Featured Audience Ratings

• Red L

  
  I have to start by stating I've read the book. That always has an impact on how one views a movie. In my case, it has been over 25 years since I read and enjoyed the book, and yet something bothered me about the movie. It seems to take a long time to parlay to us, the movie… More
  I have to start by stating I've read the book. That always has an impact on how one views a movie. In my case, it has been over 25 years since I read and enjoyed the book, and yet something bothered me about the movie. It seems to take a long time to parlay to us, the movie watchers, how bleak things are in 1984. I got the idea much faster reading the book. The bleakness part of the movie bored me to tears. Also, the ending seemed different - actually the movie ending confused me.

• Anthony L

  
  Adapting the greatest novel ever written was always going to be a tough job but Michael Radford did pretty well in visualising Orwell's vision of the future (which was actually the present day when the film was made). I thought the props were spot on and the grimy brutalist… More
  Adapting the greatest novel ever written was always going to be a tough job but Michael Radford did pretty well in visualising Orwell's vision of the future (which was actually the present day when the film was made). I thought the props were spot on and the grimy brutalist architecture was exactly as I'd pictured it when reading the book. John Hurt was perfect in the role of Winston as was Richard Burton as O'Brian. My only gripe, and it's pretty much ruined the film for me, is that they left out so much of the good stuff that they could have filmed. To change the ending and to leave out the final act of the book was crazy and stupid and still annoys me just thinking about it. Remember though Kids, always read the book first, especially in the case of 1984. I think it's time for a new version, but who would dare I wonder?

• xGary X

  
  In a totalitarian society that brands any dissent or emotional connection with another individual a "thought crime", a humble civil servant enters into a sexual relationship with a co-worker at the risk of cruel and unusual punishment. George Orwell's novel is the… More
  In a totalitarian society that brands any dissent or emotional connection with another individual a "thought crime", a humble civil servant enters into a sexual relationship with a co-worker at the risk of cruel and unusual punishment. George Orwell's novel is the grandaddy of all dystopian fiction and virtually every sci-fi ever made on the subject owes a debt to it. It features a regime that employs propaganda, fictional "enemies of the state" and constant war to keep its citizens subjugated and is a frightening examination of the logical conclusion to fascism. The film obviously employs imagery derived from both Nazi and Stalinist propaganda and creates a chillingly believable world where freewill is outlawed. John Hurt gives yet another acting master class as the rebel without a cause and the torture inflicted on him by a gently malevolent Richard Burton is truly horrifying. The biggest problem with the film for me is that in Winston's world there is no humour, no heroes and no hope. This is no doubt the point of the exercise but it hardly makes for a nice place to visit for 105 minutes. The unrelenting bleakness is wearying on the soul and I couldn't help thinking how both Brazil and V For Vendetta took the premise of the story here and injected either humour or inspiring rebellion to make a story which actually entertained rather than despaired. As an intellectual exercise 1984 is an admirable film but as a piece of entertainment it's joyless and pretty much all talk.

• Jeff "

  
  George Orwell's book 1984 is one of the most important literary works ever written. This adaptation is a well crafted film that has glimmer of hope. In fact the film is shrouded in misery, and director Michael Radford conveys the look of Oceania perfectly. This is exactly how I… More
  George Orwell's book 1984 is one of the most important literary works ever written. This adaptation is a well crafted film that has glimmer of hope. In fact the film is shrouded in misery, and director Michael Radford conveys the look of Oceania perfectly. This is exactly how I pictured the world to look like. The performances are brilliant and Michael Radford's directing is excellent and he captures the tone and atmosphere of the book perfectly. This is a stunning film with a great performance by actor John Hurt in the lead role of Winston Smith. There are differences from the book of course, but to say that this film is absolute crap, I think it's unfair. The film is definitely worth watching if you're a fan of Orwell's classic work of the same name. The reason the film succeeds so well is that it gets the bleak atmosphere of helplessness perfectly right and also the cast are simply wonderful in their parts. As a Dystopian / totalitarian Sci Fi drama, 1984 definitely delivers something unique and thrilling. This is a must for fans of the book, and is quite underrated in my opinion. I loved the book and I thoroughly enjoyed this film. Michael Radford definitely got George Orwell's vision of the ultimate totalitarian state perfectly nailed down. This film it leaves no place for hope, it's dark, melancholic atmosphere make it a film that you simply can't forget. A brilliant film with a great cast, 2984 is worth watching, just don't expect anything hopeful for the lead character here. John Hurt definitely is wonderful in the part, and his performance along with that of Richard Burton is the standouts of this film. 1984 captures the feel of the book perfectly, and it should appeal to Orwell fans.

