Lathe of Heaven (2002)
In a near future society a man claims that his dreams physically change reality. His therapist is confused at first but soon decides to use him for his own gain.
Watch Trailer
Cast
Similar titles
Reviews
Very best movie i ever watch
Touches You
Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.
This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.
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.
It is seldom that I see a movie I really hate. The first movie version of The Lathe of Heaven was awesome, made for a pittance, and captured the ethereal nature of LeGuin's most enigmatic novel. This movie was just terrible. It was slow, didn't include anything even remotely like the novel, and completely left out the cool aliens from Aldebaran! The jellyfish motif was the only thing analogous. Also, is it too much to ask that in a movie about dreams that change reality, we might see the dreams themselves? This was one of the most effective concepts in the original version.James Caan delivered the most wooden and disconnected performance of his career, and Lukas Haas was a big lump. I like Lisa Bonet, her talent was completely wasted.TO GO IS TO RETURN! But to watch this farce is excruciating and an utter waste of time. Rent 'The Bride of Chucky' instead.
I've recently seen both the PBS and this version, in that order. Personally, I didn't fall in love with either one. I know there are a ton of you who are fans of the PBS version, but I would suggest that its innovation (a for-TV produced cereberal Sci-fi drama 30 years ago) made a bigger crater than the actual production itself.That said, the PBS version was better in all respects save the visuals. And even then, the A&E version *still* seems like a poor-man's sci-fi film as it tries to use futuristic-like but unmodified outdoor buildings and scenery. The costumes were pretty well done though.Sadly, though, to me both films are either too abstract for me or logically complete. Maybe that's the problem with a plotline where you give a character transcendent, unlimited, unexplainable powers. I mean, realize I'm a huge Philip Dick fan, and enjoy thought-provoking, open-ended endings. But both the A&E and PBS versions leave me with that incomplete, unsatisfied feeling.
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.