Brave New World (1980 TV Movie) User Reviews (24)

2 different versions

[bradnfrank · 8/10 · 19 September 2006]

As others have said, this 1980 version of "Brave New World" is far superior to the 1998 version. But what nobody has mentioned, probably because they aren't even aware of it, is that the 1980 film exists in 2 different versions.

This was originally produced as a 2-part mini-series, running 4 hours (including commercials). But at the last minute, NBC chopped it down to fit into a 3-hour time slot. Allowing for commercials, this means that more than half an hour was removed. When it was later aired on the BBC in England, it ran in its original full length, 2-part form.

There are many collectors offering copies of this movie via the IMDb message boards, or eBay. Before buying, I suggest you ask which version they have. (I can personally recommend the copy offered by "deaks".)

Really not bad

[christopher-lord · 8/10 · 26 August 2011]

This is naturally a low-budget TV version, but it's long enough to go into the themes of the book in some depth, and follows the plot and dialogue accurately enough. It gives the impression of a theatre version really, with the cheap sets and costumes: or maybe the original Star Trek is closer to it, with the pyjamas. So you never forget that it's an adaptation of a novel; which I realise must be a problem for those expecting Blade Runner or something. I thought everyone did a commendable job on this given the limitations of the budget, and while it's not great cinema, it captures the spirit of Huxley's work, and in particular it was nice to hear the Shakespeare quotations very nicely done.

All too likely to be realistic

[graham_wright · 7/10 · 9 October 2000]

I am not going to pretend this is my favourite film of all time, but it was a good, clear version of the excellent book.

The film looks dated and would be boring for some. But those who are interested in what might happen to the human race should check this out. This idea is the most likely to come true of all possible fates of humans.

The acting is in places 2-dimensional, but this is usually only when portraying characters who are themselves 2-dimensional, such as Lenina, Linda and Thomas.

The three more interesting and deeper characters of Bernard, John and Mustapha are portrayed well and all change dramatically and believably as the story unwinds.

Not a funny, thrilling or exciting film but a clear film that makes you think.

Good but not as good as I remembered.

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 18 August 2015]

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.

Look for the BBC release.

[ed-503-465183 · 8/10 · 21 February 2020]

As has been noted by others there are two versions of this movie. The uncut version was presented in a two-part mini-series on the BBC. That's the one you want to watch. In America, NBC cut the mini-series down to fit into one movie. In my opinion, the BBC version is superior and worth seeking out. As of this review, the BBC 2-part version is available on YouTube.

The production value is what you would expect from a made for television movie of the era, however, I think it's fairly good for a television production from this era. If you enjoyed Huxley's book, you'll enjoy the BBC version as well. I find it far superior to the 1998 version of Brave New World.

Aldous Huxley's ashes were probably whirling in his grave when this aired

[VicGranata · 1/10 · 9 July 2008]

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.

Landmark adaptation

[sarastro7 · 10/10 · 25 November 2010]

I have just been watching Brave New World on Google Videos (where it can be seen for free), for the first time since I saw it on television in the early '80s (being only about eleven at the time, I could only remember a very few scenes). Before rewatching it, I read the book, and the movie completely amazed me.

It is magnificent.

It is something so rare as a great science fiction adaptation of a great science fiction novel, debating all the salient points of dystopia and utopia that science fiction is the perfect genre for exploring. It paints a bleak yet strangely compelling picture of a completely unfree society in which everybody has been engineered and indoctrinated to be happy. The treatment of the main prevailing ideologies of Huxley's time - Marxism and rampant capitalist consumerism - is both progressive and satirical and far ahead of its time, the two -isms being mind-bogglingly blended into a harmonic mix containing all the worst elements of both.

Few books about social developments can be said to be as thought-provoking as this, and the movie lives brilliantly up to the book. The only thing that disappointed me was that the climactic discussion about Shakespeare in the book was almost entirely omitted in the movie. But the movie still stands as a towering achievement in television film-making. I would be the first to buy this if it became available on DVD with a crisp picture quality, and I am very sorry that, so far, it isn't.

