I can't believe I put myself though watching this garbage. The story line is vague at best and amounts to nothing but drivel.

I always recommend that every person read 1984, it is one of the darkest and most depressing stories ever written, I was never required to read it in school, I read it on my own. I just bought it one day while I was traveling across country in a Barnes and Noble, and it certainly changed my perspective and changed my life, in a way, because it changed the way I thought. Both "1984" and "A Brave New World" are based off the novel "We", but if "A Brave New World" is through control of genetics, hedonism, and exposing them to constant stimulation, emotional and otherwise, then 1984 is the other side of the coin, a story about control through absolute coercion and lies, crushing the will. Both exist in perverted society, but they often co-mingle and exist together more than apart, most of modern media exemplifies this well, manipulation of both the truth and emotions.I think it it would be very difficult to ever truly do the book 1984 perfect justice because the vast majority of this story revolves around what we think, and in the case of Wintston, what he knows he should not think, but he cannot help thinking, and doesn't want to stop thinking. This is extremely difficult to convey without a lot more voice overs of Winston's internal monologues or more external dialogue than a film adaptation of 1984 should have, ever. It is also very hard to depict the ever shifting "histories" portrayed in the book "He who controls the past controls the present, he who controls the present controls the future." That is best shown in the movie when Winston ask if Julia believes the resistance is real, and she answers by saying "No. None of it is real." and Winston's thoughts about the truth being erased and changed to a lie and then back again. The movie does a decent job of conveying it, but it is certainly not as effective as the book. What this movie does do well is get is the bleak, dark, depressing, and oppressive tone of the book. The visual look nails exactly what the the book conveys, and Winston looks about as pathetic as he is described in the book. John Hurt does a fantastic job because humans in this world, in a way, are not humans at all, but rather shadows of themselves, and you can see the internal conflict, very slightly, on his face, even as he hides it. Winston was fascinated with the Proles, in the book, because he was fascinated with with freedoms, their seeming joy, even though they were uneducated, and unaware, he was jealous of that lack of awareness and freedom that it gave. This is not something that is conveyed extremely well in this film sadly, as it was an integral part of the book, just as much as his relationship with Julia, the Proles almost take on a mythical proportion to him in the book. Despite those caveats, I still feel this version is the best one out there. It really captures the overall feel of the book fairly well. It feels hopeless and oppressive. The difference between the book and the film is, for me, the middle section of the book, and some part early on, up until the final 1/4, there was a lot of hope in Winston's thoughts. I knew nothing about the outcome or content of the book, and this created a very unique experience, while the film did not match it the first or second time, and I felt at times, lingered away from Winston too much, with images of tanks and explosions. The final act of the film, for me, captured very well the feel of the book, and it made me just as angry watching it, as I felt reading the book, even if the ending is altered a big. I would be curious to see how people whom have never read the book would react to this, but this is one case where I would recommend reading the book first, if because the impact of the book would be reduced a little bit by knowing the majority of the events already. The idea that there is "no truth", and changing history to suit a person's or country's agenda, is extremely prevalent today, telling people they need to believe something that isn't actually true, and will hurt those who do not. The movie still conveys these things well, and I do feel it is worth watching.God Bless ~Amy

The movie comes across as robotic, passionless and bleak. And that is not a criticism. It's exactly the way it should be. This is George Orwell's "1984" after all - his frightening portrayal of a future fascist state and its desire to turn its citizens into mindless and passionless robots existing in a bleak society. It's a movie adaptation of a book, of course (a book I read many years ago) and so there can be quibbles about how well or how poorly Michael Radford (who directed this and wrote the screenplay) captured the novel - but I thought that certainly in terms of the mood he created he did a marvellous job. Even the repeated exchanges of "I love you" between Winston and Julia were robotic and passionless - a robotic rebellion against a robotic society. Basically I thought this was very well done. John Hurd did a good job as Winston, and Richard Burton as O'Brien, who comes to represent the fascist state for us as he tortures Winston in an attempt to "rehabilitate" him was quite good in this - also cold and passionless throughout. Suzanna Hamilton's Julia was almost eerily robotic, in spite of the fact that she was really the lead protagonist, leading Winston into rebellion against the control of Big Brother.The portrayal of the state was interesting as far as it went. Winston's job was the constant re-writing of history so that the past would always support the party line of the present (summed up by the motto "whoever controls the past controls the future, and whoever controls the present controls the past.") In addition to that there was the relentless propaganda, constant surveillance, and continual war as a means of controlling the population and giving them an enemy to vent against (probably by doing so preventing them from releasing their frustration against their own country.) The internal "enemy" revolved around the figure of Emmanuel Goldstein. Did he really exist? I'm not sure. Or was he just a mythical figure invented by the state, so that anyone who didn't buy into the society could simply be denounced as a follower of Goldstein and Goldstein's ideas; a part of an organized conspiracy against the security represented by the state. Even the concept of "Big Brother" is intriguing - and the question was raised in the movie. Was there really a Big Brother, or was there just "the party" who invented this leader image of "Big Brother" (complete with the ubiquitous portrait that looked down on everyone?) I'd guess the latter.What I found most unsettling about this was actually how relevant it remains today. Propaganda, the manipulation of news, image politics and the idolization of "leader" figures, unending war, the rewriting of history to suit the present, the willingness of some politicians at least to outright lie (and to be believed by many even as they lie shamelessly) - all of this is a part of the reality of many (perhaps most) Western "democratic" countries today. Orwell was writing fiction - but was he also a prophet of sorts?It would help to have read the novel before watching the movie, because by their very nature novels can give more details and background, but in terms of the overall mood and bleakness of the society: the movie captures this brilliantly. (8/10)

This movie is OK only if you have already read the book. It goes over the introduction and the basic information quite fast and if you don't know what the book is about it would take some time to get it and even then you wouldn't really fully get it. Beside from the way to fast paced movie, the main actor did a good job. But as I said the movie could have been so much more. Disappointed. The book is very good and it's a shame that there was not a movie to really capture the emotion and the thoughts that are presented in Orwell's work. I am still hoping that one day a good director can actually make this film into a better version.