1984 (1956)

Review by All Movie Guide
This version of 1984, the George Orwell dystopian masterpiece, is decent enough, but not the cinematic treatment that the material deserves. Part of the problem is that in 1956, some of the novel's more extreme situations couldn't be presented onscreen in an "honest" manner. Ralph Gilbert Bettinson's adaptation also suffers from veering back and forth between being faithful to the book and deviating from it, making it somewhat wishy-washy. The writer would have made a stronger contribution had he made a decision to be more slavish to the book or to depart totally from it and come up with a cinematic equivalent that captured the spirit and message, even if it had an atmosphere and life of its own. That said, the horrors of Orwell's vision are even more relevant today, with some people preying on fears about safety and security to justify surveillance and information-gathering techniques that have the potential to be used for ill as much as for good. Michael Anderson's direction of the film is solid, if unexceptional, and he has a fine Winston Smith in Edmond O'Brien. If O'Brien is perhaps not the perfect age and physical type, he more than makes up for it with his effective, nuanced performance. Jan Sterling does less well as Julia, perhaps because of the necessary bowdlerization that has befallen her part. Michael Redgrave is, surprisingly, a bit off form as O'Connor, but Donald Pleasance does very well in the small role of Parsons. If this 1984 is flawed, it still packs a decent punch -- and in several scenes, it packs quite a bit more. (Viewers should beware that there were different endings shot, and there are at least two versions which show up on the rare occasions the film is televised.) ~ Craig Butler, All Movie Guide