One of the greatest boons of this movie is Ron O'Neal as Mustapha Mond. He charismatically exudes power, self-confidence and self-righteousness, and he ought to have been propelled to stardom for this role. Instead, it is not even mentioned on his IMDb bio page.

Science fiction is my preferred genre, and I have a collection of nearly 500 SF movies. I can honestly say that Brave New World is among the 15 best SF movies I have seen. But, of course, you have to be a fan of utopian or crypto-utopian SF in order to feel this way. A comparable book or movie would be Heinlein/Verhoeven's Starship Troopers, which also presents us with a sort of attractive but ultimately nightmarish utopia. If you love Starship Troopers, you will probably love Brave New World.

10 stars out of 10. Don't listen to the idiot naysayers. Huxley would have been thrilled with this adaptation.

Better than the 1998 version but not by much.

[HyperPup · 5/10 · 16 July 2008]

I finally got to watch this movie. All 3hours of it. Now, I gave it a little leeway seeing how its more than 20 years old but I was still a little set back by this adaptation. I remember when it debuted on NBC as a movie of the week. I was in the middle of traveling with my family and when we finally reached our destination, there were only 30 minutes of the film left on television for me to watch. VCRs were not common household appliances then so that was not an option for me or any of my friends at the time either. It was interesting to see what I missed. It looked like they raided the set departments of Buck Rogers and Battlestar Galactica (a distinct possibility as this was a Universal property) in their quest to make the future of BNW. Though they tried to make it sterile it came off as a bit garish and I guess they thought the future meant everything had flashing LEDs. Some things were inventive though. The contraceptive belts used rotary dialers off of old telephones, one set was actually a mock up 747 interior that was supposed to be a luxury hotel suite (very interesting). It seems great care went into trying to be as accurate to the novel of the same name, but there was still a clunkiness in the acting. Perhaps it was the novel's dialog brought to life. Unlike "1984" where the environs created a bleak landscape that added to the culture of the people presented, BNW creates almost cartoon like personalities living in a utopia world that come off as silly and often naive though they portray their duties as part of this utopia very seriously and steadfastly. The one highlight of finally getting to see this movie for me was seeing a young Bud Cort. His portrayal of a shy and tortured Alpha Plus Bernard Marx was quirky and fascinating to watch. I never knew he had this type of range as I often missed seeing some of his better performances. Overall it was worth watching once but after that you may want to watch 1984 or Brazil in order to sweep away the anodyne utopian visions of this version of BNW.

One of the lesser known Sci-Fi oddities of the 80's

[Davidon80 · 8/10 · 30 January 2003]

This 1980's interpretation of Brave New World, despite the wobbly sets, despite the Buck Rogers style acting, despite the made for television feel, this is an awesome movie. How accurate this movie is to it's source I have yet to discover, but as a sci-fi movie which depicts society, and culture it is perfect, this movie is truly inspiring.

As I have mentioned despite this movies more obvious faults, there is essentially a strong narrative running through this movie, the characters are all believable, well played and fitting with the irony of the culture that they represent. One of the most subtle scenes is when John Savage is told he can have what ever he wants to eat by pressing a button on the machine, and he presses the button about four times, then when he is asked why he has ordered so much food, his reply is 'I don't know'. The subtlety of this scene played out in such a extravagant setting is a good example of how well the director and the actors understand Huxley's world. Clearly this movie was made for TV and feels like a mini space drama, but the genius of Huxley's vision is evident on screen.

Trying to recreate Huxley's Brave New World is akin to creating a land of Oz governed within Stalinist Russia, I'm sure many directors would find it near impossible to effectively portray the right amount of comedy, tragedy and realism in a adaption of Brave New World, and here we have a fine example of how it can be done.

Undoubtedly a good watch, for those who have both read the book, and those who haven't and of course for those who enjoy Science fiction, this is a forgotten movie classic to be enjoyed, so I urge for those who know of its where abouts to go see.

Dated yes, but Not a Bad Representation of the Book.

