अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंThe ultimate and comprehensive documentary film about the exceptional writer George Orwell.The ultimate and comprehensive documentary film about the exceptional writer George Orwell.The ultimate and comprehensive documentary film about the exceptional writer George Orwell.
- पुरस्कार
- 4 जीत और कुल 11 नामांकन
George Orwell
- Self - Novelist
- (आर्काइव फ़ूटेज)
U Win Khine
- Self - Lead Immigration Officer, Myanmar
- (आर्काइव फ़ूटेज)
Min Aung Hlaing
- Self - Prime Minister of Myanmar
- (आर्काइव फ़ूटेज)
- (as General Min Aung Hlaing)
Augusto Pinochet
- Self - Supreme Head of the Nation
- (आर्काइव फ़ूटेज)
- (as General Augusto Pinochet)
Ferdinand Marcos
- Self - President of the Philippines
- (आर्काइव फ़ूटेज)
Yoweri Museveni
- Self - President of Uganda
- (आर्काइव फ़ूटेज)
- (as General Yoweri Museveni)
Vladimir Putin
- Self - President of Russia
- (आर्काइव फ़ूटेज)
Viktor Orbán
- Self - Prime Minister of Hungary
- (आर्काइव फ़ूटेज)
George W. Bush
- Self - 43rd President of the United States
- (आर्काइव फ़ूटेज)
- (as President George W. Bush)
Colin Powell
- Self - Secretary of State
- (आर्काइव फ़ूटेज)
Victor Otto
- Self - Father of a Russian Soldier Killed Ukraine
- (आर्काइव फ़ूटेज)
Ida Blair
- Self - Orwell's Mother
- (आर्काइव फ़ूटेज)
Richard Blair
- Self - Orwell's Father
- (आर्काइव फ़ूटेज)
Donald Trump
- Self - 45th President of the United States
- (आर्काइव फ़ूटेज)
Sidney Powell
- Self - Attorney and Former Prosecutor
- (आर्काइव फ़ूटेज)
Joseph Stalin
- Self - Leader of the Soviet Union
- (आर्काइव फ़ूटेज)
6.6518
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
Picturebook of a Young Democratic Socialist
Had high hopes for this movie to examine Orwell's thoughts on political systems and regimes with in-depth focus on parallels to modern day "newspeak" and breaking of collective willpower, but it does none of that. It's a series of sometimes no context images of death and dictators and Adobe Affect Effects text animations that are played along with snippets from his diary about his life. It does give more context about his writing, but no context for the historical events it shows or why it chooses to focus so heavily on Burma. It doesn't bring in any other historians or political analysts until the end and it's very brief and superficial. It primarily felt like I was watching a collection of movie clips of 1984 versions. Overall, I appreciate the subject matter and the recency of the content (e.g., the inclusion of the Gaza genocide and the MAGA ambivalence towards death for "the other team") but the movie wasn't as thought provoking as I was hoping and felt more like SparkNotes to 1984 for a Gen X audience, nothing groundbreaking if you've already read 1984 and have a basic understanding of politics and injustice.
Hard to Watch
Watched it recently at a film festival. Go see it if you don't mind a tedious preachy clip show of historical footage with frequent bland voiceovers narrating Orwell's words, often with the background of a slow-moving vista of dull dreary Scotland. This sort of work comes off as a naive high school politics student trying to be original and edgy, since the film goes down the same predictable politically one-sided narratives (complete with sentimental instrumental soundtrack). Essentially a sophomoric propaganda piece with stale observations about government power that are already known by anyone familiar with Orwell's main works. Couldn't take it anymore, and we walked out near the end.
Edit: on second thought, I give it 2 stars instead of 1. The part about Orwell's time in Burma was mildly interesting.
Edit: on second thought, I give it 2 stars instead of 1. The part about Orwell's time in Burma was mildly interesting.
A Comprehensive, Relevant Profile
George Orwell (born Eric Arthur Blair, 1903-1050), author of such legendary novels as the allegorical Animal Farm and dystopian 1984, has been called one of the greatest and most insightful writers of the 20th Century. And, in light of recent history, he's also been widely regarded as one of the most prescient, a plainspoken scribe who clearly saw the future long before it happened and wasn't afraid to straightforwardly call it for what it would become. In recognition of that legacy, Orwell's life, work and outlooks are now the subject of this latest production from prolific activist documentarian Raoul Peck. The film weaves together a biography of the author, the central themes of his journalistic and literary works, and illustrations of how those notions have materialized in the "management" (or, one might more accurately say, manipulation) of social, political and world affairs over the years, with an especially heavy emphasis on the present day. The filmmaker cites myriad examples of these manifestations to show just how on target Orwell was in predicting what would lie ahead, both in the places where he lived (England, Spain and Burma (now Myanmar)), as well as other locales around the globe, including Russia, Ukraine, Haiti, France, Latin America, Asia, and, most importantly, the US. And, while Peck largely targets the policies and practices of the right, he's not afraid to take on anyone whose dogma is so rigid that it throws circumstances off balance for everyone. Most notably, though, the picture details just how insidious these initiatives can be, agendas accomplished through the skillful "handling" of language, media, beliefs and actions that lead to intentional, calculated and shameful obfuscation, creating purposely misleading impressions in the minds of an unwittingly susceptible public. The narrative places much emphasis on the signature double-talk expressions Orwell features in his narratives (especially 1984), including such meaningless phrases as "War is peace," "Freedom is slavery" and "Ignorance is strength," slogans that say nothing but become widely embraced with relentless and intimidating repetition. The director's inclusion of these references thus depicts the deliberate war on truth being waged by those in power who will do anything to maintain their control over it, particularly when dealing with a compliant, quiescent population. These themes are further supported by an array of clips from other fictional and documentary works, such as the 1954, 1956 and 1984 versions of "1984," "I, Daniel Blake" (2016), "Land and Freedom" (1995), "Minority Report" (2002), and "Orwell Rolls in His Grave" (2003), to name a few. And further enhancement is provided in numerous voiceover sequences from Orwell's own writings, deftly narrated by Damian Lewis. All told, these elements provide a comprehensive look at the author and his work, as well as its relevance in today's world. With that said, however, some aspects of this offering could use some work, most notably in the organization of its content, its overreliance at times on material that needs to be read (and that often flies by too quickly) and an occasional tendency toward redundancy, elements that have been known to intrude upon other films by this director. In addition, "Orwell: 2+ 2 = 5" has frequently been termed (and quite accurately at that) as the scariest picture of 2025, primarily due to its inclusion of some troubling graphic imagery (sensitive viewers take note). Nevertheless, this is an important film for our times, one that viewers should not be afraid to watch considering the stakes involved. Indeed, turning a blind eye might be easier to do in the moment - but probably not in the long run.
