smtenneshaw
Beautiful and intelligent rendering of George Orr and his world-changing dreams. James Caan is suitably self-serving as his conniving therapist, Dr. Haber.Note how Penny, Dr. Haber's assistant, so prim and proper at the outset, dresses more decadently as the story unfolds. This - like other events - is presented without elaboration.Never having read the book or seen the original movie, I am judging this work on its own. As such, I rate it as a masterpiece.
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.
karmitz
Simply put: it has no soul. It is devoid of character and suffers from being overdesigned and grossly underwritten. The novel and the 1980 PBS version are full of interesting, curious "character moments" and have a healthy sense of wry humor. This version has sacrificed everything--everything--that made the novel and the earlier version so wonderful, so human. George Orr is a mannequin. Lelache is a complete cipher. Dr. Haber exhibits none of the eccentric egomania that should be driving his character.Lest you turn into a pillar of salt like Lots' wife, avert your eyes...
schlipp
let me preface by saying ive seen the 1980 version, and ive read the book.no movie will ever be exactly like the book it originates from. so why compare. its a rare occasion that an author gets behind the camera (kudos to clive barker) which means that the director gets dibs on interperitation. and books, like music, like visual art, are open to interperitation, every one takes what they want from them. i put this in the realm of american psycho, solaris, and dune. complex novels, different screen visions. when directors take on novels, they bring out what they want, and can, in the time they have.that said, i think haas did an excellent job. the whole concept behind the story has plenty to grab from. haas chose the elements he wanted to excentuate and illustrate and did so admirably. im not saying its a perfect film. i thought the penny character was totally overdone. and while i would find myself taking issues with some of the inconsistencies, i decided to except them on grounds that its the nature of this world. each waking presents a new reality. so i have no ground to argue the nitpicky stuff. i thought lukas haas was an excellent george orr, but had difficulty pairing him with lisa bonet, thus making thier relationship less believable.all in all worth seeing as a fan of speculative fiction. i would someday like to see a longer version that has a chance to dig a little deeper into the bits that matter more. making the less relevant bits less obtrusive.
AD