[betchaareoffendedeasily · 1 August 2019]

It was because of this mini-series that I picked up the book. It gave a very surprisingly chipper, and yet chilling vision of the future. If you can get past the dated 1970's(being it was released in early 1980, it was made at the end of the 1970's) look and somewhat campy feel, you'll likely enjoy this sci-fi Dystopian film. 1970's sci-fi often fell into camp, as did 1980's sci-fi, you had your occasional serious film such as "Alien" or "Blade Runner", both by Ridley Scott. Most of the time, however, things fell more along the lines of "Tron", "Logan's Run"< 'Zardoz", "Battlestar Galactica", "Buck rogers". etc. While they all have their redeeming qualities, they just never quite rise above the time they were made in(except maybe "Zardoz", and even that is extremely dated). I am not implying that it is always a bad thing when something is dated, as "Brave New World" is extremely dated, and yet it has much to enjoy.

When I watched it a few years back, I watched it on Google for free. I don't know if it is still available on there, it is likely free on Youtube now since Google owns Youtube, it is worth watching even if you have to pay to watch it. It is filmed well-enough, although a bit utilitarian, as is usually the case with television films, the acting is a bit on the campy side, but the script is great.

It has a very interesting story to tell, and it follows the book mostly faithfully. The story largely revolves around Eugenics, everyone is bred in a test tube, and no one is allowed to breed naturally anymore. People are bred for different purposes, and are part of a sort of caste system, everyone has their place, and stepping outside of it results in punishments. Drugs are rampant in the form of Soma, and emotions are not restricted in the sense that they are in many dystopian stories, but rather overindulged and encouraged as long as it fits into the status quo, as they are simultaneously suppressed and controlled in a society that has no room for being aberrant. This is especially true in the book where they watch emotional films called "Feelies". People are encouraged to have sex all the time, with as many partners as possible, if someone is not, that person is considered aberrant, and to be avoided.

The main characters Bernard, Mustapha, and John are all very interesting. Linda, while not extremely interesting is a sad character to watch. Drug usage actually plays a huge role in this film, and while in 1980, birth control was normal, it wasn't when the book was created in 1932, it really didn't exist yet. This book while not quite as accurate(likely because Huxley was a socialist, and the book and film have an obvious disdain for free enterprise) to how authoritarian control really works in the real world(1984 was far closer to reality), it gives an intriguing analysis into identity and how we behave when we don't even know what our real identity is.

God Bless ~Amy

This is the worst adapation of a book ever made.

[SNLgirlie · 1/10 · 20 June 2001]

Aldous Huxley would be ENRAGED that his WONDERFUL literary work has been defiled in such a manner. This is a disgrace. A horrible mini series and is the worst adapation of a book I have ever seen!!!

Worthwhile realization of Huxley's Classic

[aromatic-2 · 8/10 · 6 April 2000]

If you haven't read the book, this 1980 made-for-TV rendition will do quite nicely. It strikes the right balance between humour and futuristic melodrama to hold interest but always remain credible. Julie Cobb is hysterical in her supporting role, and Jonelle Allen is wonderful. It does a great job of illustrating Huxley's vision of what could be the future, and its potential downside.

Not Good Enough for the book

[arthur_tafero · 4/10 · 28 August 2018]

Brave New World: Not So Brave

The 1980 version of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World is not as good as the book, because our imaginations are far richer than the mediocre production values shown in this lame attempt to capture Huxley's visions (or the visions of "We" a previous novel from which Huxley appeared to have gotten several of his ideas.). This film reminded me of someone from Long Island getting lost and abandoned in Jersey City.. The results would be approximately the same, and the characters would be approximately the same as well. Maybe I will write a book called "Lost in Jersey City" The B actors (and make no mistake; one-trick pony Keir Dullea lives up to the first four letters of his name. After 2001, he never made another noteworthy film. The Sally Field imitation B actress without the talent of Ms Field made me cringe for several scenes. The head man of the future was interesting, but ultimately, the cast was as plastic as its sets. This book might and film might have raised eyebrows (it got banned in 1969, which was virtually impossible, as everything was ok in that time period) then, but now, since we have every single negative aspect of the film in our current societies PLUS additional horrors, the film has little emotional impact. Ultimately, I would have to rate the film a 4 of 10 because of wretched production values, and plastic acting and direction. Sorry Aldous, you deserved much better than this. Some day, a good producer, director, crew of actors, and technicians will make a good film from this book, which, like Death of a Salesman, is still waiting to be made. (and just as difficult to capture on film from the book).

