Reviews

This film is what a documentary should be:

(1) It teaches you something. I think I know quite a bit about American history. I'm 47 years old, so I lived through the Vietnam war -- and I paid attention to current events. I studied U.S. history as a graduate student, too. Yet I still learned a great deal from this film, particularly about the second world war and the Cuban missle crisis. (2) It is well edited. Errol Morris did an excellent job of selecting the portions of his extensive interviews with Robert McNamara that best represented what McNamara had to say. It is clear that his subject was someone who thought carefully even as speaking, since the editing suggests that a lot of pauses were cut out to create a smooth flow of thought on McNamara's part. (3) The choice of archive footage complements the commentary very well, illustrating the point and providing additional information as well. Particularly chilling was the montage of photos and captions that Morris selected to show while McNamara was describing the firebombing of Japan during World War II. (4) While it has a point of view, the film does not hammer you over the head with it, a flaw that I find a bit off-putting about the recent spate of popular documentaries by Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock.

This is a truly outstanding documentary. It should be required viewing (along with the special features on the DVD)for anyone interested in U.S. military policy. If only we had paid attention to McNamara's lessons before invading Iraq, perhaps we would not be spending $200 billion and 1,000 soldiers' lives going it alone . . .

Maybe I have seen too many episodes of "Law and Order," but the unreality of the plot in this movie spoils the great acting and dialogue for me. Even allowing for the nearly half-century that has elapsed since this film was made, it is difficult for me to believe that a competent prosecutor would not have pursued the case as armed assault rather than attempted murder. Given the prosecutor's foolishness in pursuing only the tougher charge, it was irresponsible for the defense to turn the trial into some sort of "equal rights" forum rather than focus on her client's state of mind and true intent.

Yes, the dialogue in this film is "sparkling," as one reviewer writes. I love the back-and-forth between Hepburn and Tracy; they are truly outstanding. If I were voting for the acting, I would definitely give this a 9 or a 10. However, as an overall assessment, the lame plot choices make this a disappointing 6/10 for me.

I saw this film as a child and enjoyed it, but when I watched it again tonight with my children, I absolutely loved it. My two oldest daughters are big fans of "Pirates of the Caribbean." They immediately recognized Robert Newton's brilliant performance as Long John Silver as the inspiration for Geoffrey Rush's equally delightful turn as Captain Barbossa fifty years later. Newton steals the show with his characterization of the famous pirate, yet does so without distracting one from the story.

A half century has not robbed this film of any of its charm; it remains one of the great pirate films of all time. Grab a bowl of popcorn and fire up your DVD player. Treasure Island is the real thing!

Like many other reviewers, I bought this DVD because of its high IMDb rating. Unlike many, I was not disappointed, though I my own rating of this film is a 7, rather than the 10 that the majority of raters have given it. Gabriela is an enjoyable romance film with a plot, characters, and dialogue that held my attention throughout.

Some reviewers have suggested that the characters in the film are unrealistic. I had no problem believing them completely. I think those who think otherwise are forgetting the first rule of Love (and, for that matter, of human interactions in general): Logic means nothing.

To me, Gabriela's situation is understandable and painful: she is trapped -- by the bounds of tradition and loyalty -- in a relationship that no longer satisfies her. She knows this, all too well, and so allows herself to fall quickly into an affair with her co-worker, a good-hearted, naive young man who is drawn to her from their first meeting. The tension between the lure of passion (and, perhaps, real love) and loyalty to social mores, family expectations, and, simply, a desire on Gabriela's part not to do wrong to a man (her fiancee) whose only fault is that he no longer interests her, all combine to form the basis for a classic romance. It is a formula that has worked in film after film, and it does pretty well here.

I liked this film because I was never quite certain how things were going to turn out. This mystery held my attention. I also enjoyed the comic relief provided by Doug (Troy Winbush), Mike's philandering and cynical friend. And, though I know that using a softening lens and warm colors to create mood in the scenes where Mike and Gabriela are together is one of the oldest (and to some, campiest) tricks in a director/cinematographer's book, I feel that the technique works in this movie. I liked it. Finally, the centrality of the intergenerational conflict between mother and daughter and intercultural conflict between Mexican traditions and U.S. feminist beliefs that underlies much of the film was to me intriguing and thought-provoking.

