Youthful Wizard's hormones are raging

 HARRY POTTER 

AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE (2005)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

I dismissed the original "Harry Potter" film as devoid of magic and a sense of adventure. Now, after seeing "Chamber of Secrets" and "Prisoner of Azkaban," I find the stories are more gripping and have

a sense of fun and a twinkle of glee. "Goblet of Fire" is the fourth entry in the "Harry Potter" series and it is a startling, scary and atmospheric ride, as stirring as the "Prisoner of Azkaban" (though not

as smoothly directed).

Those of you who are devotees of J.K. Rowling's literary series are well aware of what is in store for "Goblet of Fire." This time, Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), the teen wizard, is now the tender age of 14 and his hormones are raging. A ball, known as the Yule Ball, is scheduled for all the students at Hogwarts, though getting a date is harder for Harry and especially Ron (Rupert Grint), the red-headed colleague who certainly has a thing for Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), the know-it-all who

is still smarter than anyone else. An upcoming Tri-Wizard tournament is also scheduled for students around the world, specifically four champions. One of them is a Bulgarian wizard named Vikton Krum

(Stanislav Ianevski), a Quidditch expert, and the other is a blue-clad French girl from the Beauxbaton school. The catch is that the competing wizard has to be aged 17 or older yet Harry Potter's name inadvertently ends up in the goblet of fire, to the dismay of all students and the jealousy of his trusted friend, Ron. Who slipped Harry's name in the goblet? I won't say.

If you want plots and subplots and character details, then you can't find anything better nowadays than Harry Potter. There is so much to keep track of that it is like remembering the names of all the members of the Bush administration since Bush took office. Professor Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) is still the illustrated speaker for all Hogwarts students. Ron wants Hermione yet she has her eye on Krum. A new teacher of the Dark Arts is the seemingly alcoholic Alastor "Mad Eye" Moody (Brendan Gleeson), who has a false, swiveling eye that comes equipped with a zoom lens! Miranda Richardson appears as a gossip columnist, Rita Skeeter, who's too full of herself as she gathers for the next scoop (she

and Gilderoy Lockhart would make a nice pair). The giant Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), the gamekeeper, finally finds love with Madame Maxine (Frances de la Tour), the headmistress of Beauxbaton.

The evil force known as Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) still presides over the school and Harry wants his revenge since Voldemort killed his parents once upon a time. Along the way, harried Harry has to come against the Death-Eaters, a fearsome dragon (the most convincing I've seen thus far on film), tough underwater trials with monstrous mermaids, an endless maze with unseen forces, the return of Harry's godfather Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) in ember form, and much more.

There is so much to take in that you'll be left bewildered and befuddled (it helps to familiarize oneself with the films or the books). "Goblet of Fire," like the last entry, is not overstuffed though it is supremely detailed. The story still works and moves along briskly enough, and it is getting progressively darker. Brit director Mike Newell infuses the fantasy with touches of whimsy and pure magic, not to mention the feeling of puberty breaking out of these wizards.

Since "Prisoner of Azkaban," Daniel Radcliffe has finally proven to develop a personality that brings the urgency out of Rowling's textual hero, including his doubts, his shyness about girls and the lack of ego about being a celebrity after having defeated a dragon. It is Radcliffe's humanity that makes us care for his plight. The trials and tribulations of our favorite youthful wizard continue.

Harry and company, time to prescribe some antidepressants!

 HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN (2004)
Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

I must say that I am slowly becoming a Harry Potter fan. "Chamber of Secrets" was far superior to the original film but "Prisoner of Azkaban," helmed by Mexican director Alfonso Cuaron, is an
unpredictable, odd and extremely sinister new film in the series - it won me over tenfold.

This time, Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), our intrepid wizard, can't wait to begin a new semester at Hogwarts because his stepparents, the Dursleys, are driving him nuts. He is so incensed with them that he literally changes one of his aunts into a flying balloon! Before you know it, Harry's school friends whisk him away in a flying car back to the prospective school of learning wizardry.

It is business as usual although something wicked this way comes (a choir even sings the words to make sure we get the point). Something far darker and more sinister than Harry has ever confronted before is making its way. A convicted murderer named Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) is on the loose and purportedly after Harry since he allegedly killed Harry's parents. There is also a rat-faced human named Peter Pettigrew (Timothy Spall), who can change into a rat and who may not appear to be what he first seems. Added to the mix is the unseen, evil force known as Lord Voldemort and a host of ghostly manifestations known as the Dementors, who emit negative energy and can make you feel depressed (It is high time for Potter and company to start prescribing anti-depressants). The Dementors are after Sirius Black and are attempting to protect the school from Black, though they seem to do more harm than good.