I have seen it

[firepanther7777 · 8/10 · 2 May 2006]

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.

out look on movie

[sexydrumbeast · 3 April 2009]

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.

Very slow. Amateur acting, dialogue, cinematography, sets, music, etc

[Bababooe · 3/10 · 1 October 2017]

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.

I hated the NBC broadcast, I love the complete version...

[cmdaklein · 8/10 · 19 March 2014]

When it aired in 1980, I wondered what the heck happened to the promised BNW miniseries with a one-night broadcast that left so much out.

Almost three decades later, due to the miracle of the Internet, I saw the entire version as broadcast by the BBC & then bought the DVD. I totally loved it. The cartoonish Gil Gerard Buck Rogers-ish special effects and the superficial characterization, much disdained, totally fit the "soulless streamlined Eden" of the book.

Btw, back in 1980, I was fortunate enough to buy the PB tie-in, which I still own.

Please put this on official DVD!

Avoid This

[eno2000 · 1/10 · 7 April 2024]

I found a full version of the film which was a total of three hours. While the actors in the film are some pretty notable giants of the day, the poor set design and poor dialogue make for a really hard to watch film. I grew up watching this stuff, and I can say the production is incredibly low grade compared to its contemporaries.

Consider this, the movie was made in 1979 and aired in 1980. Star Wars was released in 1977 and The Empire Strikes Back in 1982. This movie feels lower in production value than Tom Baker Doctor Who programmes (which has excellent writing and were far more enjoyable).

I will admit, I have not read BNW, the book. This is my second attempt at trying to get the story and I have to say I feel like this film failed. The first attempt was a book on tape in the 1990s that was incomplete so it made no sense at all. Now I feel like I have the bones of the story from this film, but am missing a lot of detail.

My wife and I discussed this a bit. This is one book she gave a hard pass to because when she was a teen all the guys who liked it were libertarians (we are far left of center). I never had much interest in the book itself other than wanting to see this film because of an article in Starlog magazine that made it look interesting.

On the libertarian side of things, I read and understood what Ayn Rand was saying in Atlas Shrugged. I find it comical that Trump has turned out to be everything she was warning people against, but I am sure most libertarians don't see it. However, as much as I disagree with Ayn Rand, I think Atlas Shrugged could have made a decent 1940s film.

The horrid attempt in the 2000s to make Atlas Shrugged into a movie reminds me of this BNW iteration. Poor teleplay writing. Poor acting, by otherwise decent actors. And a really low budget. At this point, I will have to make time to read BNW so I actually get what Huxley was trying to say. I don't think it was what this film presented. Just like Atlas Shrugged, the three part movie didn't present what Any Rand was talking about at all.

It's not great but superior to the insipid 1998 version

[mgmstar128 · 8/10 · 14 July 2008]

I have taught the novel several times, and I know it rather well. The novel is infinitely better in every way, but at least the 1980 version attempt is interesting to watch and to compare it to the text.

The 1980 version is flawed as is the 1998 version, but at least the 1980 version sticks to most of the plot most of the time. You can still understand the message Huxley was getting at despite its lapses in terms of adding characters and changing some story details. It helps to have read the novel before seeing it, but to a viewer who has not read it, the viewer would get most of the ideas found in the text.

One big problem I found: Linda was not bloated and old and horrid looking enough. When she returns to the "other place," she hardly looks any different than any other beta female. Also, if she hadn't been given blood transfusions and hormones as in the novel, she would have shown signs of aging. Here she looks like her son's girlfriend, not his mother. The actor playing John also appeared to me to be too old; the character is supposed to look younger.

I did like the fact that this version was much more ethnically diverse. The 1980 version is basically "white bread."

