1984

Rating:
Summary: unbeatable movie version of the book
Review: This movie is probably the best adaptation of a book to screen that I've ever seen in my life. The acting is simply stunning: John Hurt should had get an oscar for this and Richard Burton is great, as usual. It's a shame that this movie it's not available. Actually I think that this film should be part of any educational system based on freedom, just to show everyone what a political system based on the so called "social justice"(a good excuse for any totalitarianism) can do to the individual.

Rating:
Summary: Re-release it now!
Review: Michael Radford, better known for the sweet-tempered (and to me, insufferably heart-tugging) "Il Postino", made his early mark with this fine movie. He and his production designer do an excellent job in bringing the grungy half-life of Orwell's novel to the screen. John Hurt is, as usual, superb, although from his very first appearance he looks so baffled and hurt (appropriate name for this actor) that I'd have tagged him as a thought-criminal straight away. Suzanna Hamilton is extremely good as Julia, not just fitting my idea of what Julia would look like but wonderfully vulnerable and real. (Glad to see that she's gone on to do fine work elsewhere.) Even Cyril Cusack, who I saw on stage in Dublin as one of the most nauseatingly indulged Shylocks ever, is great as the mild-mannered Thought Policeman.

Special word for Richard Burton in his last film role - quiet, gravelly, almost visibly dying, and never less than riveting. Shame he had to wait all his life for such a good role.

The Eurythmics did a fair bit of the music, and I can't think of a better band to have provided music for a totalitarian state. Unfortunately they tried to come on all romantic, and are wisely kept down in the mix. Far better is Dominic Muldowney's largely unnoticed contribution as official composer - his faux-fascist anthems have an unnerving, alluring power, maybe because they're not a million miles away from any typical national anthem.

It was shot in the London Docklands, the same location Kubrick used for the urban bits of "Full Metal Jacket". In those days they were derelict and falling apart. Now they're full of bright, clean offices and light industry. With which another bit of the England Orwell was nostalgic for got bulldozed over.

Rating:
Summary: It Was a Bright, Cold Day in April...
Review: Having just re-watched this for the first time since the '80s I have to say this is a far stronger more rounded film than I remember. I had re-read the book prior to my last viewing and the film, brilliantly realised as it is, seemed like a 2 dimensional glossary in comparison (always the way I suppose).

The story itself is product of it's age far more than any attempt at crystal ball gazing. a dark extrapolation of all the worst fears and trends of 1947 Britain. The film stays amazingly close to this vision given the gulf of history that had passed between then and our (non-Orwellian) 1984.

In 1947 The USSR had just tested their A-bomb. Meanwhile in Britain food was still being rationed with no end to economic deprivation in sight and we still had a conscript army to police the dismantling of empire. The elation of the Wars end had started to subside as the business of the day to day struggle to survive took over. The prospect of our shattered, exhausted economy having to contend with another major war against a Nuclear armed totalitarian state and the possible aftermath are what fuelled George Orwells nightmare. But the bleak satire is not entirely without dark humour. Check the recurrent theme of the first 30 minutes or so, of the gratitude of the populace as the joyous news is announced of an increase in the chocolate ration from 30 grammes to 25 grammes per week.

One of Orwell's central themes in the book, which is well expressed here, is the role of language as a shaper and facilitator of conceptual thought. Restrict the language and you restrict the capacity to think. Or so goes the Party's theory anyway. "Its a beautiful thing, the destruction of words" Muses one of Winstons co-workers.

The performances are subtle, graceful and powerful, as one would expect from such a cast. Particularly worth mentioning are Cyril Cusack as the grandfatherly Thought-Policeman. His screen time is around 6 minutes but the effect is chilling. Also, Gregor Fisher. A gifted comic actor better known to UK TV audiences as Rab.C.Nesbitt an unemployable Glaswegian philosopher/drunkard. Here proving the range of his abilities as the jolly, tragic Parsons. Richard Burton as O'Brian is consumate and masterly. The man had gravitas. A rare thing.

The only real downpoint of the film as a project is the dire musical contribution of the Eurythmics. These are especially embarrassing presented as they are, beside the suberb compositions of Dominic Muldowney for the film. One can only assume that it was supposed at the time that the addition of what was then a big act to the project would help with publicity & ticket sales. But as Prince proved in 'Batman' and Queen proved with 'Flash Gordon', inspiration can't be forced. In this case the Director has had sufficient sense to bury the Eurythmics' contribution deep into the tapestry of the film where it barely does any damage at all.

