John Hurt who played "Winston Smith" wound up going to the other end of the spectrum when he played "Chancellor Sutler" in V for Vendetta. Great actor.
Siskel completely missed the boat on this one. This was an extremely powerful and moving adaptation of the book, as good as one could possibly ask for. The actors, production design and cinematography were all picture perfect.
The woman who played Julia, Winston Smith's love, was outstanding in her part. John Hurt was perfectly cast in his part. I do understand Siskel's criticism. Yes, the movie was a faithful reproduction of the book, but the reading of the lines was too somber, the script was like a faithful transcript of the novel, afraid to say anything that was not in the book. It didn't engage the viewer on a personal level of the desperation and hopelessness of the main character, and his intense yearning for any kind of happiness in his life before he died. Even Richard Burton's character was too subdued, based on the novel character who was clearly insane, reveled in his sadism, and brutal in his behavior. It was a noble effort, but suffered from the attempt to be too faithful to the material, at the expense of the living, breathing characters we need to have sympathy with in order to be affected by the film.
DestructableMe Siskel was born in 1946 so he would’ve been either 37 or 38 at the time of this movie review and Ebert was born in 1942 so he would’ve been either 41 or 42 when this review was filmed/televised...so maybe by the standards of a 1980s life expectancy that was old considering it was around 64 yrs of age. But, by 2019 standards, late 30s to early 40s is NOT old at all....THEY may LOOK old! But they were not when this segment was filmed in 1984!
I wanted to see them in their 80s with white hair, with Gene saying "Roger, you insufferable bag of hot air!", and Roger replying "Gene, you've always been such a little bitch!", and then rolling around on the floor of the theater wrestling with each other, as Friday the 13th, part 27 plays on the theater screen in the background (featuring an 80 year-old Jason hobbling along with a cane and a machete).....
Since this was posted in 2013 and since there are no comments yet and since I feel that the troll's point of view is not given the careful consideration that it deserves on RUclips, even though, granted, few trolls have anything interesting to say and simply blather on wasting people's time with their inanities and antisemitism, I thought I should draw people's attention to what I perceive as Orwell's use of antisemitism as a literary device in 1984, namely, Emmanuel Goldstein, the fabricated villain of the piece. My question to the troll community is this. "Is calling a villain, even an imaginary one, Emmanuel Goldstein, a literary use of antisemitism, or does the reader take that name as they would Nigel Frumpton, for example?
+ironpirites well goldstein is a parody of trotsky (who was jewish). Goldstein in the story itself might not be real and the party is using racism as a way of propaganda, much like the way eurasian soldiers are portrayed as mongoloid.
Make war not peace Thank you Sir/Madam. Incidentally, the movie, The Assassination of Trotsky, with Richard Burton and Alain Delon, is on RUclips. It's not everybody's cup of tea as a movie, but it is interesting.
Развлечения
![PIECE BY PIECE - Official Trailer [HD] - Only In Theaters October 11](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7Bc6trBc1kc/mqdefault.jpg)
John Hurt who played "Winston Smith" wound up going to the other end of the spectrum when he played "Chancellor Sutler" in V for Vendetta. Great actor.
Siskel completely missed the boat on this one. This was an extremely powerful and moving adaptation of the book, as good as one could possibly ask for. The actors, production design and cinematography were all picture perfect.
Ebert: Let me tell you about the movie.
Siskel: Let me tell you about me.
There was a difference.
That movie was the main inspiration for city 17 in Half Life 2
And Deus Ex as a whole.
The woman who played Julia, Winston Smith's love, was outstanding in her part. John Hurt was perfectly cast in his part. I do understand Siskel's criticism. Yes, the movie was a faithful reproduction of the book, but the reading of the lines was too somber, the script was like a faithful transcript of the novel, afraid to say anything that was not in the book. It didn't engage the viewer on a personal level of the desperation and hopelessness of the main character, and his intense yearning for any kind of happiness in his life before he died. Even Richard Burton's character was too subdued, based on the novel character who was clearly insane, reveled in his sadism, and brutal in his behavior. It was a noble effort, but suffered from the attempt to be too faithful to the material, at the expense of the living, breathing characters we need to have sympathy with in order to be affected by the film.
These guys died way too young.
To be fair they look pretty old in these clips lol.
DestructableMe Siskel was born in 1946 so he would’ve been either 37 or 38 at the time of this movie review and Ebert was born in 1942 so he would’ve been either 41 or 42 when this review was filmed/televised...so maybe by the standards of a 1980s life expectancy that was old considering it was around 64 yrs of age. But, by 2019 standards, late 30s to early 40s is NOT old at all....THEY may LOOK old! But they were not when this segment was filmed in 1984!
I wanted to see them in their 80s with white hair, with Gene saying "Roger, you insufferable bag of hot air!", and Roger replying "Gene, you've always been such a little bitch!", and then rolling around on the floor of the theater wrestling with each other, as Friday the 13th, part 27 plays on the theater screen in the background (featuring an 80 year-old Jason hobbling along with a cane and a machete).....
Ironically, the quality of this video is now like the bad blurry quality of the Telescreen in the movie itself
Doubleplusgood.
Since this was posted in 2013 and since there are no comments yet and since I feel that the troll's point of view is not given the careful consideration that it deserves on RUclips, even though, granted, few trolls have anything interesting to say and simply blather on wasting people's time with their inanities and antisemitism, I thought I should draw people's attention to what I perceive as Orwell's use of antisemitism as a literary device in 1984, namely, Emmanuel Goldstein, the fabricated villain of the piece.
My question to the troll community is this. "Is calling a villain, even an imaginary one, Emmanuel Goldstein, a literary use of antisemitism, or does the reader take that name as they would Nigel Frumpton, for example?
+ironpirites well goldstein is a parody of trotsky (who was jewish). Goldstein in the story itself might not be real and the party is using racism as a way of propaganda, much like the way eurasian soldiers are portrayed as mongoloid.
Make war not peace Thank you Sir/Madam. Incidentally, the movie, The Assassination of Trotsky, with Richard Burton and Alain Delon, is on RUclips. It's not everybody's cup of tea as a movie, but it is interesting.
So a troll ix someone who says things you disagree with about your favorite 7th grade literature.
Siskels right from first frame to last when you know what the movies about its just boring repetitive garbage.