I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

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.

Being as Huxley is an incredible fictional writer, I feel that this movie did him no justice whatsoever. I love Peter Gallagher as an actor and I think he as well as some the other actors did a fine job, but others did not fit at all. The script deleted important scenes as well as backstory and destroyed the ending! If I had an unlimited budget I would create a new film version that would parallel "The Matrix" in special effects and art direction. Especially, what is described in the first chapter of the book. Now that we are in a time where people are anti-government and big corporations the movie would do well. I had previously thought about Gary Sinise to play Bernard (because he is a great shorter actor- how he became short was never revealed in the movie by the way), but I think Sinise may be too old now. To play Linda I picture Jennifer Coolidge, and for John a younger upcoming twenty something. The previous John I felt was too old. They needed to find actors that fit the book description. But the biggest disappointment was the script. Overall, I would not recommend this 1998 version if you love the book.

Low-budget and made for TV, yes, but also perfect casting and good sets and costumes. Lenina's resemblance to Anna Karina in Alphaville can't be accidental. Compared with the low-rent mall interiors of THX1138 and Logan's Run it looks luxurious. The better you know the book the more interesting it will be. BNW is hardly a literary classic, rather a socio-political essay like 1984. Huxley foresaw so much so early - in 1932 there were only two totalitarian states, Soviet Russia and Fascist Italy, neither especially consumerist. A few of Huxley's ideas are missing from the film, notably the deification of Henry Ford and the prevalence of cloning. But there are few missteps compared with most adaptations, just a hokey ending, the deranged Delta assassin subplot, and making Linda an outsider instead of a misplaced 'civilized' person. The slogans are straight from the book, even the song lyrics. Fortunately the 20th century demonstrated that neither totalitarian propaganda nor relentless advertising can really get people to believe lies for long. But in most ways the real world has turned out worse than BNW - Huxley predicted the pornography of sex but not the pornography of violence, Betas (or worse) are running things, not Alphas, and every attempt at Soma (ecstasy, Valium) has turned out to have a dark side.

'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.