So let's see: who are the new members of the teaching faculty? We have the creepy Professor Lupin (David Thewlis), who may be trying to protect our youthful wizard with no pimples. There is also
newcomer Professor Sybil Trelawney (Emma Thompson, almost unrecognizable), who sees death in Harry's future thanks to tea leaves in tea cups. Everyone seems standoffish, including the usual
members of the faculty such as the sneering Professor Snape (Alan Rickman), Professor Dumbledore (reliable Michael Gambon replacing the late Richard Harris), the sagest of all and, if you are
alert, you'll note the all too brief appearance of Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagall. And if you are real quick, you'll spot Julie Christie in a cameo as someone who knows the truth regarding
Harry's real parents.

"Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" is certainly chock full of characters and situations that require a little note-taking to keep track (post-its might help for the DVD viewer). What is of special
note in this film is the glumness and darker tone. Director Alfonso Cuaron (who helmed the underwhelming "Y Tu Mama Tambien") brings a level of playfulness to it, as should be required of all fantasies, but there is also a sense of unease. Thanks to stunning art-direction and fluid camerawork, the film is just as uninviting as it is inviting. Cuaron sweeps us away into a world of time travel, ominous
incantations uttered before an ominous mirror, werewolves, misty fog by the moonlight, wraiths (Dementors) that resemble the Ring-Wraiths from "Lord of the Rings," flying cars, magic wands,
a little more Quidditch play with flying brooms, a spectral bus, a talking shrunken head, need I say more?

"Prisoner of Azkaban" remains the oddest Harry Potter film by far, evoking more dread than whimsy (which is not a bad thing). Its look and feel resembles Nicholas Roeg's equally dark and foreboding
"The Witches." "Azkaban" is the one film in this series that makes me feel rather uncomfortable, despite how entertaining and dazzling it often is. Everyone in this grand cast performs up to expectations but it is Daniel Radcliffe who surprises me the most. Radcliffe has brought
a sense of urgency and empathy to his role as Potter - this is not some effects-filled bombast with characterless ciphers. In "Sorcerer's Stone," Radcliffe was a bland, undefined little tyke. Now he has
consumed the role and made it his own and I am proud to say it is the best performance in the film.

"Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" is unique, inventive, and tantalizing. Its sense of dread may scare away the tykes, though they probably have the read the book and know what to expect.
Knowing that the books encourage kids to read makes me like this film even more.

Martians' vested interest in some kid's backyard

 INVADERS FROM MARS (1986)

A Lack of Appreciation by Jerry Saravia

Originally seen in theaters in 1986

Catching "Invaders from Mars" on the Svengoolie channel (apparently, there are issues with rights to showing the more appropriate original 1953 film) reminded me why I truly disliked it when I first saw it in theaters in 1986. It was a birthday present and I saw it in a little theater in Forest Hills, New York (the same theater where I saw the similarly misguided "Short Circuit"). The remake of "Invaders from Mars" is more than just slipshod and monotonous - it has no real imagination and hardly updates the original despite being set in the 1980's.

Oh, sure, we got bigger, more monstrous aliens (Martians, sorry to all aliens out there) who walk around the inside of the spaceship like spilled leftovers from "Little Shop of Horrors" (courtesy of creature whiz Stan Winston). We do have the always reliable and thrilling Karen Black as a nurse who believes the little 12-year-old kid (Hunter Carson, Karen's actual son) and his incredible story about a UFO landing in his backyard. Yes, yes, dear child, the Martians exist because Karen Black's character is willing to listen to you first, ask questions later like any good school nurse. There's also legendary grade-Z movie actress Louise Fletcher as a biology teacher who gets her class to pay attention by yelling, "One, two, three, four five!" Oh, yeah, that ought to do it. 

But beyond that, this Tobe Hooper-directed film doesn't have much going for it. There are disgusting-looking aliens, like the Martian brain on legs known as the Supreme Being (who looks like a giant toad with slightly menacing eyes), but none of them have much personality - they are just puppets that don't seem threatening enough (all apologies to Stan Winston's craft). There is no real sense of urgency at work here. And how on earth can you waste the talents of James Karen as a military commander and Bud Cort as a NASA scientist who is foolish enough to think he can reason with these Martians! Let me repeat those names: James freakin' Karen and Bud freakin' Cort!!!

