Audience Member
Let's put aside the fact that this looks and feels like a 90s softcore porn film, just for a moment. This has to be one of the worst if not the worst adaptations of a book I have ever seen. This film is garbage in every direction. Horrid acting, worse direction, bad storytelling, awful visuals, ... The people who did this did not understand the book. Why this actually looks like a softcore porn film is beyond me, but looking like a softcore porn film and not having any nudity is a crime too.
Rated 0.5/5 Stars •
Rated 0.5 out of 5 stars
01/31/23
Full Review
Audience Member
Not a bad attempt at translating a challenging book into a film. The acting is a bit woeful. They also changed the 'savages' way too much, possibly to avoid offending anyone and the ending is far to Hollywood for my liking. Still, the heart of it is true to the book, which makes it worth watching.
Rated 3/5 Stars •
Rated 3 out of 5 stars
02/10/23
Full Review
Audience Member
Brave New World (1998) is a made-for-T.V. libertarian science fiction movie based on a book of the same title by Aldous Huxley. It was directed by Leslie Libman and Larry Williams, produced by Universal Television Entertainment, and originally broadcast on NBC. Because it departs in a number of ways from the book, various fans of the book have argued that this movie hardly does the book justice, and some even argue that this movie is not even worth watching. I hold the opposite opinion: Despite my agreement that there is much in the movie that departs from Aldous Huxley's original story, I consider this movie even better than the book.
Read the full review here: http://alexpeak.com/art/films/bnw1998/
Rated 4.5/5 Stars •
Rated 4.5 out of 5 stars
01/31/23
Full Review
Audience Member
The made-for-TV film, Brave New World, directed by Leslie Libman and Larry Williams adapts the Aldous Huxley classic of the same name with less effectiveness most likely due to its audience's expectations. To start off, the movie successfully translates the characters from the book to the screen, because of the spot-on performances by actors and the teleplay writing by Dan Mazur and David Tausik. Particularly, Mustapha Mond played by Leonard Nimoy is an important character that could have been turned into a clichéd maniacal villain. It is ambiguous whether he is malevolent and realizes that they life in a dystopia or whether he truly believes in the system. In both the novel and the film, he explains that Shakespeare is banned, because allowing people to read his work would affect social stability. The movie slightly transforms the character of Bernard Marx, who appears to be more of a regular alpha than in the novel, to allow for a happier ending. This is evident when he is appointed as the new Director of Hatcheries and Condition as we realize that Mond trusts him meaning that he does not think much differently from the system. More importantly, the entire plot suffers major changes to allow for a more optimistic ending, which Hollywood continues offer in order to provide uplifting escapism for audiences, in preference to the emotionally powerful and influential ending written by Huxley. Every change in the film relates to the ending: Lenina marries Bernard and they raise their naturally born child together. To convince audiences that they could truly be happy, John is accidentally pushed off a cliff by harassing news reporters rather than his much darker suicide in the novel. Also, a Beta subplot is introduced to convey the idea that conditioning, or science in general, is no always successful. The Beta does not do his job properly by constantly playing with a mouse. He is first brainwashed to improve his working habits, but is then brainwashed by the former Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning to kill Bernard Marx who reintroduced the woman the director impregnated to society; Bernard also wanted to find out and publicly reveal the man who impregnated her. This subplot is not really a bad idea, but an unnecessary one. The happy end is bothersome since Huxley's cautionary and impactful tale plays more like a very good science fiction adventure. Leslie Libman directs Brave New World with less impact than the novel due to the teleplay writers decisions to dilute the message and add a happy ending transforming the dystopian classic into a sci-fi adventure.
Rated 3/5 Stars •
Rated 3 out of 5 stars
01/20/23
Full Review
Audience Member
May not be a lot like the book, but this is a decent edition of Huxley's classic.
Rated 4/5 Stars •
Rated 4 out of 5 stars
02/13/23
Full Review
Audience Member
I generally enjoyed this movie, despite a few annoying stereotypes (constant references to Shakespeare; the "savage" visiting the "civilized" society) that were probably less common and more thoughtful when Huxley first published his novel in 1932. The acting performances are good and Nimoy is, as always, excellent. I guess the sociological reflections raised by the storyline are more developped in the novel, and got me interested in reading this classic.
Rated 3/5 Stars •
Rated 3 out of 5 stars
01/15/23
Full Review
Read all reviews
Post a rating
>
