John Cusack Movie:

Editorial Review:
Michael Radford's adaption of George Orwell's foreboding literary premonition casts John Hurt and Suzanna Hamilton as lovers who must keep their courtship secret. Aside from criminalizing sex and interpersonal relationships, the ruling party in their country Oceania both fabricates reality and reconstructs history for the sake of oppressing the masses. They brainwash their citizens via large, propaganda-spewing TV monitors installed in their living rooms, which also inspect everyone's activities. Hurt and Hamilton are among the few we see desperately trying to fight the system by keeping control of their thoughts and beliefs. While the atmosphere becomes a bit too stifling at times, the images are quite striking with their muted colors and dilapidated sets. In an interesting bit of casting, Richard Burton costars (in his final role) as a government agent who surreptitiously exposes Hurt to the ideas of resistance. Unlike many like-minded films, 1984 does not offer a flashy vision of the future, but then that aspect makes it feel all the more real. In an age when more and more of our everyday activities are being scrutinized, Big Brother may not be so far off after all. --Bryan Reesman

1984 [Blu-ray] Reviews:
Nineteen Eighty Four (1984)....In Russia TV watches you.
2009-11-26 - 1984 (Nineteen Eighty Four): 8 out of 10: Most films simply dont age all that well. Philadelphia with Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington for example simply doesnt have the same impact today that it did in 1993. (Both gay people in general and AIDS in particular are simply less scary today.) In another example we have seen both technology and fashion move so fast that the futuristic phones in many a seventies sci-fi movie look positively ancient today not to mention the burnt orange and avocado green color scheme of the future that so many seventies sci-fi are stuck with. (Im looking your way Rollerball.)

So how has a film, released when people outside of American colleges actually believed communism worked, aged today?

Brilliantly. If I say so myself. If anything the film works better today than it did in 1985.

For starters the film itself is timeless. Nothing about the film gives away the date that it was made. Only the fact I know who John Hurt and Richard Burton are gives a hint to time period. The film itself could have been released in theaters last week.

Since the film comments heavily on torture in its last act and on Big Brotherism throughout, if released today it undoubtly would be seen as a direct attack on both the Bush administration and the British Labor government. In fact many scenes are a clear attack on the Bush administrations torture policy and the endless war on Terrorism. One could almost never believe the film was about Communism at all. Modern audiences today would laugh at such a quaint notion.

With few exceptions I have never known a film so timeless. Heck it is one better than simple timelessness. It is actually more relevant today than when it was made. The idea of government using an endless indefinable and unwinnable war to curtail its subjects freedoms is right from todays headlines; whether you are discussing the war on drugs, terrorism, or global warming the results are the same. All the good intentions in the world simply mean less freedom for you and your children. For the greater good no less.

Orwell would be shocked at the creativity governments today would use to curtail peoples freedoms and lives. Or perhaps he wouldnt and that is why his story is so timeless and most remarkably the film based on it is as well.

Oh and the film is fun with a brilliant and perfectly cast John Hurt in the primary role as the put upon and tortured everyman. Richard Burton, not chewing scenery for once, in a role with gravitas; his last I believe. Also super cute and believable Suzanna Hamilton who looks like a real woman both in and out of her clothes as the love interest and the catalyst for desire of change. And a special kudos to a fantastic direction by Michael Radford and production design by Allan Cameron. The really capture a place and time that as I have said before is timeless.

In conjunction with Terry Gilliams similarly themed Brazil, Nineteen Eighty Four is one of the best movies about the early 21st century made during the Nineteen Eighties.



Awful movie - Good book
2009-08-20 - The movie was basically awful, while the book revealed some real truths that happen when a society is taken in bondage by its evil government, wanting to change all truth into lies, whether that be history or morality, etc, all through THOUGHT CONTROL. Some may see this happening in America now, read the book and see if you see the similarities. But the movie was awful, it took forever to even begin to reveal the slightest hint of what the story was about, and then left you still wondering. Nothing much was made clear, and the movie seemed to focus more on sensual stimulation thru nudity than dealing with what the story was all about, a nation's calling good evil and evil good and forcing its subjects to believe it. To me, the movie is very slow moving and boring as far as the real story is concerned. I see this movie as a serious waste of time. It really disappointed me, and I wonder whether it would disappoint George Orwell as well. I believe the whole point was just missed in the movie, and it was hard to see any point at all. (The book is just the opposite, I would highly recommend that everyone read it.)

