly suits the film. If you loved the book, you owe it to yourself to see this. 9/10
|