• Unknown H

  
  There are just some stories that are better left on paper. For all my love of Orwell (and believe me it runs deep) there was something sordid about watching some of my most beloved and loathed characters play out on the screen, however well the actors delivered on their end of the… More
  There are just some stories that are better left on paper. For all my love of Orwell (and believe me it runs deep) there was something sordid about watching some of my most beloved and loathed characters play out on the screen, however well the actors delivered on their end of the bargain. When it comes to something so utterly seperate from reality as 1984 is, I feel that it is better left in the minds of those who dare to imagine it rather than to have someone elses view imagined for you and played out on the screen. This will always be one of those "you need to read the book" kinda deals.

• Melvin W

  
  O'Brien: Power is tearing human minds apart and putting them back together in new shapes of your own choosing.  "Big Brother is watching" 1984 may be a great book, but as far as this movie goes; I didn't care for it at all. The only thing I liked about the movie… More
  O'Brien: Power is tearing human minds apart and putting them back together in new shapes of your own choosing.  "Big Brother is watching" 1984 may be a great book, but as far as this movie goes; I didn't care for it at all. The only thing I liked about the movie was the always great Roger Deakins and his cinematography. Other than that I disliked everything about this movie. The interesting premise is ruined by scene after scene of dullness. It becomes so incredibly tiresome watching dull performances and listening to dull dialogue.  This is probably just a case of a book not translating well to screen. This story is better when read. On the screen, it comes off as uninteresting and boring, when in reality the concept could not be more interesting. I kind of had a feeling I wasn't going to like this movie after the first 20 minutes. The one thing the director did succeed in was making a bleak movie. Everything about it is bleak, even the filmmaking.  This is one of those movies that I just don't want to even think about watching again. It was just so hard to sit through. I can watch a movie that is slow as long as it is interesting. I can't watch a slow, boring, dull film that is a subpar recreation of a story I can get somewhere else. Watch it if you must, but don't say I didn't tell you so.

• Megan S

  
  It really didn't catch my attention at all. I remember liking the book a lot in high school but I just couldn't get into this movie.

• Matheus C

  
  Competent but straightforward adaptation of one of my favourite novels. Makes me wonder what a more visionary director like Alan Parker or Terry Gilliam could have done with the material.

• AJ V

  
  A pretty good adaptation of Orwell's novel, but it's really boring for the most part, unfortunately. Still, it was really cool to see the story brought to life anyway.

• El Hombre I

  
  While no movie can replace Orwell's words, and his novel should be read first, director Michael Radford's version is worth your time. The faithful attempt at bringing George Orwell's 1984 to the big screen captures the grim world of a fascist government. Some arguments… More
  While no movie can replace Orwell's words, and his novel should be read first, director Michael Radford's version is worth your time. The faithful attempt at bringing George Orwell's 1984 to the big screen captures the grim world of a fascist government. Some arguments will say the film is dated. I feel it's 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. If this film had been released today, it would be seen as a direct attack on the Bush Administration. It's almost difficult to think the film was about communism. 1984 is a horror movie. True horror. The horror is the monster hidden in every form of government which not only wants to control over every action, but your every thought. Some governments have this horror under control more than others, but none are without it. This is George Orwell's warning. 1984 is one of the most depressing films I've ever seen. It's not for those who demand a good time or a happy ending. Richard Burton is as brutal and dry as they come and John Hurt in the lead role as Winston broke my heart. All this through the lens of cinematographer Roger Deakins. <a href="http://s273.photobucket.com/albums/jj203/goji9000/?action=view¤t=richard_burton_as_obrien.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj203/goji9000/richard_burton_as_obrien.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

