1984 (1956)

Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

This movie is a good adaptation of the George Orwell's 1949 novel. Not as good as the book, but is certainly isn't bad. In the future run by the Oceanic government entity "Big Brother", Winston Smith (Edmond O'Brien) has the job of rewriting history. Although a skillful worker, Winston doesn't like his job and he likes the party even less. Life is dull until he meets Julia (Jan Sterling) with whom he falls in love. The couple hates the party and join an underground resistance organization known as "the brotherhood." They enlist under the guidance of O'Connor (Michael Redgrave) a wealthy party member who seems to be a man of the people. But when Winston and Julia are arrested, O'Connor reveals himself to be a member of the thought-police, a government organization which controls private thoughts. I won't tell the rest, because anybody who has read the book, knows what happens. Although a good film adaptation, it doesn't fully do the novel justice and takes creative liberties (for instance O'Connor's real name in the book is O'Brien.) But as a film it works well, and it basically tells the book's story effectively. Watch it after you read it.

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.

......is even better. One might be tempted to call this a remake, and I suppose it is, but it was the first theatrical rendition, enabling audiences to watch Big Brother (watching them) on a bigger screen than was possible via the BBC/Peter Cushing version (1954) of two years earlier. I agree with previous commentator "bux's" observance that, while Edmond O'Brien and Jan Sterling may not have been Orwell's first casting choices for Winston and Julia for the reason stated, the sterling performances generated by the leads and their supporting cast more than compensate. As a huge fan of the late, great Hammer Films luminary Michael Ripper, I was especially pleased to see him helping to take up the rear as an Outer Party Orator, exemplifying the tender loving care with which producer N. Peter Rathvon saw fit to cast even the smaller roles.

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!