Missing in edit
2009-07-07 - I love this movie and I own it on VHS and DVD. However, some of the VHS movie has been edited out of the DVD. For example, the scene where Winston and Julia go to O'Brian and want to join the resistance is ommited. This is an important scene, one minute Winston is reading the Goldstein book and the next scene they are being arrested by the thought police. I wonder if they will issue a DVD with all of the Omitted scenes back in. Otherwise, a great movie.

1984
2009-07-02 - We have not watched entire movie yet although this is a DVD we having been wanting for a long time after seeing snipets.

A Horrible Adaptation of a Classic Novel
2009-05-28 - In many respects, this adaptation of George Orwell's "1984" should stand out as an example of how you don't adapt a novel for the big screen. No film version can ever match the depth and detail of the original novel upon which it is based, but when a film is done this badly it demands an answer the obvious question, "What was the director thinking?"

To be fair, I like director Michael Radford's treatment of the external world of London as bleak and almost lifeless, although I think that the neighborhoods of the proletariat should have been much darker and more foreboding. Their environment seemed poor, but didn't evoke the same emotions as Orwell's well-written descriptions of dark alleys and the myriad of pubs that are filled with the down-trodden masses of non-party members. And with that same thought in mind we begin to see the first of many departures from the novel - aside from the antique shop and Winston's prostitute encounter there are no portrayals of any of the other scenes that make up more of the surrounding story in the proletariat world.

I realize that a director only has so much time to work with when creating a movie, but this director left out large chunks of the story in order to make it fit the time frame, and I feel sorry for anyone that hasn't read the book because so much of the movie won't mean anything. This movie could almost represent a condensed version of the original, except that it shows scenes out of order, it doesn't explain why so much of the story is actually occurring, and it changes a great deal of the detail in ways that are unforgivable. Here are just a few examples: In the novel Winston worked for Minitrue (Ministry of Truth), although in the film it mentions Winston working for Minirec (Ministry of Records). In the novel Winston does not exclaim that he hates Julia before discovering that she secretly loves him. In the film, Winston's vision of Julia undressing in a field occurs just before their first romantic encounter, not some weeks earlier in a dream as in the novel. I could go on and on, but there are a great number of these scenes that are not simply errors or a failure of attention to detail, they are the director's deliberate attempts to place his stamp on someone else's work. I believe in artistic expression, but if you want to make your own mark - create your own story; don't create a hatchet-job of someone else's work.

One of my largest complaints is the deliberate omission of a great detail of information surrounding the Socialism and Communism themes that are so prevalent in the novel; Ingsoc is never explained as a newspeak amalgamation of English Socialism, everyone is called brother or sister instead of comrade, and the recurring treatment of society's failed attempts to obtain even the most basic of necessities of life due to the government's ineptitude at production are missing. What's more infuriating is the portrayal of Winston's day-to-day activities at Minitrue/Minirec - you're vaguely aware that he is doing SOMETHING, but the film version manages to omit what that actually is. Having read the book we know that he was altering the past, but the film doesn't convey that. In fact, the film conveys very little - if you have read the book then the film simply gives you fleeting images to go along with the story line that you already know, but in most respects the film's failure to align with the novel begins to interfere with what you remember about the story.

Much like "Animal Farm", which is George Orwell's other treatment of communism, "1984" is supposed to be a sharp arrow piercing through the utopian vision of a communism by portraying a world where a corrupt government cannot live up to its promises, but this adaptation completely misses the target. At the time this movie was created the Cold War was still raging, and I can only surmise that the director toned down the communist-themed overtones in order to appease the Soviet Union; if that's the case - that's a really weak argument.

I truly feel sorry for someone that sees this film and has never read the book. After watching this movie I got the feeling that the director, Michael Radford, was trying to create a visual masterpiece like Stanley Kubrick did with "2001: A Space Odyssey", but unfortunately Michael Radford is NOT Stanley Kubrick, and as a result he created a film that is little more than an insult to the original novel, and my only take-away from this film is the feeling that I have lost two hours of my life.