|Starring:||Roger Lloyd Pack, Cyril Cusack, John Hurt, Richard Burton|
|Run time:||1 hour 48 minutes|
|Rental release:||20 Sep 2004|
Most helpful review
GoodBy a customer from Acton England , 28 Sep 2004
[Highly rated reviewer]I really enjoyed the film but i got the feeling you needed to have read the book first, i was constantly telling the wife what was going on and why it came about, because so much of the book was missed out and she had not read it.
- Was this review helpful to you?
- (21) Yes |
- No (3)
1984By Domnc (12 reviews) from Beds , 16 Sep 2009Good film but a little dated. Read the book would be my recommendation!
Could never have matched the book, but wouldn;t make sense without itBy MarshallTito (2 reviews) from Edinburgh , 31 Jul 2009
THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS Show review anywayHideA faithful adaptation that captures the grim conditions and terrifying tyranny of the book, but was on a hiding to nothing in attemtping to represent the fantastic prose, and intricacies of Smith's thoughts, Newspeak, Doublethink etc. Where was the Hate Song?
Possibly too faithful in some ways - some of the more subtle elements, particularly Smith's discovery of the 'traitor's plot', would probably have gone straigh over the head of anyone who hadn't read the book.
Hurt and Burton both perform to their usual high standards as Smith and O'Brien, and Gregor Fisher is fine too, but this film needed something unexpected - how about having included Fisher in character of one of his other famous roles - Rab C. Nesbit, the ultimate Prole :-)
DisappointingBy TheImaginator (72 reviews) from London , 27 Jul 2009
THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS Show review anywayHideI read the book before I saw the film of course.
This film follows the tradition of so many films, it misses out half the book.
The film does very well with the scenery and locations; the cafeteria was just as I imagined it, as was the room above the shop, the room the prostitute was in, the Parsons' house, Winston's apartment, the streets, Victory Square.
Perfect for those locations.
The room in which Winston was held before being tortured was almost exactly as I imagined it, better for the damp and mould in the corners and seams of the room.
However - the Ministry of Love was meant to be a bit more modern (in my head) than it was in the film, it wasn't meant to be so decrepit.
The tension that built up from being under constant and pervasive surveillance all the way from the beginning of the book right up to the capture was lost almost completely; looks like so much was cut out of the film or not filmed at all.
The memory holes were not supposed to have fire coming out of them - it defeats the point of Winston remembering putting the photos down the memory hole and O'Brian producing them in the torture room. The memory holes led to nowhere, maybe to incineration, maybe to more surveillance.
The huge widescreen plasma telescreens were far too modern, such an expense would be unjustified in the book, even for The Party.
The story after the capture missed out the beatings and starvation, the disorientation and loss of time awareness was not properly communicated. The rack in the torture scene was not in the book nor was it at all necessary, the machine which induces pain via pads fixed to Winston's temples was more than adequate and far more sinister.
We were not meant to be able to see Winston's body at all by the way, not even when he was starved and wasted away.
We were meant to see him being tortured from Winston's own eyes, seeing little but hearing his voice and screams, and then see his body in the mirror as he did - the sight of his wasted body was to be a shock as it was in the book.
The fear of Room 101 was not communicated sufficiently.
After he betrayed Julia in Room 101 we were meant to see Winston fat, old and with red cheeks, he was meant to be bladdered the whole time.
In the book, Winston met Julia outside, by coincidence. She speaks with him only reluctantly by the way, she walks away from him as fast as she can at first. She loathes him and doesn't understand why she does or why he follows her like a lost dog. Niether does he really, he has some feeling buried deep inside but he doesn't understand it or remember anything about their love.
Julia was supposed to be old and ugly as well.
The film captures none of this - and it effectively kills some of the most poignant parts of what is a fantastic book.
If you've read the book you will be dissapointedBy a customer from Wakefield, England , 08 Jul 2009I was looking forward to this film after having read the book about a year ago. However, as with translations to film, some things are lost. In this case it lead to the film having a disjointed plot line. I struggled to follow the film in places despite having a good understanding of the book. I can imagine that anyone who has not read 1984 would find this film confusing.
This film definitely had potential but was let down by its execution.
1984 - 25 years too early!By WilliamJR (8 reviews) from Stafford , 24 Jun 2009Twenty five years have now elapsed since 1984, the date of the title of this famous book. How those extra 25 years have seen more and more truth emerge in the UK of the 21st century. The omnipresent PC in almost every house, with webcam and microphone, is the new telescreen. Thought crime is now a fact of the UK legal system; for some offences it is not necessary to prove any criminal action at all; just thinking about it is an offence in itself, and people have been punished for such thoughts. Unwinnable wars to enforce 'peace' exist in several parts of the world. Read the novel, and watch this film now, and see how Orwell was both satirical of 1940s Britain, and prophetic for Britain in 2009.