Lathe of Heaven (2002)

For Ursula Le Guin's devoted following, the 2002 remake of the 1980 film based on her novel may not be the stuff dreams are made of. This new adaptation omits some of the original's most memorable developments (the racially equalized "grays" and the alien invasion). Lucas Haas stars as George Orr, a "little lost boy" haunted by his dreams, which, he claims, alter the present unbeknownst to anyone but him. James Caan (more menacing than was Kevin Conway in the original) costars as the self-promoting Dr. Haber, the therapist assigned to treat the suicidal young man. This "very productive relationship" most benefits Haber, who attempts to manufacture George's dreams "to fit some useful function." The requisite unforeseen consequences ensue. Lisa Bonet is ravishing, but less impressive as George's skeptical public defender who may be the girl of his dreams. The foreboding mood is enhanced by Angelo Badalamenti's score, which recalls his haunting work on Twin Peaks. --Donald Liebenson Amazon.com

You have been warned - this movie is for completists only

If you want to see, enjoy and appreciate the marvelous story Lathe of Heaven by Ursula K. Lequin then either read the book or watch the 1980 film production. Either option will give you the inestimatable advantage of a presentation of the story, its underlying ideas and its characters. The film version also treats you to excellent performances that present actual characters from the novel, in character and all the essential details and concepts of the author's excellent novel with a no worse than merely adequate visual realization that belies the budget contraints of the production.

The version reviewed here dispenses with most of that annoying and pedantic fidelity to the author's work and in return gives you ... James Caan. That is about it. There is a stray mention of effective dreams and other coincidental relationships to the original work, but that is about it. What I believe to be the ultimate discovery that breaks Dr. Haber in the end is completely absent as are most of the key episodes and consequences of Dr. Haber's study of George Orr and his effective dreams.

If this were the ONLY version on film it would still be a dismal failure. Poor adaptations of novels, especially novels with highly intellectual content, are a commonplace. But there is another film version that is excellent in writing and acting, and looks good despite its budget.

A handful of favorable reviews (there IS a reason for the paucity of them) seek to justify this misshapen effort's existence on "its own merits". A movie that uses the title and reputation of a well known work, especially one that has been produced in the same medium before, does not get the luxury of being only evaluated in a vacuum by the ignorant. It must either present a worthy rendering of that work, or present a "re-visioning" (1) of such merit that the changes made are well justified. This production does neither and the effects are no great shakes either. This thing compares to the real thing about like a new production of Hamlet, still using Shakespeare's name, set in a gay bathhouse using maybe three lines of the original script compares to a production of Shakespeare's Hamlet.

You have been warned, this thing is for completists only.

==================
(1) "re-visioning" n. Euphemism for a director's ego in place of good writing combined with a big, big CGI budget and a usually a huge promotion before release aimed at a public that does not give a rodential back end about anything but action, effects and hot boys or babes in (or out) of tight costumes. July 9, 2008

Impossible made plausible: book to film

I have read.....and reread the book, and have seen the 1980 film version. The 1980 version did not so much disappoint: I 'knew' the book could not be done in film. I was awed that anyone would try.
This version dazzled me. It made it look easy.
I suggest strongly that you not try to assess the film until and unless you've read the book.

And do so!
It is an extraordinary work. Any attempt to distill it must fail.
Measuring this film against other SciFi films....and I love sci-fi films...is a disservice.
Read the book. Then watch the film. Both are great pleasures.

Has anyone thought to ask Ursula K. Le Guin what SHE thinks of the films? I would love to know.


January 3, 2008

For thinking, not just entertaining

LeGuin's story of a young man who claims his dreams alter reality and the psychiatrist who finally believes him prompts watchers to ask some weighty questions. How do we know what is? What power do we have to change what is, and should we change it? Should we use another individual to make these changes? What do we lose in these changes? What is worth keeping?
I agree with other reviewers who say this movie appeals to the thinkers. This is the kind of film that stamps an archetype in one's mind; one finds oneself comparing other plots to the Lathe of Heaven.
If you want ninety minutes fistfights, car chases, cursin', and killin', you'll be dissappointed by this film. If you enjoy films that play with your concept of reality (e.g. Matrix, The Visitors), you may enjoy this film.

October 28, 2006

A Personal Favorite

For once I must disagree with some of Amazon's top reviewers (a rare occasion). This version of "The Lathe of Heaven" stands alone from the book (you don't need to read the book to understand the movie). The characters and plot are deep and moving. Due to the depth and development of the mood it is slow at times, but it never becomes dull. It is original, refreshing and a touching love story runs as an uplifiting undercurrent. Even those who don't like Science Fiction, or don't "get" the book will enjoy this film. April 26, 2006

Brilliant, will keep you thinking about it for Days!

I never read the original novel, but I've seen both this version and the 1980 version. This, with James Caan, I found to be one of the most stimulating and thought provoking films I've ever seen. The Davidson version of 1980 I found to be cheesey and extremely disappointing. This is a must-see film, IMO. January 24, 2006

More reviews at Amazon.com ...