pearvert This movie omits the key to the entire story, the opening scene of the book. The world goes through a nuclear war and was totally destroyed. Then George fell asleep and dreamed it back into existence.By eliminating this opening scene, this version takes on some other meaning (which I am still trying to figure out.) Everything George did in the book was due to him being the only person in the world to know the Earth had been destroyed and everyone was supposed to be dead. That's an important part that is missing here. Total and absolute guilt.Go read the book for a good story. Do no waste your time on this pseudo version.

alanpgini I read Ursula Leguin in the late 70's early eighties as a boy, but it was the Earthsea Trilogy, not the Lathe of Heaven. I am astonished though to find that this has been twice made as a TV movie. Haas and Bonet seem both miscast for these roles. There doesn't seem to be any on screen chemistry between the two actors. And Haas at this time, seems to be too young for the role. The production also seems rushed and that a lot was left out. When you have read the book, you always know when it doesn't translate well into film. In this case, I got that same feeling, even though I never read the book. Straithan shows himself to be the best fit for this film, which is as usual for underrated character actors such as he. Its a double edged sword, when books are put into film. It has made George RR Martin's career as a good example. But has damaged Terry Goodkind and well, tarnished Ursala Leguin's with this film. You would think with two tries, one in 1980 and this time in 2002, that the producers would get it right. But obviously not. A piece of advice to all authors out there. If your book is optioned out to film, make sure it goes to a cable channel (not sci fi). Or to the big screen. Regular TV doesn't cut it for a story like this. This story deserved better than what it got.

xyzzy-10 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.

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.