For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

This brilliant adaptation of George Orwell's immoral classic of the same name nearly matches its source material in terms of quality (which is quite the achievement, considering the fact that "1984" is by far one of the greatest novels I have ever read). The chilling direction and pitch perfect performances help make this disturbing vision all the more of a truthful gut punch. The fact that such a hard hitting and seemingly over the top story remains entirely relevant in today's chaotic political climate is both a disgrace and a testament to Orwell's genius, and the cinematic capturing of Orwell's classic is one of practically unbeatable quality. While little to nothing is added to the plot, the visual accompaniment of the story enhances its impact. The cinematography is fittingly dull, soaked entirely of the joys o color. The performances are simply perfect, making this one of the few novel adaptations I have seen in which I felt that the actors absolutely nailed their performing of the original work's dialogue. At the center of this terrifying satire is the performance of Richard Burton who is both subtle and mind blowingly horrifying in his indescribably villainous role, while John Hurt provides a sometimes timid, sometimes paranoid, and other times absolutely petrified protagonist that attempts to escape from the norms of the totalitarian society he is forced to live in.While not necessarily a "horror" movie, there is no doubt that "1984" is among the most genuinely SCARY films that I have ever seen. Both the book and film have succeeded in making me shake like drug addicted pepper and salt shakers. The dystopia depicted here accurately displays the horror of an overly controlling and oppressive government system forcing its propaganda upon those below, and outwardly embracing anti-free speech and pro-war beliefs. I must restate how sadly relevant this work remains.

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.

The movie comes across as robotic, passionless and bleak. And that is not a criticism. It's exactly the way it should be. This is George Orwell's "1984" after all - his frightening portrayal of a future fascist state and its desire to turn its citizens into mindless and passionless robots existing in a bleak society. It's a movie adaptation of a book, of course (a book I read many years ago) and so there can be quibbles about how well or how poorly Michael Radford (who directed this and wrote the screenplay) captured the novel - but I thought that certainly in terms of the mood he created he did a marvellous job. Even the repeated exchanges of "I love you" between Winston and Julia were robotic and passionless - a robotic rebellion against a robotic society. Basically I thought this was very well done. John Hurd did a good job as Winston, and Richard Burton as O'Brien, who comes to represent the fascist state for us as he tortures Winston in an attempt to "rehabilitate" him was quite good in this - also cold and passionless throughout. Suzanna Hamilton's Julia was almost eerily robotic, in spite of the fact that she was really the lead protagonist, leading Winston into rebellion against the control of Big Brother.The portrayal of the state was interesting as far as it went. Winston's job was the constant re-writing of history so that the past would always support the party line of the present (summed up by the motto "whoever controls the past controls the future, and whoever controls the present controls the past.") In addition to that there was the relentless propaganda, constant surveillance, and continual war as a means of controlling the population and giving them an enemy to vent against (probably by doing so preventing them from releasing their frustration against their own country.) The internal "enemy" revolved around the figure of Emmanuel Goldstein. Did he really exist? I'm not sure. Or was he just a mythical figure invented by the state, so that anyone who didn't buy into the society could simply be denounced as a follower of Goldstein and Goldstein's ideas; a part of an organized conspiracy against the security represented by the state. Even the concept of "Big Brother" is intriguing - and the question was raised in the movie. Was there really a Big Brother, or was there just "the party" who invented this leader image of "Big Brother" (complete with the ubiquitous portrait that looked down on everyone?) I'd guess the latter.What I found most unsettling about this was actually how relevant it remains today. Propaganda, the manipulation of news, image politics and the idolization of "leader" figures, unending war, the rewriting of history to suit the present, the willingness of some politicians at least to outright lie (and to be believed by many even as they lie shamelessly) - all of this is a part of the reality of many (perhaps most) Western "democratic" countries today. Orwell was writing fiction - but was he also a prophet of sorts?It would help to have read the novel before watching the movie, because by their very nature novels can give more details and background, but in terms of the overall mood and bleakness of the society: the movie captures this brilliantly. (8/10)

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.