Simply A Masterpiece

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Lacking both the gritty realism and visceral violence of the 1984 version of NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR, this version is the least interesting of the three that I've seen: the costumes and sets are too neat and clean, and everyone appears well-fed and, for the most part, satisfied; there's none of the EMOTIONAL impact of the 1984 version; in short, a typical '50s television view of Life. Donald Pleasance, who had a bit part as Syme in the BBC version, here plays Parsons- a much meatier part, although so much of it's missing that he doesn't have a whole lot to work with. From the book: Parsons was "one of those completely unquestioning, devoted drudges upon whom, more even than on the Thought Police, the stability of the Party depended." "All that was required of them was a primitive patriotism," Orwell wrote. The recent corporate coup by Donald McDonald and the Billionaire Boys Club underscores this. ("It was not the man's brain that was speaking; it was his larynx.") "It was nicknamed Muck House by the people who worked in it." "... stands had to be erected, effigies built, slogans coined, songs written, rumors circulated, photographs faked." Information is trickling out, though. "It was enough to blow the Party to atoms, if in some way it could have been published to the world and its significance made known." "It was important to write something down." ("The rocket bombs which fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, just to keep the people frightened.") And frightened they are, here in these "united" $tate$, because the Free Poor are puppets of the Fossil Fool Industry. In time, THEY'LL end up immolated in The Memory Hole... "People are being killed all the time..." and "the dangers inherent in the machine are still there." ("This is business.") ("All that is needed is that a state of war should exist.") ("... an endless catalogue of atrocities, massacres, deportations, lootings, rapings, torture of prisoners, bombing of civilians, lying propaganda, unjust aggressions, broken treaties..." In North Dakota, the Genocide of the Native Peoples continues apace...) "In a way, the world-view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it." "The capitalists owned everything in the world, and everyone else was their slave. They owned all the land, all the houses, all the factories, and all the money." "It is necessary for us to know everything." "... if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance... in practice, the only way of achieving this was by continuous warfare." "Science, in the old sense, has almost ceased to exist." "With the development of television... private life came to an end." "There were bribery, favoritism, and racketeering of every kind..." "Power is not a means; it is an end." "We are the priests of power." Sound even vaguely familiar...? ("It was too great a coincidence.") O'Brien is miscast as Smith, but, otherwise it's not a bad adaptation- for what looks like '50s American television, although "it was a peculiarly beautiful book." And, finally: "The book is indestructible."

......is even better. One might be tempted to call this a remake, and I suppose it is, but it was the first theatrical rendition, enabling audiences to watch Big Brother (watching them) on a bigger screen than was possible via the BBC/Peter Cushing version (1954) of two years earlier. I agree with previous commentator "bux's" observance that, while Edmond O'Brien and Jan Sterling may not have been Orwell's first casting choices for Winston and Julia for the reason stated, the sterling performances generated by the leads and their supporting cast more than compensate. As a huge fan of the late, great Hammer Films luminary Michael Ripper, I was especially pleased to see him helping to take up the rear as an Outer Party Orator, exemplifying the tender loving care with which producer N. Peter Rathvon saw fit to cast even the smaller roles.

I finally was able to see this film, having seen the 1984 version with John Hurt when I was in college. I recall the 1984 version having some good production values, but I remember being disappointed also. This version was well-cast, and the art direction was also competent. Edmund O'Brien turned in a great performance as Winston Smith. I think that he brought a great quality of desperation to the role; which seemed to run contrary to John Hurt's performance. I'm sure there was a lot left out of the book. But I get tired of hearing people moan and groan about the argument of literature vs. cinema. Come on people, film is time-based, and can't digress like novels can. The screenwriter/director mainly extracts plot points, and can't be bothered with too much exposition (unless of course they have a whopping budget!). I've read many criticisms where more skeptical viewers complain that we don't get to know Big Brother's motives, strategy, etc... What?!! It's Big Brother - an enigmatic and probably non-existent despot....you're not supposed to know his whole story! The love affair, although brief, is very empathetic. In lieu of all the paranoia, Big Brother-cheerleading, etc. - the love between Winston and Julia is a good emotional oasis. Even though I watched a poor copy of this version, it really did make an impression. One of the few criticisms I have is Room 101. I thought the rat shot/scene was truncated, and could've been dramatized more. That's where the John Hurt version trumps this one.

I saw the movie once back in 1968 or so and thought it was great. Don't know how I'd view it now but I have never had any desire to see the remake. The fact that the movie is in black and white still leaves a very visual impression of the stark, bare lives people like Winston Smith led. No color in their lives and certainly no color in their thoughts was the order of their day. I think the film captured that along with the idea that their technology available was also unenlightening. It served only one purpose and that was to control. I don't think I would be as impressed if the movie were made today. Our technology is too sophisticated. In the original version, less is more.