Orwell's 1984 is a stunning novel. Radford's 1984 is a rather average film.
There are a few successes.
Visually, it manages to capture a run-down nation that has barely progressed for decades, with well chosen locations, and cinematography that succeeds in being washed-out without resorting to darkness (modern filmmakers take note).
Later scenes between Hurt and Burton are taut and powerful. Even though you get the feeling that Burton had done very little to learn his lines, his presence and delivery more than compensate - he is well cast as O'Brien.
But Hurt is not a great Winston Smith. Smith is a dreamer, but Hurt doesn't capture that. His relationship with Suzanna Hamilton's Julia doesn't convince as a result.
The pacing of the first two acts is slow. And I do wonder whether someone who hasn't already read the book would find it had to engage with the film at all. It's just a bit flat.
There are a few successes.
Visually, it manages to capture a run-down nation that has barely progressed for decades, with well chosen locations, and cinematography that succeeds in being washed-out without resorting to darkness (modern filmmakers take note).
Later scenes between Hurt and Burton are taut and powerful. Even though you get the feeling that Burton had done very little to learn his lines, his presence and delivery more than compensate - he is well cast as O'Brien.
But Hurt is not a great Winston Smith. Smith is a dreamer, but Hurt doesn't capture that. His relationship with Suzanna Hamilton's Julia doesn't convince as a result.
The pacing of the first two acts is slow. And I do wonder whether someone who hasn't already read the book would find it had to engage with the film at all. It's just a bit flat.