Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

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

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

anabissell If not for the title, I would barely have recognized LeGuin's book. The story and characters have been dumbed down so much they barely exist. There's no development of either plot or people. There's no hint of motivation for any character, especially Dr. Haber: no interior monologue, no back-story. There's no tension, either between characters or in the society. The actors appear to be sleepwalking (except for David Straithern, wonderful as always as Manny). The script is so bland, it could have been computer generated. I can't believe Brcce Davison, who was in the wonderful 1980 version, or LeGuin would have allowed this travesty to be made -- they turned a brilliant book into a chick-flick. Blech.

scottand I've read "The Lathe of Heaven" twice and seen the 1980 version once. I loved the book but wasn't thrilled with the first film version. I'd thought that with all the new technology available to filmmakers that this latest version would be a huge improvement. WRONGO!!! This latest film version seems to go out of its way to strip away everything, EVERYTHING that was interesting about the book and the original film version. Here, George Orr seems to be nothing but some kind of paranormal fashion designer and interior decorator. He wakes up from his dream to find that everyone has better clothes and a more upscale decor. In fact, it seems that all imagination and budget went into costume and set design, both of which are quite good. Unfortunately, that is the ONLY good thing I can say about this movie. Read the book.

cthulhu-23 I just finished watching this and was so disappointed I logged right in. I have never read the book upon which this is based, but being a science fiction fan, I have heard of it. Now, I'm not so sure I even want to read it.This movie was just terrible. It made no sense, the characters were empty shells, everything seemed completely contrived.

escoles Better-acted, with production values out of proportion to the actual money spent, it seems to me to hit much closer to the sense of the novel than the 1980 PBS version starring Craig Wasson. This ranks with Gilliam's _Brazil_ as an example of line-art science fiction film-making, as simple and inexpensive elements are combined to create a sense of otherness that shifts in subtle ways from scene to scene as George's dreams change the world around him. (Note especially the use of Audi's futuristic A2 model to stand in for a "car o' the future", and the raincoats assembled neatly from tire inner-tubes.) The techniques are often mis-used, much as impressionism was appropriated to serve the sofa-art industry; but here, it's a genuinely skilled execution on limited resources.