There are, however, some caveats I would add to the above praise, that contributed to this being more of a "7" for me than a "10". While I enjoyed the film, I did not find that it stuck with me for days afterward, resurfacing in my mind during idle moments the way truly great films do. It is, to put it bluntly, no "Casablanca."

I was also disappointed to find that the DVD I had purchased, a Region 1 DVD, did not have English subtitles. This is not important for most of the film -- the dialogue is in English and quite clear -- but it is for the final scenes. These scenes take place in Mexico and are, realistically, in Spanish. Alas, I long ago forget 99% of my high school Spanish, so the subtleties of these scenes are lost to me. While I applaud the decision to switch languages, I think it was an oversight bordering on malice (i.e., let's show 'em what it feels like to have to cope with being unable to understand the language, the way Latin American immigrants are forced, daily, to cope . . .) that resulted in no subtitles being available.

The digital transfer from film to DVD is also fairly poor. The film seems to blur or skip at a few points. This is irritating, but with a little effort one can ignore it. It is an unfortunate byproduct of a low budget, I guess.

All in all, this is a good low-budget indie film and a worthwhile effort for a lot of relative newcomers. I look forward to seeing more from all of them. I recommend it to you, but encourage you to lower your expectations a tad so as not to be disappointed. If you do this, I think you'll have a good time watching it. You may even love it.

This is a comedy that will keep a smile on your lips throughout. The actors do as fine a job as any slapstick comedians I have seen and the humor translates across generations. This is a film that is many things in one: a family film (nothing offensive here), a piece of historical culture (especially with its snide jokes about lazy, corrupt bureaucrats, which surely skated close to the censors in the old USSR -- but just as certainly resonated with the viewing public then and now), and a delightfully dated comedy complete with mid-60s music and hair.

I recommend viewing the DVD in the original Russian language, using subtitles if you do not understand Russian. The subtitles are not obtrusive, and to employ dubbing is to lose the wonderful vocal intonations and characterizations of the original actors.

This is a very good film, at least an 8 out of 10. Get a copy of the DVD and enjoy!

This is one of nine shorts on the anime disk, "The Animatrix." It is my favorite. The artwork is amazing. The black-and-white, somewhat grainy texture perfectly captures the mood that the segment is trying to portray. The story is tight, and the ending is true to film noir.

Overall, I gave The Animatrix a "7", but this particular segment deserves a "10."

The Thief of Bagdad is a treasure. First and foremost, it is a good story. Though my four children's primary exposure to this tale, the most famous of the stories of the Arabian Nights, comes from the Disney Corporation, the Thief of Bagdad held their interest to the end. The story moves along at a good pace and includes a twist or two that reduced predictability. Sabu, who plays the young thief, Abu, also measures up to any of today's teen actors in appeal, judging from the number of times I heard my oldest daughter say, "He's c-u-t-e!"

In 1940, the film won Oscars for cinematography and special effects. Today, of course, those effects seem very dated ("Look, it's Barbie flying through the air," declared my daughter at the sight of the genie flying). Yet they fit into the story well. The film is, after all, over 60 years old. The effects fit with the script. Furthermore, what ones sees in The Thief of Bagdad remained pretty much state-of-the-art for the next twenty-five years. One need only compare the opening montage from a 1967 Star Trek episode to see this. In that, it was quite an achievement.

This qualifies as a family film, though there are a few stabbings near the end. The acting is so obvious and the wounds so bloodless as to those scenes nearly as artificial as animation.

All in all, a fun film worth watching for either an evening of pure entertainment, or for the historical value of the effects. I recommend it.

Chuck Jones is, without a doubt, one of the truly great names in animation. This documentary is a worthy tribute to his life. It incorporates numerous retrospectives and observations from many of his contemporaries and colleagues as well as from Jones himself. There are two things that I liked in particular about this film: (1) It's ability to convey (and teach) the importance and role of Chuck Jones as a director and the roles of the various animators, writers, and technicians who worked with him; and (2) the humility of the man himself. I was struck by how many times Jones took care to point out where he was not the sole creator of a character, or what the contributions of his colleagues were. Through this humility shines a brilliance and creativity that brought us many wonderful hours of comedy and animation in the middle decades of the 20th century.

The DVD version of this documentary includes several worthwhile extras. Two of Jones' best animated shorts, "Duck Dodgers in the 24 1/2th Century" and "Feed the Kitty" are included in their entirety (clips are featured in the main documentary). There are also "pencil test" versions of "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" and "Mississippi Hare" that show just what a work-in-process looked like. And there is a tutorial from Jones himself on some of the tricks of the trade, a behind the scenes view that was fun to see.

I give this a 9 out of 10: A must-see for any fan of animation.

It is impossible not to admire anything Alfred Hitchcock did, and if you are a fan of Jimmy Stewart as well, "Rope" would seem to be a must-see. Unfortunately, the film is a flawed effort, worth taking the time to view if only to marvel at the camera angles Hitchcock used and the brilliance of the color cinematography -- this was Hitchcock's first use of technicolor.

What redeemed the film for me was the extra feature on the Universal Pictures DVD: "Rope Unleashed." This is worth the price of the DVD all by itself. It is a background documentary on the film, with numerous still photos of the production process. It is nothing less than awesome to see the size of the camera with which Joseph Valentine and his crew worked, and to imagine the effort required to plan and execute scenes that required that camera to move about. The documentary does a great job of describing the way in which Hitchcock pulled this off, beginning with the meticulous detail with which each scene was planned.

"Rope Unleashed" provides two other valuable insights to the movie as well. First, it describes how Hitchcock made the film into a personal directorial challenge, as he chose to shoot it as if one were watching a play, with 10-minute takes on the set. Second, we learn just why the movie itself is somewhat dissatisfying, as we hear how hampered Hitchcock was by Hollywood's homophobia in 1948 (a problem the playwright of the British original did not have to be as concerned about). It is also clear that Hitchcock and the studio's choice of Stewart as the "name" actor was most likely ill-chosen, since the views of that character simply do not fit with our conceptions of what Stewart should be like. This in turn forced the inclusion of the preachy monologue at the end of the film, when the former teacher renounces the beliefs that led to his students' tragic poor choices.

I give this a 7/10, though my vote is certainly biased upward by my love of both Hitchcock and Stewart. Were it not for that bias and the inclusion of "Rope Unleashed" I would probably knock the rating down to a 6, and that only because of the awesome achievement of cinematography.

"The Shop Around the Corner" is the movie on which the Tom Hanks / Meg Ryan film, "You've Got Mail" is based. My wife and I enjoyed the Hanks film a great deal and, as I am a big fan of Jimmy Stewart, I expected to like the original even more. Alas, in this I was disappointed. Stewart is excellent as Alfred Kralik and Margaret Sullivan makes a good foil for his efforts as Klara Novak, but overall the movie falls short of what it could have been.

There are really two stories going on in this movie: Kralik's anonymous postbox relationship with Klara Novak, and Kralik's pseudo father/son relationship with his employer, Mr. Matuschek (Frank Morgan). This means that the script must make room for both stories, the result of which is that neither is as fully developed as it could be. This is most evident at the end, when we learn -- in what comes off as a very artificial rush -- that Klara has been attracted to Alfred all along and was (supposedly) faking her dislike for him as a means of attracting his attention. This Deus-ex-machina contrivance is necessary in order to produce the required Happy Ending when Alfred reveals to Klara that he is the letter writer whom she has pined over.

Nora Ephron's adaptation of this story avoids this pitfall by sticking with only one story -- the two-sided relationship between the Hanks and Ryan. She was thus able to permit Meg Ryan's character much more time to change her view of Hanks, and Hanks more time to woo her to that changed point of view. The result was a more believable Happy Ending (to the extent, of course, that any Hollywood Happy Endings are believable!).

I also found the supposed setting (pre-war Budapest) to be a similar contrivance. As a Hungarian, Miklos Laszlo's decision to set the play in pre-war Budapest is understandable. But when the movie was cast with the all-American stars Stewart, Sullivan, and Morgan, a New York or Chicago setting would have been much more credible.

Disappointment aside, though, this is still a fun film to watch. As I said at the beginning, Jimmy Stewart acts with his usual brilliance, and Margaret Sullivan and Frank Morgan complement him very well. So do go ahead and get this on DVD if you are a Jimmy Stewart fan or a lover of romantic comedies. The Shop Around the Corner is not perfect, but it is pleasant. I, for one, like pleasant.

I watched this film with my four daughters, aged 6 to 13. They loved it, giggling repeatedly at the various jokes. For my part, I found the special effects a bit too much over-the-top, but was surprised to find that, midway through the movie, I was still engaged. The storyline is cute and there are several good lines that left me chuckling. All in all, an OK family film (6/10).

I saw Ringu on DVD after seeing the U.S. remake (The Ring, with Naomi Watts in the lead role) in the theater. The two films are virtually identical in plot for the first 30 minutes, but they diverge after that. Ringu gives us more insight into the mysterious girl in the video and her mother than does The Ring, which deliberately leaves more in the shadow and leaves it up to us to draw conclusions. Both approaches work well.

Naomi Watts' role as the reporter/mother in The Ring is stronger than that of Nanako Matsushima in Ringu. Whereas Watts' character is the central investigator in The Ring, it is Reiko Asakawa's ex-husband, Ryuji Takayama who takes the lead in Ringu. Indeed, Ryuji seems to have a special insight into the curse from the point where he first learns of it from his ex-wife. He knows more than he lets on, and it is he, not her, who drives the investigation.

Overall, I enjoyed Ringu a great deal. It is a first rate horror film, using the unknown and unseen to play on the viewers' minds and build suspense. I believe that the U.S. remake does justice to the original, and would recommend it for those who do not like subtitled films, but encourage you to see both. I give Ringu 8/10; I rated The Ring 9/10.

This is the first film that I have scene by Hayao Miyazaki; I cannot wait to see others. The animation is gorgeous. The artists use brilliant blues and greens to bring out the life in the fields and skies. They include small details (such as an old soda bottle at the bottom of an otherwise clear brook) that lend realism to the film without imposing on the beauty of the landscape, and throughout the movie they introduce us to one lovely flower and plant after another. The characters are easy to empathize with, and the story is one that engages children from ages 5 to 75. I heartily recommend this film to anyone who loves animation, no matter what age. A definite "10."

Thirty years after it first appeared in the theaters, this film still has the ability to generate one belly laugh after another. It is a hilarious send-up of the great westerns, as well as a good-humored (but sharp) jab at the bigotry of the Old West. Cleavon Little is perfect as the urbane sheriff sent to alienate the town of Rock Ridge but instead winning the day. Gene Wilder plays his sidekick delightfully as the fastest-gun-in-the-west turned drunk. One of the best parodies I've seen, then and now. A 9 out of 10.

"Manna from Heaven" is probably the most pleasant movie experience I have had this year. I walked out of the theater with a smile on my face and a warm feeling inside. Reviewers who have called this a "feel-good" movie are right on target, but it is more than that. The story, which seemed a bit slow and contrived at first, gradually captured my imagination. Halfway through the film I was hooked, and then just sat back and enjoyed the ride. I particularly enjoyed Ursula Burton's portrayal of Sister Theresa. She manages to project the quiet, pure, goodness of Theresa without seeming oversweet.

Another nice thing about this film is its PG rating. I love the creativity one gets from independent filmmakers, but can seldom bring my daughters to see the films because they are inevitably rated R. This time, my 12-year-old and 10-year-old were able to accompany their father -- and they loved the movie, too. It was nice to have a movie to discuss with them that was not by Disney or Dreamworks!

I heartily recommend this film. (8 out of 10).

I remember seeing this film when it came out in 1984 and enjoying it. I liked it then, and I liked it again when I saw it recently on DVD. There are two reasons why you might enjoy The Last Starfighter:

(1) You are looking for a movie to watch with kids aged 8 to 14. This movie has a simple, straightforward storyline that holds attention and enjoyment for its 101 minutes. My daughters (10 and 12) loved it, though they noted that the special effects were a bit obvious (see also reason (2)). It was a nice family treat.

(2) You want to see a bit of film history; this one has two attractions. It was the first full-length motion picture to rely entirely on computer-generated graphics for its special effects, arguably blazing the way for the CGI industry of a decade later. From the perspective of 18 years later, these effects are pretty obvious, but they are not primitive. They work well. And they were done on computers that were less powerful than the laptop I'm typing this review on.

The second bit of film history in this movie is that it was one of the last films to co-star Robert Preston, in a role that is deliberately modeled on one his most famous (and enjoyable roles), that of the outrageous flim-flam man of The Music Man. "Centuri" (Preston) is the reincarnation of Professor Harold Hill in outer space. If you are a fan of Robert Preston, you'll enjoy his performance in this movie. It is obvious that he enjoyed doing it.

This is one of my 7-year-old daughter's favorite films, and is also a hit with the rest of my children (ages 5, 10, 12). It holds their interest throughout, has a positive storyline with no nightmare-inducing scenes, and (as our 10-year-old informed me), "no one dies." It also produces more than a few delighted laughs from all of them, even upon repeated viewings.

For my part, I find that my attention wanders (the story is a bit slow), but the music is good and the animation attractive.

Bottom line is that I recommend this film for anyone looking for a good, entertaining family film.

"A Christmas Carol" may well be the most-adapted Christmas story in literature, with version ranging from whimsical to musical to deadly serious. This particular version, starring Henry Winkler as Benedict Slade (a.k.a. Scrooge) is my favorite.

The movie translates Dickens' classic story from 19th century England to Depression-era New England. The result is very effective. For me, an American born to parents who grew up in the Depression, the 20th century setting made the story feel very real. The writers and director made excellent decisions in their choice of sets. Three notable examples were the New England furniture factory as the setting for Slade's youth, the newly-conceived idea of consumer credit as the source of his subsequent wealth and avarice, and the choice of an African-American as the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come ("You must be Future," Slade declares, cowering before him).

Winkler's performance is brilliant. He captures the essence of Slade perfectly, and makes the gradual transformation from miser to redeemed man seem natural and believable. The scene at the Thatcher (a.k.a. Cratchit) household at the end of the film never fails to bring tears to my eyes and those of my family. The supporting cast performs ably as well, making this a Christmas classic that one can watch every year.

"An American Christmas Carol" debuted in 1979, midway through Winkler's popular "Happy Days" television series run. After a few years of reruns, it disappeared from view until recently, when it became available on DVD and video. I heartily recommend it for your holiday DVD collection.

Once again, Peter Jackson and the magnificent cast of The Lord of the Rings have done it. The Two Towers is a worthy successor to the Fellowship of the Ring. Fifty years from now, film lovers will hold these two films (and their final chapter, due out next year) in the same regard with which we today think of the great films of the 20th century. It is a truly outstanding epic.

Jackson departs from the literal storyline in the Tolkien books somewhat more in this movie than in the first, but he remains very true to the spirit of the author's work. The cinematography is once again awesome, from the sweeping panoramas of Middle Earth (now known as New Zealand) to the sprawling battle scenes. Despite the movie's 3-hour length, I found it continually engaging; there were few (if any) slow parts. Jackson uses the juxtaposition of the three separate subplots effectively in this regard.

Perhaps the most amazing accomplishment is the character of Gollum. There was a great deal of advance press about how the special effects team used computer-generated graphics to produce what we saw (overlaying this on the able acting of Andy Serkis). What amazed me was the astounding reality of Gollum's face. I found myself staring into those large eyes, looking for the shreds of humanity (well, of hobbit, actually) that remained. There was nothing artificial about that face; it spoke volumes about the torment going on within this creature.

This is unquestionably a film to see several times. It is an epic unfolding.

Many critics whose opinions I respect raved about this film, so I had high expectations when I went to see it. Alas, I was disappointed.

A common theme among the critics is that this film succeeds by transporting us back to 1957, letting us experience the societal prejudices and foibles of that era firsthand. The central figure, Cathy Whitaker (Julianne Moore) finds her picture-perfect life as a society-pages housewife gradually unravel as her husband struggles with his homosexual feelings and she innocently steps over the color line in her interactions with her black gardener, Raymond Deagan (Dennis Haysbert). The film shows us this story by showing subjects on the screen that would be taboo in 1957 while simultaneously projecting a mood based on those same 1957 mores.

For me the central problem with the film is that Cathy is simply not a very likable or sympathetic character. She is good-hearted, but only superficially. In truth, she is a self-centered and insensitive society butterfly, coddled in wealth and oblivious to the effect of her actions on others. It is striking how little affection Cathy shows for her own children (she is constantly sending them out of the room, shutting them off, or ignoring their desire for some involvement in their lives). Her blindness to the consequences of her "friendship" with her gardener is almost incredible; at no point does she seem to realize that she has some responsibility for destroying his life and that of his daughter. A cold fish, she leaves her husband to deal with his own internal turmoil alone, seldom showing compassion or any genuine concern.

Initially, I felt that the fact that I could not like Cathy Whitaker was part of the brilliance of the movie. The characters are the creatures of their environment, and what that environment created was not very likable. Yet I cannot help feel that this was inadvertent -- indeed, I am struck by the fact few of today's critics picked up on what a miserable mother, wife, and friend Cathy really was. Is our own sense of political correctness preventing us from seeing this?

As the film progressed, it became irrelevant to me whether Cathy's character flaws were intentional. They simply made her too unlikable to draw out my sympathy. The only genuinely likable character in the film was Raymond; the damage done to his life by his brief brush with Cathy is tragic. Cathy's continued pursuit of him in the face of the damage she caused -- and the clear self-centeredness of that pursuit -- is dismaying. I want to feel at least neutral about Cathy; instead, I find myself loathing her.

The story takes place in Hartford, CT over a period of several months, during the late fall and winter. Yet the outside scenes appear to all come from the same October week. About the only change one sees is a few more leaves off the trees. Christmas comes and goes without snow or even brown grass, and the leaves maintain their color and crispness on the ground months after having fallen off the tree.

Julianne Moore's acting is very good, but Dennis Quaid is little more than a stereotype as her husband, Frank. This is probably more the script's fault than it is Quaid's, but I found myself wanting to know more about this character. The one performance I really loved was that of Dennis Haysbert. He captured perfectly the soul of the kind, experienced, and wise gardener for whom one misstep nearly destroys everything he has worked his whole life to accomplish. He projects the anguish of Raymond's situation and is the one character who shows any real understanding of what is going on. Haysbert is able to show tenderness and determination in a very convincing way. I hope we see more of him in prominent roles.

In the end, I have to rate this film a 6 out of 10. It was OK to see once, but I would not want to sit through it again.

As entertainment, this is at best an average movie. The story drags at several points and the Russian accents affected by Harrison Ford and other characters are more distracting than anything else.

Yet, this is a story that needed to be told. The sailors and officers of the K-19 were not just heroes of their country, but men to whom all of us who lived through the Cold War owe thanks. By putting sacrificing their careers and, in many cases, their lives, they saved the world from what could have been (at worst) a war and (at best) a horrible ecological disaster. They did so by doing their jobs and serving their country.

So, though the film is only mediocre, I recommend it to anyone who wants a peak at history through the eyes of the ordinary military men whose stories are so seldom told. And I commend Harrison Ford for bringing the story of to the screen, so that these men might get the recognition they are due.

