1984 (1956)

Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Great Film overall

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

I read the book many years ago. I remember the main plot but forgot the ending. The only other thing I recall is that they raised the price of chocolate from 25 to 30 and Winston had to rewrite the history and state they're reducing the price from 50 to 30.I watched the 1984 version a few days ago, and now this the 1956 version yesterday. This version is better for a few reasons. Simple film making, like better actors, screenplay, sets, cinematography, music. You know, stuff that makes it interesting to sit through a movie. As mentioned previously, I have not read the book recently and will soon. And I cannot expect the movies to be like the book. They're a different medium. What I got from this version is it clearly explained the world we were entering into and the characters acted paranoid. With the 1984 version we are thrown right into the 2 minute hate. We have no idea what is going on.Edmond O'Brien was a much better actor than John Hurt. Hurt was fine in toward the end with the torture scene. But everything else that was a mostly boring film. Richard Burton was really the only shining star in the 1984 version and he was completely underused. All the acting in this version are great. It did slow down toward the end and the ending sucked.Rating is a B-, or 6 stars. Worth checking out.

9/11/01 is the date we lost a lot of freedom, perhaps irrevocably. Whether we move into the society that George Orwell describes in 1984 or retain a significant measure of individuality is up to us. But we will sacrifice a lot for security.Which in Orwell's world written in the late Forties the target date was 1984. Like On The Beach Orwell got the date wrong, but doesn't mean it still can't happen. Atomic war came in 1965 and the world divided into three great super republics, people's republics if you will. Our American leads in a mostly British supporting cast, Edmond O'Brien and Jan Sterling, are from different factions. O'Brien is a member of the Inner Party with a drone like job who is starting to question assumptions on wish his society is built. Among them marriage is tightly controlled with love not a factor. But he does fall for Jan Sterling of the Outer Party. In a country with constant monitoring, privacy is what they want. But there is no right to privacy and surveillance goes way beyond what we have post 9/11. Sterling and O'Brien pay big time for wanting some alone time.Besides Sterling and O'Brien other performances to point out are Michael Redgrave as O'Brien's superior at work, Donald Pleasance as another drone worker who is also a graduate of the state's re-education facility and David Kossoff as the kindly old antique dealer who turns out to be something else.The society most resembling the Orwellian 1984 is that of North Korea with their hermetically sealed country with a cult of secular worship of the ruling family. If the people there shake loose from the tyranny of the People's Republic it might be a great indication of hope for people who will insist on their individualism. Are we sliding in that direction? Time will tell.1984 has had a few different versions made for big and small screen. This one can stand with any of them.

Hopefully everyone knows the story of author George Orwell's novel and then the subsequent movie, Nineteen Eighty-Four. Even the cult classic movie Brazil in 1985 has an Orwell type features and themes through the entire fabric of the film. In fact the working title for for the highly futuristic Brazil was 1984 and a half.In the future, the people of Oceania are in a endless, living in a state of poverty, fear, and oppression. Even personal will and thought are monitored for the common good. Meals are rationed and virtually every move is monitored through video cameras and police agents. Winston has memories of when life was better and he expounds about it in a private journal that he keep hidden. Winston begins making eye contact with a younger woman named Julia; it's not long afterward that they are part of the rebellion against the state.George Orwell published his book in 1949. The novel found fame because of its portrayal of everyone watching everyone else and loss of personal rights in the face of a oppressive government. He chose the year 1984 as the target date for Big Brother as he called it.There was a BBC version of the movie followed by the 1956 Edward O'Brien film. Together the movies were able to cause only a minor stir and that was for sending people back to the book to read the full story. This version was directed by Michael Anderson who did such films as Around the World in 80 Days and Logan's Run in 1976. This movie is just not well done, it lacks timing and any degree of suspense. If you can find the BBC version try that one first. Even though there is some combining of characters, Donald Pleasance is in it and does a pretty good job.

......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.