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.

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.

Five5Creative I have to say I'm surprised at the number of people here who loved this adaptation of Aldous Huxley's masterpiece. Although it was true to the basic storyline, they strayed so far from the mood and tone of the novel.The production design was quite simply wrong. This is a society of people (the Alphas and Betas at least) who frolicked in luxury. They weren't confined to the indoors or lived within a warren of pipes and tubes and industrial architecture. Huxley went to great lengths to describe an environment replete with spas, golf courses, towering apartment buildings with comfortably furnished rooms, floodlit buildings, the skies dotted with personal transports, expensive clothing of silks, brocades, velvet (always thrown away rather than mended -- "The less stitches, the more riches!"). These people socialized, danced, played games, dined out, indulged in their "soma holidays" as well as their vacations and weekend excursions all over the world.Huxley was creating a juxtaposition of opposing themes -- all of that luxury and yet no free thought, no philosophy, no love, no personal loyalties.None of that is adequately conveyed in this adaptation.Further, the way the characters in this movie spoke so frankly about the structure of their society would never have happened. They would not be so self-aware of what their lives were like versus how different it used to be. Only the very higher-ups had such awareness and even they kept that awareness hidden.Taking John Savage's back-story from the middle of the book and placing it at the beginning as part of the linear story was a needless distraction, not to mention insulting to the viewer by "dumbing down" the series of events.Bud Cort was perfectly cast but his portrayal invited too much sympathy. He was an outcast yes because of his physical shortcomings but his character was written to be very reactionary to that, resentful of those around him. He was selfish and bitter, and later even vain in his triumph of discovering the savage.Nor was he the tragic romantic hero who sought out his individual love as depicted in this movie. His character sought acceptance by a society of Alpha Pluses who turned their noses at him. He wanted to be handsome and dashing and take as many women as he liked -- all that was denied him by "too much alcohol in his blood surrogate" while bottled.I could go on, but my point is to not cite differences. All movie adaptations differ from their source material. The trick is make the best possible interpretation of the novel while still holding true to the basic themes expressed by the author, maintaining the integrity of his story, characters and artistic intent.This movie did none of that. It was Buck Rogers in scope, caliber and execution. I was thoroughly disappointed.

firepanther7777 I don't know what the above person is saying. The television 1980 version of the book is not as bad as they said but it is a good representation of the book. It was so good that I brought a DVD copy of that TV movie!! The acting is OK. The production and special effect is adequate for at TV movie. The story is 3/4 accurate. The 2000 version version of the book for a lack of a better term is lame. Even Leonard Nimoy, Spock, couldn't help this truly lame version. The 1980 version gave us an pessimistic and dark look of the future showing test tube conception as well as the bleak viewpoint of natural conception and falling in love in a world of no love.