Opiniones de usuarios

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.

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.

The destruction of love is what we see here effectivly in all aspects of society. the destruction of the family , an enemy that is artificial , control of the history . It is scary and maybe far more nearby to us now than ever before because some aspects are now pretty actual in this so called crisis , like fear for eachother and isolation from another .

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.

First things first, i am amazed at how bad the casting was on this film! Ed O'Brien is not the slimmest and just isn't Winston Smith. Donald Pleasance was terrific as Symes in the 1954 BBC version, here he plays Parsons and he doesn't suit the role at all. Strangely the Inner Party member O'Brien has been renamed O'Connor in this production. More worryingly the Prole Sector is referred to as the People's Area or some such nonsense - why why why? And all the references to "The Bells Of St Clements" at Charrington's antique shop have been removed. The screenplay is not close enough to the book, the film lacks suspense and certainly it is inferior to the marvellous 1954 BBC production which was presumably done on a much lower budget. If you want to see how 1984 can be done see that (if you can) or the more common 1980s film with John Hurt and Richard Burton, this film is a dud!

Dingy, atmospheric version of George Orwells tale concerning two citizens of the New World Order involved in illicit, illegal love. Nothing is pretty in this story, and perhaps O'Brian and Sterling are a bit long in the tooth for the characters the author had in mind, however the superb dramatizations overcome any casting mishaps. The story of life in a totalitarian society rings chillingly familiar today. And, in the conclusion, to quote the poet laureate of our times, Todd Rundgren "Winston Smith Takes it on the Jaw Again!"

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.

I heard about this film version of Orwell's classic novel many years ago . In the Radio Times to celebrate the year of the setting did a large piece feature on the BBC TV adaptation from 1954 and the film version of 1956 starring Edmund O Brien and looked forward to seeing the BBC showing either version . The problem was that due to copyright issues by the Orwell estate there was no way either adaptation could be broadcast , instead the closest the BBC could do was broadcast a narrated version of the book for the Book For Bedtime slot

In truth this version is hardly waiting for . There are some very good aspects to it . Best is the directing from Michael Anderson . I know Anderson is hated in some circles for " Having no love for the Sci-fi genre " but I've never had a problem . LOGAN'S RUN and THE MARTIAN CHRONICLES whilst not being classics of the genre are okay movies . Perhaps the problem might be that his films don't have too much of a futuristic look . Certainly he could thrown a massive spanner in the works by making everything look too futuristic which would have been a disaster . Here we see something recognisable as being both contemporary and futuristic which means nothing is too dated watching in 2012

The good points are however outweighed by the bad . Orwell's novel is unfilmable and only Nigel Kneale's teleplay despite being freely adapted does capture the feel and subtext of the original while this version doesn't . Instead the storytelling concentrates heavily on the romantic doomed love affair between Winston and Julia so much so it becomes more of a love story set in a communist tyranny rather than being about the failures of Marxism when it becomes hijacked by tyranny . It's certainly not a complex or sophisticated film and the ending has nothing in common with the novel

The casting certainly doesn't help . You want an everyman type of actor playing the everyman character from the novel ? Well who worse than Edmund O Brien a very effective actor playing rough diamond types in film noir classics but hopelessly miscast here along with Jan Sterling who'd also be equally at home in a crime drama . Michael Redgrave is good enough in his role but gives an inferior performance if you've seen the 1954 BBC version with Andre Morell . It doesn't help that he's called O Connor which is another distraction as is the name change for Goldstein

I can't say I was too disappointed by this film version . I went in not expecting much and came out of it having not seen much . Orwell was a writer who didn't make filmable novels and this is yet another film adaptation that once again proves it .

It's been too long since I read the book, so I'm just concerned with the movie as a movie. And what a downer the 90-minutes is for the generally sunny 1950's. Hard to think of a grimmer storyline or more downbeat ending for that period. I take the film's anomalous presence as a useful Cold War commentary on the Soviet Union, the rivalry then at its peak.

Anyhow, the sets are grim, even the one outdoor scene is drained of any natural beauty, while the photography remains dull gray, as it should be given the dystopian subject matter. Then too, the two leads, O'Brien and Sterling, are not exactly marquee names. However, they are excellent actors, as the storyline requires—you don't want "movie stars" competing with the plot-heavy symbolism. In short, the production, though clearly economical, is pretty uncompromising.

Story-wise we're plunged into the middle of the dystopian society without much explanation of how it got that way or why. Instead, the narrative emphasizes the tools of thought control among Party members, who are subjected to all sorts of thought conditioning techniques, such as the histrionic hate sessions. Just how the non-party people live is not really portrayed. However, love may be forbidden among Party members, but I doubt that it was among the common people, otherwise how would re-population take place.

Besides dwelling on Winston's (O'Brien) efforts at contacting the political underground, the script dwells on the forbidden love affair between Winston and Julia (Sterling). And I had to laugh when Julia sheds her shapeless Party uniform for a flowing white gown right out of the Loretta Young Show of the time. This may be the movie's one concession to 1950's norms. The film does manage a few twists, one of which I didn't see coming. But, if I have one complaint, it's that Redgrave's high Party official lacks subtlety, in pretty much a one-note performance. This can be seen as a defect if you think about his official's changing roles.

