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.
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.