Lathe of Heaven (2002)

Wonderful character development!

Brilliant and touching

Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

Taking into account the original, this remake is waste of time for the viewer, I brief it as chopped scripted, awfully directed and wrongfully acted disposal of tape, I don't call these "things" movies.James Caan cripples the doctor's character, maybe the main actor deserves some credit, but only maybe. The only difference in which this remake may look better than the original is on the photography.The story is broken and hard to follow, the main parts of the original are lost, giving way to time wasting scenes of nice settings. What a shame. I strongly suggest to find the original and leave this remake forgotten for years to come. Not even Ed Wood would make this remake worse.

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.

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...

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.