Anyway, the film remains a visual oddity for then as well as now. However, its thought- control message, though crudely put, may be more relevant in our digitalized age than it was then. At the same time, this is one of the few subjects that I think needs a bigger budget remake to do it justice. I haven't seen the latest remake from 1984, so I can't comment on its worth. All in all, this version maintains a grimly narrow, but thought-provoking focus.

(In passing—having seen the movie on first release, I seem to remember the "rat cage" sequence as being longer, more detailed with glowing eyes, and much scarier than my DVD version. But then that was well over 50-years ago.)

Good, and I do really mean GOOD, dystopian Sci-Fi is the only (sub-) genre in cinema that occasionally manages to frighten me or make me feel uncomfortable. Titles such as "Soylent Green", "Z. P. G", or the more recent "Children of Men" are deeply disturbing not because we will be battling alien races or intelligent robots in the not-so-distant future, but because mankind itself made the planet unlivable. George Orwell, and his uniquely magnificent novel "1984", is probably the founding father of dystopian SciFi (although the influence of "Metropolis" is also unneglectable) and it's still one of the most horrifying tales ever written as far as I'm concerned.

Admittedly "1984" didn't turn out to be the phenomenal movie I secretly hoped it would be. It's an engaging, competently made, and absorbing transfer of Orwell's totalitarian nightmare from paper to screen, but some things are missing. I just didn't feel it. I didn't feel Big Brother's eyes penetrating in my back, I didn't feel the Inner Party's tyrannical madness, or their greed to own and control every human being's life. I didn't feel Winston and Julia's desperate desire to live in complete freedom. Perhaps the year of release, 1956, was still a bit too early to turn the novel into a motion picture. Director Michael Anderson somewhat fails to recreate the bleak and depressing atmosphere, as well as the dauntingly monotonous set-pieces, of a truly miserable dystopian world. 20 years later, however, Anderson would prove himself certainly capable of doing so with "Logan's Run". The 70s were just the ideal decade for dystopian Sci-Fi.

Of course, I would like to finish by underlining that "1984" is nevertheless a very good film, and worth tracking down for fans of the Sci-Fi genre, as well as George Orwell admirers. Several aspects are fantastic, notably the strong performances of the emotional Jan Sterling and the stoic Michael Redgrave. There are a handful effectively disturbing highlights as well, like the inspection rituals Winston has to endure in his own apartment, the public promoting of events like "hate-week" or the persona of young Selena Parsons, who has been so completely indoctrinated by Big Brother that she even becomes terrifying to her own neighbor and father (the stupendous Donald Pleasance in an early role).

This is a relatively faithful rendering of one of the novels that I remember from my youth. All the high school kids (who read anything) were reading it and talking about it. This was in the early sixties. I could not put the book down as terrifying and depressing as it was. All elements of society were controlled by the leaders. It brings to mind modern North Korea where the citizens are clueless and fed jingoistic nonsense. Winston Smith is a worker who has an intellectual side. He begins, through connections with others, to see that there is something wrong with the way he and his fellows are treated. Everything is controlled. He is ill and every day is like the last. Big Brother is looking out for everyone. He's probably not a real person, but they don't know. Winston meets Julia and they start to have a relationship. We know where this is going. As bad as things are, the producers don't get into some of the even more oppressive business of the government. Not a story for the squeamish.

I was afraid to get deceived by this early version of George Orwell's novel, because I was astonished by the Michael Radford's film, starring John Hurt, and released in....1984. But what a good surprise to finally discover this authentic piece of jewellery, rather hard to find, at least not well known. Edmond o'Brien is excellent, so the directing too, enhanced by the black and white photography. I have not read the book since a long time, so I can't really compare with it, and can't say if it is close enough to it. I will comment the TV version, starring Peter Cushing, later. I am sure it is worth too. I am also aware that this film could have been made in the USA during this period, to denounce communism. It is weird that this was not the case. I highly recommend it.

I saw this movie as a young boy,and at the time I was very naive as to what they meant by "Big Brother" Many people to day, in particular the young, do not know the real meaning to Big Brother. Another name for it is the "New World Order" As in the Bible,you will have a noticeable stamp on your body in order to buy food or what have you. And your whereabouts will be monitored. And for this reason, I've NEVER forgotten this movie. It's a must see film by those that are as naive as I was,when I was a young boy.

Edmond O'Brien is Winston Smith. Jan Sterling is Julia. This movie did a pretty good job of depicting the story. However, everyone stayed fully clothed and Goldstein's name has been changed to protect the innocent. And O'Brian becomes O'Conner.

In a society that has eliminated many imbalances, surplus goods, and even class struggle, there are bound to be deviates; Winston Smith is one of those. He starts, due to his inability to doublethink, with thoughtcrime. This is in a society that believes the thought is as real as the deed. Eventually, he graduates through a series of misdemeanors to illicit sex and even plans to overthrow the very government that took him in as an orphan.

If he gets caught, he will be sent to the "Ministry of Love" where they have a record of 100% cures for this sort of insanity. They will even forgive his past indiscretions.

Be sure to watch the three different movies made from this book: 1984 (1954) Peter Cushing is Winston Smith 1984 (1956) Edmond O'Brien is Winston Smith Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984) John Hurt is Winston smith.