Watch Brave New World For Free

Thanks for the memories!

A Major Disappointment

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

It's been said there are 3 types of SF stories. The 'What if' story, based on a new invention or idea. The 'If then' story, taking a current idea, say, Islamic fundamentalism, and projecting it into the future. And the 'out of place' story, taking ordinary people and subjecting them to extraordinary circumstances -as was sometimes observed on the 'Twilight Zone' TV show. Aldous Huxleys' 'Brave New World' is known for being a political 'If then' story, sometimes being called a 'dystopia' however 'Brave New World' seems to have elements of all 3 types of stories. Who could have imagined in 1930, babies being raised not by mothers, but as test tube babies reared by the state? Or that the entire populous would be pacified by state mandated drugs? In 'Brave New World' Tim Guinee plays 'John Cooper' or 'the Savage' as he is known. John was born of a real mother and raised by her outside the city. Tho it's far in the future, growing up outside the controlled city, John comes across as a product of the 20th Century. He quotes Shakespeare and talks about the power of religion and love. John visits the city where his very oddity makes him something of a celebrity. Compared to the sophisticated residents of the city John seems naive. Frankly looking like a complete fool. He has a hard time accepting their ways. Why spend two hours visiting the city if he's unwilling to accept anything different from his own ideas?There's a stereotypical villain in this story, the Director of Hatcheries (Miguel Ferren), who seems to exist simply as a prop to make this movie look like every other. However, his villainy worked for me. It was as if to say, even in this completely controlled sterile world there still exists the danger of wrongdoing. In this case the Director of Hatcheries (also on the governing council) seems to be motivated to do evil by both fear and ambition. He's afraid it will come to light that he's actually the biological father of the savage John (making babies this way is illegal) and he has ambitions of being named the Director of the Governing council. He re-engineers (brainwashes) a citizen into trying to kill his rival on the board Bernard Marx (Peter Gallagher). Peter Gallagher as Bernard Marx turns in a great performance in this movie. Leonard Nimoy, who plays the Director of the Governing Council, Mustapha Mond, is great here too. Nimoy really earns his spot in this movie. My favorite scene is when Mustapha Mond quickly reacts to something by saying, "History is always unpleasant, - hmm". As he speaks, he realizes his own society, of which he is the leader, will be judged poorly by future generations. One thing I like about this movie is that it provides a behind the scenes look at the leaders of society as they make their decisions, even if this is only a fictional society.John W Campbell, SF magazine editor, was famous for asking his writers to, "write about aliens who are truly alien, who think differently than men". They're not aliens, but citizens of this Brave New World think differently than we do and this movie takes their viewpoint. For one thing, they don't believe in love. I had a sociology teacher who used to always say 'love is a new phenomena invented in the 19th century'. In Brave New World they don't believe in love or marriage or religion. They don't believe in quite a few things we believe in. John, the savage, does influence this Brave New World he visits. Council member Bernard Marx and his 'friend' Lenina Crowne (Rya Kihlstedt) decide to have a baby of their own and escape the city. 'Escape' has become a popular SF movie theme. In 'Logans Run' and George Lucases' 'THX 1138' the protagonists goal also becomes escaping the city. Why do these movies show a city-sized society? Do they present a future society inhabiting only city sized areas to make the story seem more believable? Is it more comforting to the audience to see future-change only in one city and not everywhere? Is it a plot device used to give them somewhere to escape to? Do the artists see a city sized unit being the most natural size/normal size form of government? Are these other stories simply influenced by Huxley? Is it coincidence? Perhaps there's another reason altogether.I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. As an afterthought, I do realize this movie put a 'neutral' spin on what was intended to be a 'dystopia' but I enjoyed it even more for the 'open' look into such a different society.

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

I respect the integrity of the written word as much as anyone. I first read Huxley's BRAVE NEW WORLD at 13 and I enjoy the classic novel. However, there is no question in my mind that this innovative, dark, and sexy retelling of the Huxley classic is only strengthened by the major changes in plot and characterization.Let's face it, in Huxley's version the main characters are much less interesting than the ideas he presents. Bernard Marx is a whiner. Lenina Crowne is a luscious, empty-headed plaything of her own desires. The Savage is a paranoid, humorless sex-hating pervert. None of these people are really strong enough or engaging enough to make an audience care deeply about their adventures in the "perfect" future.What makes this TV version so amazing is that all the ugliness of the society has been captured -- the cloning, the compulsive spending,the life of pure sensation. But the characters are much, much stronger. In this version Bernard and Lenina are not weak and stupid. They are tough, honest, and sexy. Their society has twisted them in many ways, but as they learn better they make changes and try to make a difference. One exchange between them sums up the tone perfectly: LENINA: I'm beginning to understand why we eliminated love. BERNARD: I don't think we ever did.The casting is absolutely perfect. Tough, brooding, virile Peter Gallagher is a bold, daring choice. He turns Bernard from a Woody Allen whiner to a true romantic hero in his own right. Rya Kihlstedt, who was so sexy and feline in THE BUCCANEERS, is exactly the right actress to capture all of Lenina's sex appeal -- while adding a great deal of sly intelligence. This is a bold new cast for a bold new vision of Huxley's classic.In this version, Bernard and Lenina have the makings of a true, adult relationship, and they don't back away from danger in order to help their friend, the Savage. His tragedy remains intact, and indeed the fact that Lenina is much stronger and really in love with Bernard only makes John Savage's isolation more tragic. Watch the scene where the Savage is trying to explain Shakespeare to a classroom of bored clones. In the background, Lenina is watching, sitting on a desk with her fabulous legs crossed. In the book she's just a bimbo, but here she's more like a queenly figure of strength. She knows John can't survive, but he's under her protection all the same. The clones can't hurt John while she's in the room.The one thing I do regret is that this version totally ignores the Savage's Native American roots. Aldous Huxley really did live among the Zunis for several months. However, it is obvious that "political correctness" forced the film makers to reimagine the Outlands as more of a trailer park full of white trash than an Indian Reservation. But even this change works, in that it shows how bland the world is without culture, religion, and Shakespeare.In conclusion, this movie, like Michael Mann's LAST OF THE MOHICANS, is a legitimate example of what happens when a film maker truly captures the spirit of a literary classic -- without being tied to the exact letter of the text.Would love to see a DVD release of this modern television classic!

'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.