I have shown my students the 1998 version, as I only recently discovered the googlevideo.com site having the second version. I would like to get a copy to show some of this one too.

Everything is Perfect Now

[butlerstc · 10/10 · 1 October 2016]

I watch it like once a month. Very well acted and perfectly cast. Its also a great drama, comedy, romance - and has a clever sense of self awareness. I always find new things in it whenever I watch - very thoroughly done. I can quote this movie almost line for line, "but everything is perfect now, and everything will always be perfect, so why does it matter when things weren't perfect?" I haven't read the book, so I don't know how much of the dialogue is drawn from it - but I love the dialogue. So simple and naive. I like how there are no "good guys" in this story, its just a character study. John Savage wasn't anymore more moral at the end of the day then the people in the perfect society were. He was naive too in his own way. He was kind of the opposite of the Ford worshipers - they suppressed their emotions and he was carried away by his... I also like the idea of trying to build a perfect society - this story is as close to a "Utopian" scifi as I've ever seen. Even though it is ultimately dystopian, it is not as bleak as dystopian stories usually are. I feel like the major flaw in this dystopian society was hierarchy. This is the tragic flaw of the otherwise perfect little social experiment they had going - is that it was ultimately still based on hierarchy and dominance and submission within its roles - just more refined and sleek so it wasn't as obvious and noticeable as other dystopian fantasies. This mini series is painfully underrated. One of my favorite movies/mini-series ever! S

Very Good First Effort, Especially For Television

[ScottAmundsen · 8/10 · 20 October 2013]

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.

Better Than A Lot Of Recent Science Fiction But...

[StuOz · 22 July 2020]

Mini-series about a future brave new world.

I seem to remember watching this as a kid and being quiet impressed by it, however a Youtube viewing 40 years later was a bit of a struggle, in fact I could not get past the first 35 minutes.

No I have no issue with the retro sets and effects, it was more a problem with it being too slow and, in the first 35 minutes at least, I could not make out if the actors were taking it all seriously (for example the part where the future people are watching footage of old earth). I could almost image them all bursting out into laughter the moment the director yelled "cut!".

The Youtube print was very poor and faded which went against the viewing experience.

If I ever I find it remastered on DVD I might be more willing to stay with it right to the end. Basically, at this point atleast, I can't call it good but I can't call it bad. However, from what I saw it is better than a lot of the science fiction that has come out in the last 20 years.

If thou hast nature in thee, bear it not!

[arkif1 · 10/10 · 14 March 2008]

Here we are, jolly good fellows of the Balliol College at Oxford making some good old fun of the ever prevalent lack of human substance among the peasantry. "Brave New World" is to the common intellectual that what has been labeled an English national trait in "Trainspotting". You could also liken watching the film to drinking some home brewed apple wine, more prominently known as Soma in the terminology of the Rigveda, a golden stream of delight in the face of those ever smiling Americans and these "I know not what I do" pseudo emancipated university who... cuties, Gammas and Betas that is. If that doesn't sweeten your day, what ever will? Shakespeare quotes perhaps? No? Well, you can't please everyone. Those on the other hand whose eyes already lightened up with the glee of the person who sees its investment finally coming to fruition cannot miss by watching this film, for it was made for them, an almost private and quite definitely guilty pleasure.

Good Enough For A Savage

[blurnieghey · 8/10 · 11 August 2022]

I've wondered for some time what a film adaptation of this book would look like. Well, I guess the answer is that the only way to take a stab at it is to make it into a two-part TV movie. Makes sense. I thought they did a pretty good job and was surprised at how much of the dialogue I'd actually committed to memory, adding to the fun. It strays from the book (just slightly) in a couple places so the movie makes more sense and possibly more interesting to someone who isn't familiar with the story and, that said, if you haven't read the book this might be a tough watch no matter what. It's an OK movie, based on an excellent novel and that's it. I thought the way they chose to interpret the characters on screen was very good overall and found this quite enjoyable. Any fan of the novel should find something to like about it but it isn't perfect by any means, probably because it's impossible.