Lathe of Heaven

2002 "His dreams control our destiny, but who controls his dreams?"
5.8| 1h34m| en| More Info
Released: 08 September 2002 Released
Producted By: Alliance Atlantis
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

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.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Alliance Atlantis

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Boobirt Stylish but barely mediocre overall
Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.
Keeley Coleman The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;
Married Baby Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?
gillmojo I'm really not sure why this has such bad reviews. The film is gentle, thoughtful, evenly paced and contains a rather beautiful performance from Lukas Haas. For such a gawky, gangly man, he gives a performance full of stillness and calm which anchors the whole piece perfectly.There were so many opportunities for James Caan to be the clichéd villain of the piece, but they are resisted with a will ensuring his performance is also understated but compelling.The story is strong - perhaps unsurprising when you consider the book was written by Ursula Le Guin - and gives the viewer plenty to think about as it dodges from change to change seamlessly. On a side note, credit has to be given to the costume department for the bewildering array of outfits necessary for said changes. There is plenty to think about, both during and after the movie.Give it a chance and make up your own mind rather than simply disregarding this small oasis of calm and intelligence
flonesaw Having read LeGuinn's book and seen PBS's excellent rendering of her story this new version is a crashing disappointment. The first problem is that there is so little left of the story that much of its impact is missing. In spite of being light on effects and budget the earlier PBS production makes much better use of its resources to communicate LeGuinn's apocalyptic drama to the viewer.What happened to the space aliens? They seem to be replaced by David Straithorn's character who occasionally pops into scenes with sage verbiage. Unfortunately, so much has been stripped that there is no tissue left to connect him to what little plot remains after the producers and directors finished their hatchet job on content and context. Who knows why they did that?What's left is a nothingness rivaled only by Jor-Jor's apocalyptic reality. In order to understand what's going on here, one might want to read the book, or view PBS's 1980's telling of the story. Please don't waste your time with this turkey, especially since the PBS version is available on DVD.
cthulhu-23 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.
fnorful ...since they're so flat. I know, it's a poor pun, but this is a poor movie. Perhaps only because the 1980 version was a much-anticipated and even prepared-for favorite with our little group of mainframe programmers is this such a disappointment. No, I take that back. After watching Lisa Bonet do her "deer in the headlights", stopping each scene she was in as surely as a Sandra Bullock, I think this movie can stand alone as a disappointment.James Caan does a good job at the start, but his performance fails to capture the maturation of the good doctor Haber's megalomania. Lukas Haas: oh well, take him or leave him. I don't see how his doe-eyed look (again, an ungulate reference... perhaps this is the underlying theme for my view of the movie) adds anything to the story. No real sense of despair, as Davidson expressed pretty well in the '80 version.Strathairn: actually pretty good; provides a good sense of the dichotomy of this existence and the sense of how being "squeezed" affects all the characters. Too bad Bonet and Caan didn't pay attention to this.Avoid this one, see the original version, then read the book. Which is probably good advice for any movie.