qmtv
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.
MartinHafer
This is apparently the first movie version of the George Orwell book "1984", though it was actually the second version overall--with a made for BBC version coming out two years earlier. The first thing that becomes apparent is how stark and minimalistic the production looks--exactly the way it should look based on the book. This dystopia is supposed to be colorless, lifeless and grim and the film succeeds. And, the actors do a good job in keeping to the spirit of the story.Instead of explaining the rather familiar plot, I'll point out a few ways that it differs from Orwell's book. One of the most obvious is de-sexualizing the relationship between Winston Smith and Juilia. Films back in 1956 could only imply sexuality and the fact that the film talked about the 'anti-sex league' is actually a bit surprising. The film a handles the scene where Smith betrays his lover is sanitized a bit--again, films in the 50s weren't about to be this graphic--and they would not show Smith with a rat cage strapped to his face! However, otherwise the film is pretty close to the book...apart from a totally unnecessary epilogue where the audience is admonished about the importance of freedom. Unnecessary, as unless you are a blithering idiot, you'll clearly get this message in the film! Very well made and I enjoyed it more than the much grimmer 1984 version with Richard Burton and John Hurt.
TheBogieFan
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!
Pepito-5
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.
AD