Misses the point in 2025
Saw this at a film festival. This is some sort of a biography of Eric Arthur Blair (AKA George Orwell) through some of his letters. That part is quite interesting, I learned a few things but basically it's data you can find on wikipedia.
The movie tries to draw a relation between his life and the writing of his major and last book: 1984. It rely heavily on previous adaptations which is quite annoying (make new with old). But IMO the real weak point of the movie is its failure to implement Orwell's ideas into our contemporary world.
The movie takes a strong partisanship side and doesn't question itself about it (basically: billionaires are too rich, chinese military parade are scary, we live in a democracy that needs to be saved from tyranny). It somehow felt like propaganda: we've been at war with Oceania the whole time, and you shouldn't question about it.
I was quite surprised of the absence of certain events that were a very good exemple of Orwellian dystopia in the last few years: how can you make a movie about Orwell in 2025 and not a single word about covid? It was a period of heavily censored information, where anything out of the unique doctrine was considered heresy, tens of newspeak words, constant rewriting of history, with the ultimate goal being to comply with restrictions rules. Covid is literally the elephant in the room.
Add a few shots of poor people in their environment facing the camera with great lighting for emotional value, and more than 10 years old interview of Edward Snowden, you end up with old footage sold as new with missed analysis.
I guess the upside would be to draw curiosity for the book for the viewers who haven't read it yet.
The movie tries to draw a relation between his life and the writing of his major and last book: 1984. It rely heavily on previous adaptations which is quite annoying (make new with old). But IMO the real weak point of the movie is its failure to implement Orwell's ideas into our contemporary world.
The movie takes a strong partisanship side and doesn't question itself about it (basically: billionaires are too rich, chinese military parade are scary, we live in a democracy that needs to be saved from tyranny). It somehow felt like propaganda: we've been at war with Oceania the whole time, and you shouldn't question about it.
I was quite surprised of the absence of certain events that were a very good exemple of Orwellian dystopia in the last few years: how can you make a movie about Orwell in 2025 and not a single word about covid? It was a period of heavily censored information, where anything out of the unique doctrine was considered heresy, tens of newspeak words, constant rewriting of history, with the ultimate goal being to comply with restrictions rules. Covid is literally the elephant in the room.
Add a few shots of poor people in their environment facing the camera with great lighting for emotional value, and more than 10 years old interview of Edward Snowden, you end up with old footage sold as new with missed analysis.
I guess the upside would be to draw curiosity for the book for the viewers who haven't read it yet.
Always yell with the crowd
If the intention was to present a "shrill trumpet-call" in imitation of an Inner Party-directed Hate Week project, then mission accomplished.
The narrated George Orwell excerpts outshine anything assembled by the writer / director whose own political bias and blind spots mirror an Orwell quotation that's cited early in the film: "The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude". IMO, Orwell: 2+2=5 is a political attitude that lacks artistry. Images and video are presented in a "We didn't start the fire" stream; there is no depth, no context and not even a discussion of the title formula, just clips from past portrayals of 1984. Overall, it's clumsily designed to manipulate the hate-filled and uninformed. It will do well in some circles.
Skip this film; better to read Mr. Orwell and a good Orwell biography.
The best I can say about Orwell: 2+2=5 is that the anticipation of seeing it encouraged me to re-read Nineteen Eighty-Four. I did also appreciate the clip from Terry Gilliam's Brazil; isolating the copy room scene made me wonder about the great preparation that was necessary to make the movements so fluid.
The narrated George Orwell excerpts outshine anything assembled by the writer / director whose own political bias and blind spots mirror an Orwell quotation that's cited early in the film: "The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude". IMO, Orwell: 2+2=5 is a political attitude that lacks artistry. Images and video are presented in a "We didn't start the fire" stream; there is no depth, no context and not even a discussion of the title formula, just clips from past portrayals of 1984. Overall, it's clumsily designed to manipulate the hate-filled and uninformed. It will do well in some circles.
Skip this film; better to read Mr. Orwell and a good Orwell biography.
The best I can say about Orwell: 2+2=5 is that the anticipation of seeing it encouraged me to re-read Nineteen Eighty-Four. I did also appreciate the clip from Terry Gilliam's Brazil; isolating the copy room scene made me wonder about the great preparation that was necessary to make the movements so fluid.
क्या आपको पता है
- कनेक्शनEdited from Oliver Twist (1948)
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- आधिकारिक साइट
- भाषाएं
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- Jura, Inner Hebrides, स्कॉटलैंड, यूनाइटेड किंगडम(many locations)
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $3,55,288
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $25,887
- 5 अक्टू॰ 2025
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $3,55,288
- चलने की अवधि
- 1 घं 59 मि(119 min)
- रंग
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें

