User reviews

'Brave New World', the 1932 novel by Aldous Huxley, told of a new world where babies were decanted as Alphas, Betas, Deltas, Epsilons, or Gammas, all designed to know their places in society, and in the case of the lower classes, decanted as multiple identical twins to staff entire factories and production lines. Their God is Ford (as in Henry) and their motto is 'history is bunk'.

In the book, Bernard Marx is a fish out of water, an Alpha of stunted growth who has dangerous ideas, who refuses to act like he is expected to, and is generally despised. The film's Bernard is Peter Gallagher, a kind of magnetic Romeo figure, popular with the girls, and a confident success. Already there's been some tampering done with the source.

With Rya Kihlstedt as a colourless Lenina (again nothing like the book's character, who is conventional to a 't') and Leonard Nimoy as the Controller, Mustapha Mond, the film loses impact and goes downhill very quickly.

Nods can be given (grudingly) at the attempts to develop computer generated conditioning forms, and to give some sense of a futuristic world. It just doesn't come off. The savage reservation is simply full of young Americans out to pick a fight, while John (the savage child of Linda, a Beta stranded in the reservation) does speak Shakespeare, but is otherwise of little interest and very unlike the book.

A disappointment and a huge bore, missing both the humour and the science-fiction/faction innovations of Huxley's novel.

The "Brave New World (TV Movie 1980)" from the BBC was a billion times better, you can find references to that adaptation in IMDb

Just watch the BBC version or read the book, there is nothing in this one to redeem itself, awful.

The 3 hours long BBC version and the book can be found in the website Huxley dot net at the very bottom, there are the links to the book and the movie Sadly the copy came from a bad VHS, but watchable. There is no better copy as far as I know. A bit cartooned in style, worth it anyway, so the book.

Bottom line, do yourself a favor, watch the BBC version or read the book

In the near future society is managed so that everyone is happy - only a few live on the edges of society as trash. In society, babies are no longer born, they are designed into social categories to decide their future roles. Everyone is happy. However one of the conditioning team, Bernard, can't help but feel if there were any ways of making it better. When a chance helicopter accident brings him into contact with one of the `savages', John Cooper, he brings him back as an experiment. Initially John is taken by the society but gradually he begins to see that the world is not as he wants it.

For a major film to attempt to bring a major novel to the screen is a brave move, but for a cheap TVM to have a stab at it is even more of a risk. This version is kind of interesting in an obvious way, but really is not even worthy of sharing the name of the book (and indeed doesn't really stick to it either). The plot is roughly the same but the film is keen to point out how this future is so very like the current world that many of us in the West now live in. Big deal. This is very obvious and is far too simple a point to make in an attempt to translate Huxley. It is of vague interest on this level and there were certain parallels that made me think - problem was, I didn't leave the film thinking - I ignore the action onscreen and just starting pondering! Films should make you think - but surely not to the point where your thoughts are actually better than what's on the screen!

So yes it says lots of stuff about social classes (which we have - workers and middlemen and top men), consumerism, slogans, media saturation and loss of individualism. But it just doesn't deliver all these in a good package; which it really needed to do in order to get by. As it is, it doesn't manage to really engage and I found myself not really caring.

The cast are pretty low rent to a man - when Nimoy is a surprise big cameo, you know you're in the sh*t! Gallagher is pretty bland and didn't really do anything for me in the lead and support from Kihlstedt is not great either. The supposedly wild and free Cooper is played badly by Guinee; I just didn't care for him or his situation and never really got the feel of a man who is gradually realising that he is in hell. Ferrer was OK and it was nice to see him not playing a sinister creep of one sort or another (although only just!).

Overall this is a passable TVM that makes very obvious comments about our society by exaggerating them slightly in a future setting. This would be well and good but it is certainly never Brave New World. If you are looking for something to wash over you for 90 minutes then this would do, but given the choice again, I'd read the book instead.

Brave new world is one of the most inspiring and prescient novels of the 20th century (it was first published in 1932). In the future it portrays, humanity has achieved its final goal: happiness, understood as the ability of each person to satisfy his/her impulses almost immediately. Achieving this goal means leaving science, religion, and most of our culture in the way. In this perfect world people have all the sex and TV they want, hyperconsumption is a social virtue, and books are denigrated because they promote individualism. Sounds familiar?

The novel is dark and pessimistic and the characters' personality is flat because they are supposed to be that way. The only exception in the novel, the savage, is well portrayed in the movie but the rest of the characters appear too normal (too present-day) in the movie. This is especially true in the case of Lenina, the central female character who is supposed to be typical of her time (no brains, just fun, thank you) in the novel while in the movie has a more complex personality. This change ends up altering the plot and was probably caused by that big stupidity of our times, political correctness.

