bkoganbing 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.

IPreferEvidence The only film version of 1984 I've seen so far and for some reason I have a feeling that the never versions are gonna suck. Having read the book I can say that the film is very accurate and true to the novel. The acting is solid and the characters are enjoyable and again true to the book.Obviously the plot is the key factor here and very clever but if you have read the book you wont be surprised except for the fact that they changed the ending to be a happier one. I guess not to upset the audience since the ending the book gives is so dystopian and hopeless(and excellent). The small change to the plot doesn't affect the movie that much and you really have to give the makers credit for being so accurate to most of the book. Many of the of the most memorable parts of the book can also be found in the movie such as "5 minute hate" and the jail scene with the other prisoners(if you've read the book you know what I mean). Even though slightly merrier then the novel its really not happy at all. Its very grim and the clinical look of the sets just creates a very convincing dystopian big brother future with no escape and no one to ask for help.Recommended for anyone into scifi or fans of Orwell.

Greg Treadway (treadwaywrites) 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.

Tarasicodissa The first half of the book contains practically no dialogue. Just chats with the Parsons and with Symes. But aside from that Winston Smith's total isolation.Rendering this cinematically required more subtlety and intelligence than was shown in this Cold War propaganda piece. In the '80s version a voice-over rendered Winston's thoughts. In this version he prattles them nonstop.SPOILER...Well, we've all read the book so hardly a spoiler. Do you remember the part in the book where Winston finds himself holding in his hand an old clipping that proves that three recently purged and executed party members were actually in London when they were charged to have been meeting with Eurasian agents in New Jersey ? Now, in a totalitarian state of the murderous Hitler/Stalin/Mao variety, where a careless remark can get you shot or sent to a concentration camp, you learn to very, very carefully watch what you say. Spontaniety must be completely eradicated from your character. Well in this movie Smith enthusiastically goes running up to his superior waving the picture, babbling like an imbecile, "Look ! Look ! See what I've found. Proof that those three traitors were innocent !" No one who lived in a society as terrifying as Oceania would ever be that stupidly naive.This movie was so unimaginative that it insisted on making Winston Smith a conventional movie hero but the constant furtiveness necessary to survive in a society as crushing as 1984 Oceania is not heroic so it made him a fool.And by the way, do all the people rating this comment negatively understand that it is about the 1956 movie that virtually no one has seen in 30 years, not the John Hurt movie in the '80s ?