Interesteg What makes it different from others?

Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Myron Clemons A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

Fulke Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

qmtv I have not read the book. But it seems they covered most of the ideas. This is a very slow TV movie. The characters are boring. The actors are amateur. The dialogue is hard to sit through. The production is crap. The cinematography, music, editing all are basic and boring.I only sat through this because I was interested in the story and wanted to know what the hell is going on and how the story concluded. The only way I made it through the end is I played guitar while watching so I wouldn't fall asleep.The idea of the film is OK at best. The film itself is garbage. Rating is a D, or 3 stars just for the idea.

MartinHafer When I saw this television film back in 1980, I was captivated--so captivated that I almost immediately went out and read the source material, the Aldous Huxley novel. I loved the book and its prescient look at the future of mankind and now, decades later, I decided to watch this television adaptation once again. Well, I sure was surprised, as I really didn't love the film nearly as much as I once did--much of it due to the really annoying way that John the Savage talked. I found it wearisome after a while hearing him talking in Shakespearean lingo...something not as ever-present in the book. Much of it could be because it was so obvious since the film was a bit overlong. As for the rest of the story, it generally was well done at showing the vacuousness of the future engineered society--and the use of drugs, genetics and sex to keep everyone dumb and happy. It does look a tad dated but overall it's still much better than the ultra-bland later Leonard Nimoy version of the story. And, the story itself is so good even a lower-budgeted TV version like this one is worth your time.If you are interested in seeing it, the film (and the worse Nimoy version) are available to watch on YouTube.

Scott Amundsen This 1980 made-for-TV film is the first attempt to adapt Huxley's landmark novel to the screen. I read the book for the first time over twenty-five years ago, and recently had occasion to re-read it. Some books are so much their own identity that one can be excused for considering them possibly unfilmable; for me BNW was one of these until I stumbled across this odd but audacious effort.In the minute details, this telefilm is not as faithful to the novel as it might be; John Savage's backstory is moved from the center of the novel to the beginning of the film, and the low budget shows mostly in the wobbly sets and what can only be described as a valiant attempt to create the Brave New World on a shoestring budget. The futuristic society should have looked more like LOGAN'S RUN than a bunch of plastic sets, one of which is so obviously the interior of a 747 that it is almost laughable.Yet despite the technical flaws, this film has considerably more power than one would expect, mainly because of a splendid cast including the great Keir Dullea, the legendary Ron O'Neal, Bud Cort in yet another superb performance, the wonderful but underrated Marcia Strassman, and a carefully culled bunch of the finest character actors including such names as Jeannetta Arnette, Jonelle Allen, Kristoffer Tabori, Dick Anthony Williams, and Valerie Curtin.The script is merely serviceable; it works hard to be as faithful to the novel as possible, but some of what was sinister in the book comes across as merely silly on the screen. This isn't the fault of the actors, who mostly play their roles with the glaze of mindlessness that one envisions when reading the novel (the exceptions here are Cort, Williams, Tabori, Cobb, and Strassman towards the end). In fact it's the performances that bring across just how sinister the Brave New World really is.This is a clunky production and it is easy to get distracted by the cheapness of the sets and some of the silliness of the basic scenario, but for a television film it is surprisingly effective thanks to a well-chosen cast that performs brilliantly; performances such as are seen here were a bit rare in television in 1980. At the very least it is good enough to make me want to see the other versions as a comparison.

heath crouch This movie was revolutionary because it showed what medical science could lead us to one day. The movie was based off the book and the book was written in 1931, so you can see Aldous Huxley's vivid imagination of what the world would be like hundreds of years down the road following the perfection of cloning. Stem cell research is not all bad but continuing practicing to clone could very well lead us down the "Brave New World" path. Now I don't fully believe that the world will turn out that way, but if you researched the origin of any of the greatest technology we have today you will see that the ideas for them started with a vision. Those visions, along with dedicated practice and increasingly advanced technology, have helped us get to the point we are now. I just thought this movie was interesting because it gave us a glimpse of what our world might be like in 2540, if not sooner. Scientists are working vigorously on stem cell and stem cell related studies and now that Obama has just allowed the practice to continue, it is only a matter of time before it is perfected.