This adaptation of the novel for TV mass consumption also includes several other changes such as an assassination plot (unthinkable in the original) and the inclusion of a happy ending, which completely distort the message. Maybe, the novel was right: all that matters is having a lot of sex and violence on TV but we should avoid "intellectual" narratives that make people think and, therefore, "unhappy".

1/10.

Why do they do it? Why do they pick a novel like this which obviously has a following (seeing how it's still around after 75 years), and screw around with the story line? Are the writers thinking "Yeah, that Aldous guy is OK, but I'm much better." Or are they thinking that we simply wouldn't understand the story in it's original form? This trash is going to offend anyone that can actually finish a book without pictures in it. Watching what they did to this classic is similar to watching "Romeo and Juliette" rewritten to have a happy ending. I can't think of any demographic that's going to be pleased with the result. I would seriously like to attend the brainstorming session where they worked out the screenplay just to hear the rational behind rewriting a classic.

Having been a fan of the book, I really wanted to watch a movie of "brave new world", and when by chance I came across and I saw this video from a second-hand movie store I duely brought it. I was not expecting an classic as it had some second rate actors Ive never heard of, but I was at least expecting to see how a movie director protrates things and story plots onto screen. As soon as I played the movie and the first scene came on I knew this movie was not going great as it had all the wooden acting skills that you see on a TV movie, but to be honest that would not of bothered me as all I wanted to see is the movie that I read previously some year before. As soon as the movie was finished however I was extremely disappointed, not because the movie was awful (which it was), it was the fact that 95% of the scenes did not happen, in fact they changed the story so much that it hardly resembled the book at all and you would not of reconised it if the movie had another title, and the worse part of it all was they changed the ending, what was all this b**l s**t with lenina and bernard falling in love and having a child in the reservation, did the directors not read the book? I could go on forever with the number of changes they did in this movie (no mention of ford or hermholz, bernard starting of popular and sha**ng lenina), and what I also would say were pointless changes that lost the meaning of the book, but im not going to waste my time.

In summary if you have read the book and you want to watch this movie all I can say is don't put you hopes to high with this pile of c**p, because you will be disappointed, be be frank I would recommend that you don't even waste your time watching it, as its that bad and ruins the book. If however you have not read the book, DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE, as it would put you off a great book, instead just go to your local Library and pick up a copy of the book instead and read that, its much better, it has more meaning to it and you will enjoy it.

BRAVE NEW WORLD is one of many classic novels I have never got round to reading . Why don`t you read classic novels Theo ? Because I usually stay up half the night watching shows like OZ on late night television

And speaking of OZ the directors of this TVM Leslie Libman & Larry Williams directed one of the outstanding episodes of the series `Straight Life` which fans will remember was themed around drug taking . Well I guess the directors deserve some faint praise for making everything watchable . If I remember correctly the 1980 mini series version of the book suffered badly from having all the characters dressed up in silver foil costumes like in an extremely bad B movie but here thankfully everyone dresses in an entirely sensible and recognisable manner . I guess too that there wasn`t much money awarded to the production hence Libman and Williams decided to make everything look like the present day , but wether it`s down to artistic grounds or funding at least we don`t see riduclous overdeveloped visions of what future cities may look like and if the future resembles a sexy soft core anthology series like HOTLINE then I`m all for it . Oh and do I get the feeling the U2 concerts of the 1990s had some influence here ?

Unfortunately it`s the script by Dan Mazur that seems to be at fault . As I said I`ve never read the book but everything seems skimmed over in such a haphazard and underdeveloped manner it`s almost impossible to understand the point the original novel might be trying to make . What were the wars about ? Why haven`t the Alpha society captured savages before etc ? There`s little in the way of backstory but enough backstory to make you realise it`s not been explained enough . But worst of all do I think Huxley`s ideas and subtext on eugenics has been sucessfully translated on screen ? No I don`t think it has , it doesn`t seem that the happiness found in utopian future is down to genetic engineering - it`s down to a drug called Soma . So Huxley advocated drug taking to be the answer to mankind reaching a higher state of being ? This also no doubt explains why the directors were hired due to their drugs orientated episode of OZ

In many ways this version of BRAVE NEW WORLD plays out like an episode of the classic BBC series BLAKE`S 7 , a series where the main recreational drug is also called Soma ( Bet you never knew that ) and just like all but the very worst episodes of BLAKE`S 7 this TVM is rather watchable but no doubt Huxley fans will detest it

Yes, it was not TRUE to the novel, but this version hits on so many levels closer to home, I found it to be much more interesting and connectable than the 1980 version. The writers deserve much kudos for fitting most of the elements of the novel into this modernized version - and it fits well with current trends from the night club sex world, to the Prozac, zoloft, "e" popping world, to the CITY people being civilized and the country folk shunned for their family ways. ALL very relevant, or sort of how the novel played out in my mind anyway... but this movie fit even better. If you can ever find it, I'd recommend a watch, NOT as the best version of BNW novel, but as a modern and currently existing lifestyle in the world that BNW predicted. I mean, I read the novel and the whole time I was thinking, "This is exactly how the world is today mostly", so I found this updated version to be brilliant.

Production wise, the sets were fine, the lighting great, not sure about the audio, and the actors fit pretty well, and acted okay... it's not Oscar material as it was made for TV, but the STORY carries everything along exactly as it should. I'd buy the DVD in a second if it is ever released.

Okay, I realize that I'm probably going to get labeled as either a moron or a heretic for this, but I'm not going to let that put me off!

Y'see, the fact is I LOVED this version of Huxley's classic!!!

The main reason for contempt aimed at this film appears to concern the matter of deviation from the original text.

Firstly, it is almost always necessary when adapting literary material, and this is the case here. Secondly, the alterations are not that severe. The only real changes pertain to character (oh, and the admittedly fluffy pink ending which appears to have been pinned on as an afterthought, I'll give you that one): Marx and Lenina are fleshed out, in that they develop the ability to learn and evolve, which in the book is impossible. Helmholtz is removed as his purpose in the book is fulfilled here by Marx in the aforementioned capacity. John is rendered here more mentally stable and exhibits none of the religious fervor for guilt and self flagellation.

Right, so why were these changes necessary?

In the study version of the text, the notes state "Thus however tempting it may be to base a reading of brave new world on a sympathetic identification with the characters, it would be a distortion of the novel to do so." It also postulates that the "characters are static, incapable of learning, changing and developing in the way real people do".

Now, these things may well be fine in a book, but in a film the medium requires precisely the kind of 'sympathetic identification' missing from the text if it is to be enjoyed by any kind of audience outside of, perhaps, the art-house crowd. Moreover, characters in films NEED to evolve in a way that is not perhaps required in a literary equivalent. It is simply a matter of adapting format to work successfully.

As for John, and again with reference to the study text, Huxley himself states "...the most serious defect in the story, which is this, the savage is offered only two alternatives, an insane life in Utopia...(or that) his native Penetente-ism reasserts its authority and he ends in maniacal self torture and suicide." He goes on to assert "if I were to rewrite the book, I would offer the savage a third alternative. Between the utopian and the primitive horns of his dilemma would lie the possibility of sanity"

The alterations to John's character not only serve the aforementioned necessities when converting the story to celluloid, but address Huxley's own misgivings about the direction the story arc took.

Basically, the changes are justified.

As to the socio economic and eugenic details in Huxleys work - the things that made it so important, well 95% of them are in there. Some are slightly updated, but essentially they are identical. The only missing ingredients that I spotted were the Bokanovskyfication of human embryo's, and the erotic play amongst children.

The former perhaps should have been utilized, but the latter, well, they'd have NEVER gotten away with that.

All in all, and given the obvious budgetary restraints clearly present, I believe this to be a faithfully spirited, valid interpretation of a book that was always going to be incredibly difficult to film.

For those of you students out there looking to get away with not having to read Huxley's novel, this film version will definitely do you more harm than good. The most interesting aspect of the novel for me is analyzing Bernard's motives and beliefs and how he sells out after returning from the reservation with John, but that is not part of this movie at all. In this film, Bernard is more like Helmholtz, a radical individual trying to break the chains of "civilization" which he definitely is not in the novel. Anyways, long story short...read the book, or at the very least the Cliff Notes. This movie is a good supplement, but it doesn't hold a candle to the novel itself.

This Hollywood makeover stylistically embodies many of the points made in the text; the victory of shallowness over sincerity, style over substance, sloganism over communication -- the movie is less than the book in so many of the ways that mankind is made less in the Brave New World. Coincidence? But who DOES read Shakespeare? Or for that matter, Huxley? If the movie were made true to it's original form, the intelligentsia would cheer and marvel just as they admired the original masterpiece, but what of those who need these insights the most? This movie reaches out to the brainwashed: the production / consumption units among us born and bred in the artifice of western civilization. Who needs these concepts more? Those who have already ascertained the game, muttering amongst themselves in coffee houses? Or those to whom the idea that this so-called reality is somehow "less" than the uncivilized world is a new idea and difficult to swallow . . . even in small bites? The American public is deeply asleep in a shared symbolic consciousness that obliterates the real. This movie eases the uninitiated into awareness through a television medium with which they are familiar and can relate. The characters, their motivations and dynamics have an air of familiarity in the TV world. It has the familiar hooks and subplots that would be expected in a quest for ratings, but is that all bad when it floats out at least some of the book's main ideas in a palatable form, diluting yet expanding Huxley's reach? The movie DOES make many valid and thoughtful statements that just don't get a lot of airplay in this society and deserves credit for making some bold statements - especially right before commercials.