• Dan S

  
  A cold, harsh, unforgiving adaption of a classic novel. Hurt gives an internally scarred performance, a man torn between being a loyal citizen to his fascist nation, or pursuing a love interest that is strictly forbidden. It's not a pretty film to look at, but that's the… More
  A cold, harsh, unforgiving adaption of a classic novel. Hurt gives an internally scarred performance, a man torn between being a loyal citizen to his fascist nation, or pursuing a love interest that is strictly forbidden. It's not a pretty film to look at, but that's the point of the story. If you get depressed easily, don't watch this movie, but if you like governmental thrillers in which the lead character actually is more human that superhero, you should like this.

• Michael G

  
  Concerning 1984, I hope the book is better than the movie. I will say for the movie that John Hurt and Richard Burton (in his last role) were amazing. Roger Deakins' cinematography was also top-notch to go along with a great soundtrack. I remember very little of the book (my last… More
  Concerning 1984, I hope the book is better than the movie. I will say for the movie that John Hurt and Richard Burton (in his last role) were amazing. Roger Deakins' cinematography was also top-notch to go along with a great soundtrack. I remember very little of the book (my last and only attempt to make it through was junior year of high school) but I remember that it took the time to explain things the movie didn't bother with. I get the impression that you'd get the most out of the movie if you've read the book. I was kind of sick when I watched 1984 so I don't know if I was just generally out of it when I say the movie jumped around or if its just a crappy adaptation of the script. Either way its not a wasted watch...

• Cassandra M

  
  From the opening shot of "Nineteen Eighty Four" the viewer is plunged right into the hellhole of Oceania and the ultimate totalitarian nightmare. Whilst the year 1984 may be long past us, the essential themes of George Orwell's best known work still remain as timely and… More
  From the opening shot of "Nineteen Eighty Four" the viewer is plunged right into the hellhole of Oceania and the ultimate totalitarian nightmare. Whilst the year 1984 may be long past us, the essential themes of George Orwell's best known work still remain as timely and as relevant as ever. Winston Smith (John Hurt) is a drone worker in the Bureau of Information, and his job is to edit the news in accordance with the needs of the governing Party (which is in continual, seemingly endless war with Eurasia and other opposing states). He must also refer to the dictionary of Newsspeak, which is the government's language for the distribution of information. He lives in a world where there is no escape from the authority of the government who regiment the every thought and deed of their subjects. The Party is steadily working on a way to outlaw the concept of the family and the idea of conception. This is done to eradicate Thoughtcrime and guarantee the worker's total devotion to the Party and its leader, Big Brother. Winston abides by this (recording his increasingly ambiguous thoughts about society in a hidden, handwritten diary) until he encounters Julia (Suzanna Hamilton), a strange young women with rebellious ideas, to whom he develops a powerful attraction. But their passionate, forbidden relationship cannot escape the all-seeing eyes of Big Brother..... Screenwriter Jonathan Gems has a done a terrific job with the script. He successfully translates Orwell's ideas to the screen with great clarity. Micheal Radford directs with subtlety around the greasy sets and crumbling locations (the picture was filmed in and around the very area in which Orwell set his novel). The performances from the chief principals are very strong. John Hurt is excellent as Winston, bringing a subtle and considerate approach to the character. Particularly disturbing is his final scenes, as he becomes gaunt and disfigured through government torture. Suzanna Hamilton is gentle and quirky as Julia and "Rab C Nesbitt" actor Gregor Fisher appears as Winston's ill-fated friend, Parsons. Veteran actor Richard Burton lends a cold charisma to government enforcer O'Brien and he too excels in the film's final moments, as he coolly and sadistically tortures Winston, subjecting him to severe physical pain to subdue him, casually pulling a tooth out of his rotting mouth, then exposing him to the horrors of Room 101, all the while exhorting obedience to the Party and love to Big Brother. The strong relevance of the concepts of "Nineteen Eighty Four" should not be underestimated. Whilst the term "Big Brother" is now synonymous with the ridiculous "reality" TV shows of the same name, others like the Two Minutes Hate (in which the workers are coerced, through a two-minute broadcast, into hating the enemies of the state); the idea of a government waging a perpetual war to advocate "peace" (especially relevant in the aftermath of September 11) as well as the editing of news and the abuse of language in order to suit the needs of government and disguise its true agendas are ideas that are chillingly present in today's society. All of this is powerful and thought-provoking stuff, and helps to make "Nineteen Eighty Four" an accurate and powerful rendering of a still very timely piece of work.

• Pierluigi P

  
  Surprisingly good, and sadly underrated, take on George Orwell's seminal novel. great cinematography and art design. superbly played by John Hurt and Richard Burton, in his last screen role.

• Curtis L

  
  Pretty lame. I guess it's a classic, and most other things like it came from the book, but even the book is boring. Watch brazil instead.

• Tsubaki S

  
  Faithfull to the source material indeed, and well acted, but i still feel that still feels short on the heavily paranoic atmosphere that the novel has. Still, not a bad attempt.

• Tom E

  
  a VERY slow dull movie

• Danny R

  
  "Who controls the past controls the future, who controls the present controls the past; from the film's opening caption. A dark and uncompromising vision of the ultimate totalitarian nightmare, this stunning film by director Michael Radford based on George Orwell's… More
  "Who controls the past controls the future, who controls the present controls the past; from the film's opening caption. A dark and uncompromising vision of the ultimate totalitarian nightmare, this stunning film by director Michael Radford based on George Orwell's classic novel is sometimes very hard to watch. It concerns a doomed rebel Winston Smith played by John Hurt in an extraordinary performance who illegally falls in love and dare commits the crime of independent thought, even with Big Brother watching all the time, he is soon discovered and interrogated then tortured by O'Brien chillingly played by the late Richard Burton in his final screen appearance; he delivers a menacing and unforgettable performance as a merciless and sadistic official of the ruling party from the Ministry of Truth determined to control his thoughts and crush his spirt, even if it means feeding Smith's face to hungry rats! Superlative supporting performances by Suzanna Hamilton, George Fisher, Cyril Cusack, Anthony Benson and Andrew Wilde. Appropriately grim and bleak, a powerfully disturbing film. Highly Recommended.

• Andrew F

  
  This was a pretty good adaptation of the book. I just didn't like how the city was dirty everywhere... that's not how I pictured it. John Hurt's "crying" in the Ministry of Love was also quite annoying.

• Stephen E

  
  Though I still have yet to read it, I'm sure that much more could be done with George Orwell's classic dysotopian novel than what is done here. Nevertheless, Michael Radford's adaptation of "Nineteen Eighty-Four" is a substantial piece of work. It is well-shot… More
  Though I still have yet to read it, I'm sure that much more could be done with George Orwell's classic dysotopian novel than what is done here. Nevertheless, Michael Radford's adaptation of "Nineteen Eighty-Four" is a substantial piece of work. It is well-shot and features a strong performance from John Hurt. Sure, it's "talky" and bleak and takes patience to sit through, but the experience is worthwhile, if somewhat grim and harrowing. It doesn't feel as complete as it should, but this adaptation of "Nineteen Eighty-Four" holds up quite well.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings