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...

Lathe of Heaven's potential is ultimately betrayed by pandering to mediocrity.Had the producers of Lathe of Heaven any sense they would have kept the script of the original 1980 version and only updated its corny effects with today's technology and a decent budget.Unfortunately, they felt compelled to make a cliche love interest the focus of the film, added some New-Agey pseudo-reincarnation mysticism, and eliminated the nightmarish feel of the original. This is the new, improved chocolate-coated nothing designed for easier swallowing.There are some bright sides to the remake, such as some lush sets and costumes, and the actors' recital of their lines in measured monotones that add to the dreamlike atmosphere, reminiscent of Heart of Glass (but not as emotionless).I am left dreaming for the day when a remake does the original full justice. 6/10

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.

Better-acted, with production values out of proportion to the actual money spent, it seems to me to hit much closer to the sense of the novel than the 1980 PBS version starring Craig Wasson. This ranks with Gilliam's _Brazil_ as an example of line-art science fiction film-making, as simple and inexpensive elements are combined to create a sense of otherness that shifts in subtle ways from scene to scene as George's dreams change the world around him. (Note especially the use of Audi's futuristic A2 model to stand in for a "car o' the future", and the raincoats assembled neatly from tire inner-tubes.) The techniques are often mis-used, much as impressionism was appropriated to serve the sofa-art industry; but here, it's a genuinely skilled execution on limited resources.