Animenter
There are women in the film, but none has anything you could call a personality.
Borserie
it is finally so absorbing because it plays like a lyrical road odyssey that’s also a detective story.
Calum Hutton
It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...
Darin
One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.
runamokprods
Once we understand the trick of the story – the inadvertently evil Dr. Haber's attempt to force 'effective dreamer' George Orr to have dreams that will change the world for the better keeps inevitably backfiring – the film gets repetitive. It's so obvious that Dr. Haber's attempts to change the world through George will fail, that there's not much to be surprised at. Worse, Haber comes off as a fool for not seeing it. Beyond that, there's the 'why not have him just dream that things were back the way they were' possibility that's never explored. There are some striking images (especially for a $250K film!), and memorable, chilling scenes, but it feels overextended, as if the same points could have been made better in a 30 minute 'Twilight Zone' (and, in fact, there was a 'Twilight Zone' with a quite similar 'be careful what you wish for' story). None-the-less, intelligent, well acted and amazingly impressive for its budget.
Hitchcoc
As a one time science fiction nut, I always found Ursula K. LeGuin to be one of the most challenging writers in her genre. For me, she hung over the mainstream. This is a nice film that doesn't touch the book, but it has fine performances and a reasonable plot within the constraints that are time travel. A psychiatrist takes advantage of a man whose dreams come to realization, trying to manipulate him for his own purposes. He never grasps the idea that dreams are often surreal and uncontrollable. After Forbidden Planet, I know that allowing the baser things to come to the fore can be disastrous. The problem with the whole topic always gets back to the immutability of time. Traveling forward doesn't seem to have issues; back creates, of course, the butterfly effect and makes for unpredictability. This goes to the mat and is reasonably satisfying, though it is full of holes that could easily render it incomprehensible.
gramdal
As the die-hard science fiction fans know, special effects are great, but without a great story, it won't stand the test of time.Based on Ursula K. Leguin's book, this is (I hear) a very faithful adaptation. And easily one of the very best made for t.v. movies ever.The effects are low budget, but that's not important, the story is amazing. Great science fiction takes us away from the familiar structure of life we understand, and stands reason and convention on it's head. It makes us see the things that are so close to us they are invisible. Great science fiction frames the familiar, in a new context and sheds truth on things we were unable to recognize in their mundane form.This story moved me, in the way the book Stranger in a Strange Land did. Like the first time I read 2001 (The movie is meaningless without the book).It is a story about reality, how we perceive it, how we shape it. How we are important to everyone and every thing, as our actions shape not only our own sphere of existence, but ripple outward effecting everything. This is of course told in an abstracted way, but the message is clear.If you are looking for crazy robots and sleek starships, move on.If you are looking for a thought provoking story, that will stick with you for days, or as I see with myself and others here, decades, then this is a cult classic that you simply can not miss.I would have given it a 10, but the effects are low budget, though that does not make it any less amazing.
MartinHafer
This film was the first film contracted by PBS and it really shows, as the movie had a minuscule budget. If you adjust for inflation, the film literally cost about as much as an Ed Wood, Jr. film to make! At times this shows, such as some liberal use of stock footage, minimalistic sets and negligible special effects---yet, oddly enough, the film is a pretty good sci-fi film. And when I say SCI-FI, I mean very deep and cerebral sci-fi. If you are looking for Darth Vader and cute little androids, this film is not for you--instead, it's set in the very near future and concerns a simple man with an incredible talent. Bruce Davison dreams and what occurs in the dreams actually become reality--as if everything we know to exist is totally dependent on his thoughts. If he dreams, for example, that you no longer exist, then you never really did! Because of his unique problem, Bruce consults with a scientist adept at working on dreams. However, each time this scientist tries to use the dreams to effect positive world change, the dream somehow backfires. A good example--when he wanted his patient to end overpopulation, a plague broke out and wiped out most of the inhabitants! Again and again, these attempts only make things worse.The film is an interesting blend of philosophy, existentialism and sci-fi. While it won't appeal to everyone, I at least appreciated how unique it was and how those involved tried to make something different. A noble effort that sometimes succeeds and often time fails--mostly due to a low budget. I wonder what this MIGHT have been like with a bit more money to make the aliens and some of the other plot devices not to incredibly cheesy.