This is a film that everyone in the family can enjoy. All four of my daughters (aged 5 to 12) found a lot to enjoy, and the cleverness of the dialogue gave me more that a few laugh-out-loud moments.

Treasure Planet is a fast-moving, wise-cracking adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island, with some new twists. Indeed, one of the things I like about this movie is that, while remaining true to the spirit of Stevenson, the writers chose to depart from the original in a number of innovative ways that make this its own movie, rather than just an animated remake.

I gave this an 8 out of 10: definitely worth seeing and a movie that will hold up on repeat viewings (very important when you have kids and a DVD player!).

I remember seeing this film when it came out in 1984 and enjoying it immensely. I liked it then, and I liked it again when I saw it recently on DVD. There are two reasons why you might enjoy The Last Starfighter:

(1) You are looking for a movie to watch with kids aged 8 to 14. This movie has a simple, straightforward storyline that holds attention and enjoyment for its 101 minutes. My daughters (10 and 12) loved it, though they noted that the special effects were a bit obvious (see also reason (2)). It was a nice family treat.

(2) You want to see a bit of film history; this one has two attractions. It was the first full-length motion picture to rely entirely on computer-generated graphics for its special effects, arguably blazing the way for the CGI industry of a decade later. From the perspective of 18 years later, these effects are pretty obvious, but they are not primitive. They work well. And they were done on computers that were less powerful than the laptop I'm typing this review on.

The second bit of film history in this movie is that it was one of the last films to co-star Robert Preston, in a role that is deliberately modeled on one his most famous (and enjoyable roles), that of the outrageous flim-flam man of The Music Man. "Centuri" (Preston) is the reincarnation of Professor Harold Hill in outer space. If you are a fan of Robert Preston, you'll enjoy his performance in this movie. It is obvious that he enjoyed doing it.

I am not someone who insists that a movie adhere strictly to the book on which it is based. Moreover, I recognize that a teleplay must omit some parts of the book in order to fit in an 80-minute timeframe. However, I expect the essential theme of the book to be maintained. This adaptation fails miserably in that respect.

Rather than paint a picture of the futility of playing God, writer Alan Sharp and director Philip Haas chose to give us a one-dimensional cliché of the self-aggrandizing scientist (James Caan's Dr. Haber) and us a shallow love story. Haber's desire to mold a better world through George Orr's power, his attempt to convince George to join him in the effort rather than resist, and his inability to see that the consequences of meddling with reality are unpredictable -- all of this is lost in Haas' adaptation. Instead, we see Haber using George to obtain successively more magnificent office space and a progressively more fashionable secretary. George's love interest, Heather, is reduced to an odd obsession; Heather's own attempt (and failure) in LeGuin's novel to use George's power for public good never appears in Haas' film.

Perhaps the pettiest departure from the book was Sharp and Haas' choice to have Dr. Haber say "New York" (instead of "Antwerp") as the phrase that induces George Orr's dreams under hypnosis in their first session. Interestingly, Haber never uses the phrase again in any of the subsequent dream scenes. Maybe Haas was embarrassed by his own pettiness.

Even as a standalone movie, this film is a poor one. Lisa Bonet's character, Heather, was completely unbelievable. Are we really supposed to accept that a successful and self-assertive lawyer will drive out to a remote location and jump into bed with a psychiatric patient about whom she knows very little and that she will remain there with him for days in the face of his increasingly obsessive behavior - simply because he says he feels he knew her from a previous life? In another scene, we are given hints that George's friend, Manny, may be more than he seems. He appears in each of George's realities, and he seems to recall all of them. Yet the film does nothing with this; it is simply a loose string left for us to puzzle on. The final scenes are rushed and confusing, leaving the viewer with the sense that Haas simply ended the show in order to fit into the time he had available.

Philip Haas has not made a decent movie since his 1995 `Angels and Insects.' This version of `The Lathe of Heaven' continues his streak of losers. If you want to see a good film adaptation of LeGuin's book, buy the 1980 PBS version instead.