George Orwell 's novel 1985, was adapted into a movie, directed by Michael Radford. The movie coincidentally came out in the year 1984 and starred John Hurt. The movie received a 7.2 out of 10 on IMDb, a popular movie rating site,which is a higher rating than most of today 's movies. Although the movie did do alright to the general public, the movie did have some flaws when compared to Orwell 's original writings. The movie did not include all of the same details, it went very quickly over many of the events and was difficult to get into and understand for those who haven 't read the book. The book did an overall good job matching the books descriptions, the actors matched well and the background matched Orwell 's description well. Especially when depicting the outer party, the people were dull and robot-like, just how I pictured when reading the book. Also, there was the little mottos of the party such as, “Hope lies in the Proles” which really were some of the most memorable parts of the book. However, they did change a few …show more content…
Lastly, the movie would be very difficult for a person with no background knowledge of this society Orwell built, to get a good grip on what was going on. When Winston reads Goldstein 's book it gives an inside look at the society, this part is very briefly covered in the movie, which gives a lack of understanding to the viewer. The director did seem to put effort into simplifying the material and moving the scenes around, in the beginning, to help the views better understand and get into the plot, but I don 't think it was very successful. The movie moved so quickly over all of the details and events that built to the end, that when Winston finally gets caught you feel no emotion because you don 't feel attached to his character. This is no knock to John Hurt as an actor, I think his scene with O’Brien in room 101 were great and showed emotion, but there wasn 't enough little details beforehand to really care what happened to him