A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.
... View More
The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.
... View More
George Orwell's novel '1984' was inspired by the totalitarian state of Soviet Russia, and likely the world imagined of had the Nazis won WW2. It's a grim vision, describing the day to day life of Winston Smith, an inhabitant of a grimy government-controlled and monitored world. Orwell's worst fears of dystopia. It's an enjoyable book, but surely remembered so fondly as a classic because of the message it upholds. Or more precisely: the worst case scenario it presents. Which, as many have said, isn't entirely different from the world we live in. It's a book of ideas and exaggerations. This film adaptation is great. It makes the case that all film adaptations should work together with their novel counterpart. That the question of which is better is unneeded, and is asked so often because of the laziness of film adaptations that attempt to match the source material word-for-word. Instead a film and novel, no matter which came first, should fit together like a jigsaw piece, creating a circle around the original story. This isn't a film of grand ideas; the dystopian world is the back drop here. It's a visceral movie, that acts out Orwell's grim fantasies. It's a movie about torture and about the ability of a government to control and destroy the human body, and thus the human mind. It shows the body-stretching, flesh rotting horror of such a future. Of such a regime. It's worth a watch whether you've read the book or not, because both stress different parts of the same vision.
... View More
I never read a book and never watched the old version. This movie isn't only about war and power, its about the human's original thought and psychological. It really touch the corner my heart for its beautiful storytelling. The movie is successful to show such complexity of human thought and psychological strength. The beginning of the movie is not much appealing and not much entertaining but it's engaging. And the climax scene has everything.2+2=? the question not much as simple as it used to be. it's feel so unusual but it's very natural for me. We experienced these things in our life and now we used to it. 2+2=4 if it's approved math.I love it.
... View More
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.
... View More
The movie doesn't do justice to the book, is the usual refrain everybody hears. But I disagree, the success of a movie are the emotions you feel while watching it. I felt sad at the grayish feel, annoyed at the repeated announcement and pain at the torture of Winston. You don't get the usual Orwellian commentary over the issues, but I think watching a movie requires more mental effort than reading a book, only when it comes to the "thinking" movies like this one.That is quite a controversial statement, but my reason is simple. A book has the liberty to explain what the character is thinking, with 500-600 words. A movie instead has just 5 seconds to communicate that exact process. It takes more effort on the part of the audience to make sense of it. Of course you don't get the leisurely experience of enjoying a book, and have the author use literary techniques to build mental images over pages and pages. But somehow in good movies even despite the images you have a tougher task of getting inside the character's head. I like that.