The real problem is that there is no clear narrative consistency. The screenplay by Dan O'Bannon and Don Jakoby and clumsy direction by Hooper suggest something more tongue-in-cheek - how can anyone take Laraine Newman seriously as a mother who does impressions of the Coneheads? This ill-advised remake's tone wavers between tongue-in-cheek and gross-out humor like watching Louise Fletcher eating a frog! The original 1953 film felt like a nightmare (more so in the U.S. version) and took itself seriously enough. This stinker just makes you want to vomit, a feeling I never shook since seeing it in 1986.  

They weren't you Marion

INDIANA JONES 

AND THE 

KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL (2008)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Original 2008 review)

After nineteen years of waiting for the fourth Indiana Jones adventure (Lord knows how long we will have to wait for another chapter), it is finally here. "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" was met with polite
applause at Cannes Film Festival, though what can one expect when crowd-pleasing blockbusters are not its mainstay. Internet chatter and disappointment from fans and non-fans alike had set in when production began, and now there is a great deal more boos and hisses on the Internet Movie Database about this film after its opening day. As I write this, I see the common complaints about Harrison Ford's old age, Karen Allen's old age, the inclusion of Shia LaBeouf, CGI monkeys, CGI prairie dogs, and plenty of spoilers about the film's, how dare I say, otherworldly ending. Well, let me be the first to say that as a major fan of Indiana Jones and as a no-holds-barred critic, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is a stupendous entertainment, and easily the silliest, loopiest, strangest action-adventure movie since, well, "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" in 1989. It will keep you on the edge of your seat and blast you into the world of the 1950's complete with Russian baddies, Russian villainesses, monkeys and vines, Elvis songs and much more. This is director Steven Spielberg at his zesty best.

In the dazzling 20-minute opening sequence set in Nevada, 1957, daredevil archaeologist Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) is lured into a warehouse to find an otherworldly being kept inside a magnetic crate
(yes, this is the same warehouse seen at the end of "Raiders of the Lost Ark"). Before long, we are introduced to Dr. Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett), a Russian psychic with clear connections to the Soviet
Union and its regime. She wants the magnetic crate and feels Indy can find it. He does, with some old-fashioned gunpowder (Nice idea). We are also introduced to Mac (Ray Winstone), a triple agent, working for the CIA and for Dr. Spalko, and he has a habit of betraying Indy's trust. But the action settles in quickly with a fiery rocket sled, whip cracks, a jeep chase, a digital countdown clock, a controlled atomic testing site, and a nuclear blast that catapults Indy, hiding in a refrigerator, into a near-death experience. Indy gets cleaned up for radiation poisoning and is accused of allying with the Russians, thanks to the FBI. All this in the first twenty minutes!

As we head back to Marshall College where Indy is also a professor, he learns he is fired for fear of being a Red. Indy gets ready to leave for London when he is stopped by the teenage Mr. Mutt "The Wild One" Williams (Shia LaBeouf), a high-school dropout who likes fixing motorcycles. Mutt tells Indy that Indy's old colleague, Dr. Oxley (John Hurt), is somewhere in the Amazon after having discovered a mystical crystal skull. There is a map written in an ancient language that must be solved to dictate Oxley's and Mutt's mother's location and the location of the crystal skull (why must everyone write in cryptic hieroglyphics!), but before that we are treated to a dizzying, breathless motorcycle chase through the university and its library! It turns out that the KGB agents are onto Dr. Jones and his young sidekick. Once they arrive in Peru and discover more clues leading to the Akator temple, the twosome have to contend with Dr. Spalko and her thick Russian-accent and her quick-quoted reminders of Mr. Oppenheimer himself ("The Destroyer of Worlds").

I do not have to say much more except what to expect in the tradition of the Indiana Jones movies. We have the animated map lines; cavernous cemeteries; glowing treasure objects; a creepy-looking crystal skull; nasty scorpions; cemetery guards armed with poisonous darts; forbidden temples with dozens of booby traps; quicksand; thousands of red ants; silly monkeys swinging from vines; the aforementioned magnetic crate; a nuclear explosion; a drag race; scared prairie dogs; lead-lined fridges; pyramids; nasty falls from what looks like three Niagara Falls; Mayan warriors who may wandered from the lands of "Apocalypto"; an alien corpse; and an extended DUKW (amphibious to the rest of you) vehicle chase that includes a sword duel! Oh, yes, and there is the mad Oxley who is in something of a trance in the jungles of the Amazon, and there is some nifty double-crossing from the treacherous, greedy Mac who is on anyone's side as long as he gets cash.

The charm of the Indiana Jones pictures is that they never take themselves seriously. This is all a throwback to innocent serials of the 30's, 40's and 50's, replete with some last-minute rescue attempts
and unbelievable chase scenes marked with wit and frenetic pacing. But something else has happened with Indiana Jones - he has aged and matured and so has, to a certain extent, the series since 1989's "Last Crusade." If you recall "Last Crusade" was a more solemn entry in the series, lacking the intensity and whiplash edge-of-your-seat, hair-raising action scenes of the "Lost Ark" and "Temple of Doom." It made up for it by being a slight character study and added depth to Indiana Jones by including his bookwormish, disapproving father (Sean Connery), not to mention a delicious prologue involving young Indiana Jones as a boy scout. By the end of that film, Indy was treasuring his renewed relationship with his father, and was no longer the relentless, stubborn adventurer of the first two movies. That was an interesting way to layer the character with more than just a sentimental side - Indy was slowly becoming like his father. In "Crystal Skull," Indy is older and wiser. He still punches with great velocity and strength, but he doesn't set out to kill anyone (in fact, outside of a canny if implausible method of using a blowgun, he merely fires his RPG launcher to deflect a vehicle, but not necessarily kill anyone). Even more fascinating is that he doesn't ever fire his gun! He knows how to use his whip but he never uses it as a lethal weapon per se. Basically, Indy tries what he can to get out of a situation with his wits and imagination, not by killing anyone specifically in the process. For example, he says to a tall Russian soldier who delivers a Dolby-ized smack to Indy's choppers, "Drop dead, Comrade."

Or even Indy's insistence that a snake not be called a snake. He is an older man who has seen it all, knows the greed and the power that men and women wish to possess, and basically all he can say is, "Same old, same old." When trouble brews, he says, "This can't be good." Only Ford can deliver these cheesy lines with conviction and a touch of vulnerability.

Another angle to Indy is that we learn he has won some medals for fighting in World War II, and that he was told to keep mum on the Roswell incident of 1947 (UFO and Roswell fans are going to love this
movie!) Indy is a lonely man at the start of the movie, having lost his father and his old colleague and museum curator Marcus Brody (whose statue plays a pivotal role in an early action scene). It is
only fitting that returnee Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen, not as feisty but just as damn beautiful as ever) is on hand, to continue bickering and arguing with Indy and his relationship with, well, I
won't spoil it. In many respects, Indy's character mirrors Harrison Ford's own career after appearing in some unworthy films for more than a decade, only to bounce back with more roguish charm and buoyancy than ever before. It is the freshest element of this movie.

"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" could've used more fleshed-out moments between Ford and Allen who still have great chemistry (I sense some scenes ended up on the cutting room floor); some more depth to Ray Winstone's double-triple FBI agent, Mac; more emphasis on the madness in the eyes of John Hurt's Oxley; and a little more of an evil charge in Cate Blanchett's Spalko, who might've been a more formidable opponent (she is no match for the sneaky French archaeologist Belloq from "Raiders"). Those little nitpickeries aside, Ford and Shia LaBeouf are terrific together and show some of the same pleasantries as Ford did with Connery in "Last Crusade." More importantly, "Crystal Skull" is classic Indy fare, and it is definitely entertaining and lots of fun from start to finish. But be warned - this movie is not full of the escapist, thrill-a-minute, enthralling set pieces of the first two films (though there are enough moments to make you hold on to the edge of your seat and it is has the genial tone of the "Last Crusade"). It has action and adventure, though the adventure aspect takes precedence (we get lots of exposition on the mythology of the crystal skull). "Crystal Skull" is
terrific fun and a natural progression of the Indiana Jones character since "Last Crusade." No
way anyone can truly top "Raiders" and why should Spielberg (at the height of his powers here) or George Lucas or Ford. This is a hell of a ride, and that is more than you can say for most Hollywood
blockbusters.