This is a powerful film and a fitting tribute to the talents of Richard Burton. For that reason alone it does not deserve to be forgotten the way it seems to have been. Re-release and a suitable DVD treatment should now be a studio priority.

Rating:
Summary: This film is superlative in all regards.
Review: If you're a fan of the book, teaching the text, or even just curious, this is a really top-notch adaptation. It follows the book religiously, while still allowing the actors a chance to breathe. It also has first-rate production design that adheres to Orwell's conception -- a 1945 version of what 1984 might look like, with telescreens, pneumatic tubes, etc. A real MUST.

Rating:
Summary: Suprisingly similar to the book
Review: I'm not here to write a review of the movie with big, fancy words. I just want to say that this is a five-star movie IF you've read the book already. Otherwise, there are lots of parts that are not explained and will leave you in the dark. Althgether, it fit the image that I was picturing in my mind while I was reading the book. MUCH better than earlier versions on the movie.

Rating:
Summary: A humourless movie
Review: This is an incredible adaption of Orwells novel.I saw the movie first,then read the book,which helped fill in some loose ends.I have become obsessed with all aspects of this film.Being only 15 years of age,you would think I would find this movie boring but I found it to be a most refreshing rendition of our future world.

Rating:
Summary: A faithful adaptation
Review: This film was really made as a tribute to George Orwell's novel, not to entertain movie goers. That's why it was filmed in the same year and months that the book was set. I think this film is really for people who have read the novel. It tries to be faithful to George Orwell's description: dark, dingy and grim. It succeeds in that respect, and follows the story as closely as possible. Orwell used colour a lot when writing the novel.

John Hurt is the third actor to play Winston Smith (after Peter Cushing and Edmund O'Brien). He was suitably forlorn in the part. Richard Burton and Suzanna Hamilton were equally fine in their roles.

Michael Radford's film is superor to the 1956 version, which is unavailable. The 1956 version felt no guilt in distorting Orwell's story. There were minor things like Julia being blonde, and major things like the ending: Winston and Julia shouting "Down with Big Brother!" as they face execution by the firing squad.

Michael Radford's version of the novel is definitive, though flawed. As someone already said, it's hard to translate words to the screen and satisfy everyone. Many great works of literature have been unsuccessful as films. But they were made with the best of intentions. I feel "1984" is reasonably successful.

Rating:
Summary: Depressingly depressing and none-too-faithful to Orwell
Review: '1984', being an English film, has clearly had trouble in translating to unsympathetic American viewers. Radford's adaptation of Orwell was so deliberately faithful that the end product should have been George Orwell on screen. Not so. Naturally, to undertake such an opus is itself Herculean so Radford deserves Kudos in that respect. There are plenty of treasures here: Burton's performance as symbiotically represented with Hurt's and the sheer attention to the most minute, nitty-gritty grotty detail being the principal ones. The overall 'feel' of the film is as Orwell would have intended: a wake up call to take a more direct approach in case anybody missed the point in 'Animal Farm.' And Orwell's point here hits home thanks to Radford. The main trouble with the film is that it is too depressing to stomach in some areas. It's sad to have to deduct a star for that fact but it's true - '1984' is really not good entertainment at all. Apart from a poignant soundtrack and the camera's worship of the colour grey, there is really nothing left in this picture to enjoy when watching at home. Very hard going in areas and the aesthetics of the set structure are very quickly counteracted by the lurid hues of shifting monochromes and immersion in small spaces. Basically what the viewer is left with is a definite understanding of Orwell's anti-Communist standpoint as being presented to match HIS idiosyncrasies, but there's really nothing to enjoy or to come away from afterward. Still, a good job done on a compelling work of literature (you might even be able to get away with watching it without having read the book), only it's too intellectual to be anything more than a Brecht mind-play - a self-absorbing representation of a dated phobia. I bought it but I'd recommend only a rental for the plebs at large.

Rating:
Summary: Brooding Masterpiece
Review: Whether or not you've read the novel, the film's impact is the same - a brooding, dark, meditative film that relentlessly draws our blood. The lead performances from Burton and Hurt are wonderful, as is the set design and logos for Big Brother. If you like your films packed with action and exposition, I wouldn't recommend it but if you are in the mood for a tough, penetrating film, watch 1984.

Rating:
Summary: If you can read don't watch this film!
Review: Please don't waste the time or money on this junk. The novel is such a masterpiece I nearly cried watching such a poor representation of it.