I think the purists are being too harsh. This version of Brave New World reaches the most important audience - the uninitiated - in a way that's entertaining and understandable. It's a good start, and I recommend it as such.

I don't know that I have ever seen a movie adaptation that made me as upset as this one did. So many terrible choices...the book is a classic, but they have completely lost the feel of it by trying to update everything (which didn't need to be done anyway, it was set in the future!).

Not only is it very badly made and written, the people that that they have chosen for the roles are completely wrong for them, as are their costumes.

Complete and utter disgrace. I'm offended. I wish I would never have found out about this piece of garbage, it's shaken my faith in humanity. If anyone knows how I can get hold of the filmmakers to tell them what I think of this, please let me know.

I had thought if Brave New World was ever made into a movie, that chances are it would be disappointing, at the least. When I found out that it was made into a TV miniseries, I suspected worse. I couldn't rent or purchase it at any video stores so I went to the Museum of Television and Radio in NYC to watch it.

TRAGIC! It was even worse than I suspected. The characters were two-dimensional and not representative of that particular society. The subtraction of key characters and subplots (e.g. Helmholtz Watson, Bernard's job being in jeopardy) streamlined this future fable into a candy-coated, one-track, superficial piece of garbage that not only refused to address the (subtext) issues that Huxley was concerned about, but flat-out changed the underlying theme.

BNW is not about finding paradise or utopia, it's about the soul and spirit of humanity and how, even when buried under controlled circumstances, it finds it's way to the surface.

This movie is definitely a made-for-television movie, as evidenced by it's rather poor production quality and bad acting. It definitely deviates significantly from the book in such a way that harms the film. The soundtrack is pretty poor as well.

However, Leonard Nimoy definitely fit the role he had in this movie well and actually helped make the film somewhat watchable. It's definitely more watchable than a lot of other made-for-TV movies.

Taking all of this into account, I'm giving this movie a 4. This movie had potential to be good, if the script had only stuck to the book more closely, and better actors/actresses were cast.

This version was completely horrible! I read the book a year or two before this came out and when I saw it it made me want to throw up. They did a HORRIBLE job on this. What was w/ breaking Bernard Marx's character into 2 different people?? They loosely followed the book. It isn't even worth the tape it's recorded on! And whoever bought advertising time wasted their money

Although this movie version of 'Brave New World' was quite different from the novel, I still enjoyed it. It seemed to be a different take on Huxley's theme. The city itself was especially impressive, as was the eclectic style of the whole film. As for the actors, they all did fairly well; Nimoy did an especially nice job with his role. I also liked the prissy beta clerk!

I'm not sure what I'm more embarrassed to admit: that I've seen this movie or that I don't miss it any time it airs. Okay, it's probably the second one.

There are some good performances struggling to break out. Peter Gallagher is always pretty solid and I've always been a fan of Miguel Ferrer. Rya Kihlstedt is certainly sexy and better than what's she's given to work with.

The fact that this is an adaptation is no excuse for its weaknesses, furthermore, none of the changes enhanced the story, anyway.

On the plus side, this is one of the funniest damn movies about a dystopian future that has ever been released. Normally, I don't bother with reviews, but I wanted to share the joy with this one. I can't help but laugh out loud when the pinhead delta runs head-first into Bernard's window projector thingamajig. I wonder if that counts as a spoiler.

This TV film should not be called Brave New World, as it is different from Huxley's vision of Utopia in the novel. The film has never been made into a faithful version of the book because the rights to the book are in dispute.

People who view the TV version think that they are watching a film made of the book, but they most certainly are not.The acting and directing are poor, and the sets are cheesy.

Read the book, and hope that some day, a good director will be able to make the actual events in the novel come to life.

Marlynn Alkins

Let me start by saying that I have never read the book, or even heard of it until yesterday, and therefore I can not compare the film to it. Most of the complaints about this film seem to be basically that it didn't do the book justice. If you have not read the book, you will probably enjoy it more than those who have and see it as something that spoils the book. I thought the movie was very interesting and I would recommend it. Of course, my opinion might change after I read the book...