Vulgar yet still likable wedding bells

AMERICAN WEDDING (2003)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

 
I suppose I should have hated "American Wedding" but I couldn't, no matter how hard I tried. Actually, I didn't try because I still believe in the concept of vulgar comedies created to offend the conservatives, and to make the rest of us laugh. Sometimes, they really do manage to offend, as in 1971's sharply
hilarious black comedy "Harold and Maude" or John Waters' "Pink Flamingos." Sometimes they fail because the vulgarity is all there is, as in "Van Wilder," the most profanely unfunny gross comedy ever made. But the "American Pie" series falls somewhere in the middle - they may be gross but their humor has some air of wit and the characters are likable. "American Wedding" ups the ante on the gross-out meter but, again, the characters are still appealing and fun to watch and listen to.

The movie begins with Jim (Jason Biggs) about to propose to Michelle (Alison Hannigan) at a restaurant when he realizes he forgot the wedding ring! Jim contacts his father (Eugene Levy) to bring the ring. But then Michelle gets under the table and, well, if you have seen the other movies, you pretty much know what to expect. The plot has Jim and Michelle planning their wedding while the loutish, boorish Stifler (Seann William Scott) plans a bachelor party with strippers posing as a Swiss maid and a police officer. There is also Michelle's younger, sweet sister Cadence (January Jones), who takes a liking to Stifler, if only because he tries to pass himself off as an intellectual. There is also a truly funny dance contest at a gay bar with Stifler dancing his way around the stage to different songs including the Eurythmics. We also have Jim's grandmother involved in an unfunny predicament with Stifler. The jokes about the dogs abound with bad taste, though they are diverting and will make you wince. Jim's pubic hair scenario may make you wince a lot more, but again, what did you expect in this age of trying to top the Farrelly Brothers gross-out standards?

What there is to enjoy may not be much for the average intellectual, but it is passable for a light evening of entertainment. After it was over, I chuckled a few times, occasionally laughed out loud and turned away with only mild amusement a few dozen times. I appreciate the zany, energetic shenanigans of Seann William Scott's Stifler ("I am the Stiffmeister.") more than Jason Biggs's glum Jim, who is given less to do than in the other films. Overall, the first two "American Pie" movies were funnier and more spirited (and I do miss the absentees: Tara Reid, Chris Klein and Mena Sevauri). Still, if there is another sequel, the filmmakers would be criminally insane not to have Stifler as the main attraction.

Strictly situational

 AMERICAN PIE 2 (2001)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

It is tough to review a movie like "American Pie 2" because either one appreciates a teenage sex comedy or they don't. "American Pie" was a decent entertainment that went on too long, but it did have some big laughs and a genial tone that was appealing enough. But make no mistake: "American Pie" aimed for one general theme - high-school teenagers today are only interested in sex, nothing else. "American Pie 2" continues the same theme with little or no ingenuity and, at least, it is still genial and contains some big laughs.

Goofy, geeky Jim (Jason Biggs) is back, now having gone through a whole year at college. He is still preoccupied with sex and is caught doing the nasty by his parents and his girlfriend's parents! Jim goes back home for the summer, but is then instantly taken to a lake house in Michigan with his buddies. They need a job and find one painting a house where two supposed lesbians live! So there are
lots of scatological jokes involving sex, homophobia, homosexuality, phone sex, super glue, and even CB radio! The latter joke seems strange considering we live in the era of the Internet (CB is referred to as the "prehistoric Internet" in the thrilling "Joyride"), thus the earlier film's joke of broadcasting Jim's
embarrassing rendezvous with the Russian girl, Nadia (Shannon Elizabeth), on the Internet was far funnier.

And that is about it. "American Pie 2" is a situational comedy in the strictest sense, depending entirely on creative sexual adventures to further the movie along. There is no plot and really no story - this is a roundabout sexual comedy all the way. The problem is that after a while, the situations and the jokes can get old when the filmmakers have nothing else to depend on. A sticky predicament involving Jim gets some big laughs. I also like the extended scene where the two lesbian chicks confront Jim and two of his buddies, and convince them to undress and kiss. There is a nice bit involving Jim's prom date, Michelle (Alyson Hannigan), and how he asks her to prepare him for the inevitable meeting with his "Internet" love, Nadia. I also enjoyed the brief scenes with Tara Reid and Mena Sevauri, both of whom are too talented for this kind of material. They are so watchable that I wish they were given more screen time.

The characters are fresh and likable. Some of the situations are fun. The dialogue is sometimes clever. I can't feel but mystified, though, that "American Pie 2" exists for no reason other than to cash in on the original and provide more of the same. We are led to believe that after high school, college only
offers these kids the same lusty thoughts of sexual promiscuity. When do they ever grow up?

Those who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future

 1984 (1984)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

George Orwell is an author who understood all too well how totalitarian regimes work. His famous novel "1984" did not see the future as much as it saw how the 1940's would be seen as the past and the future. When his novel was published in 1949, it was prescient to those who knew all too well about the extinguished Nazi regime yet no one could've anticipated how much of the novel was beyond sardonic and became spookily real. Naturally there was also Stalin's Russia and there is no doubt that the images he conjured in our collective imagination have become eerily prescient in 2022 and, ultimately, ever since the book was published. Director Michael Radford's disturbing, thought-provoking version of Orwell's book is the last we might ever see of this book and that is fine by me. It may be the only time we see how that world visually was so clinically unhealthy - such a grayish, crumbling world can only allow conformity.

John Hurt is the frail-looking Winston Smith who works for the Ministry of Truth, a dingy-looking building where he effectively rewrites history in newspaper articles to befit the current climate of war taking place. It is what is referred to as Newspeak, rebranding Oldspeak by deleting and/or rephrasing headlines and replacing pictures of the current Unpersons with new persons. Any other discarded notes are destroyed by throwing them through ducts that lead to a furnace. Interestingly, we get the sole shot in the whole movie where we see Winston at his desk from the point-of-view of Big Brother - the surveillance is omnipresent as every screen has a still image of Big Brother. In this fictional land of a bombed-out, oppressive place known as Oceania, the workers at the Ministry of Truth all wear faded blue uniforms. They all live in their own eroded flats that look torn apart, and they all drink the same Victory gin that makes one belch and smoke the same Victory cigarettes. The lift at the flats barely ever works so everyone is forced to use the stairs. All Oceania residents are practically automatons in this totalitarian society as they attend rallies with giant dual screens of Party members showing death and destruction in war with Eurasia and East Asia. They are all malleable and all scream in unison at the enemies (one is the opposition leader of the Brotherhood known as Emmanuel Goldstein) and then cross their arms singing the regime's anthem (one can't escape thinking this hailing of their leader as an obvious echo of the Nazi salute). 

Winston is not a believer in the Party or the Outer Party he's part of - he buys a diary book and writes his criticisms in a far corner of his room so as not to be seen by the Big Brother monitor. He only pretends to be a Party supporter and is too much of an intellectual, which would make him guilty of Thoughtcrime. He eyes a seeming revolutionary or presumed spy of the Outer Party, Julia (a startling performance by Suzanna Hamilton), and they decide to have a love affair despite the regime's restrictions on sex and just about everything having to do with being human. 

Not unlike Orwell's dystopian novel, "1984" is a tough film to absorb and it is so relentlessly (and purposely) bleak that it may be even tougher to sit still for it. I've seen it now three times and this last time was a bit of an ordeal, mostly due to witnessing Winston's torture by the cruel O'Brien (2+2=5 became numbers that petrified me through its constant repetition and questioning by O'Brien). Of course, it is meant to be an ordeal because most of the film (and the book) revolves around being inside Winston's mind. In that fragile spirit of a person seeking individuality and a return to humanism, John Hurt is the perfect Winston Smith. Every line of dialogue spoken and every piece of narration is given maximum gravity in ways only John Hurt could have only mustered. I also love Suzanna Hamilton's work here as a brave Julia, often wearing a scarlet sash as in the book, who is not ready to give up the fight. Richard Burton, in his last role, is positively chilling as O'Brien, an Inner Party member who implements torturing those who violate the laws and criticize the regime. One torturous device in room 101 has to do with rats in a cage and I will leave it at that. 

The underlying theme is you cannot have sex or have an orgasm or have any love for anything or anyone other than Big Brother and the totalitarian regime. The last line of "1984," and expressed without dialogue in the book, is "I love you" uttered without a hint of irony by Winston. This is not directed to Julia or anyone other than Big Brother. Winston's brainwashed and accepting of anything Big Brother says or does. That's love in a cruel, odd way.