Mjeteconer Just perfect...

Onlinewsma Absolutely Brilliant!

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

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.

a_gf Taking into account the original, this remake is waste of time for the viewer, I brief it as chopped scripted, awfully directed and wrongfully acted disposal of tape, I don't call these "things" movies.James Caan cripples the doctor's character, maybe the main actor deserves some credit, but only maybe. The only difference in which this remake may look better than the original is on the photography.The story is broken and hard to follow, the main parts of the original are lost, giving way to time wasting scenes of nice settings. What a shame. I strongly suggest to find the original and leave this remake forgotten for years to come. Not even Ed Wood would make this remake worse.

Matt Walsh I've recently seen both the PBS and this version, in that order. Personally, I didn't fall in love with either one. I know there are a ton of you who are fans of the PBS version, but I would suggest that its innovation (a for-TV produced cereberal Sci-fi drama 30 years ago) made a bigger crater than the actual production itself.That said, the PBS version was better in all respects save the visuals. And even then, the A&E version *still* seems like a poor-man's sci-fi film as it tries to use futuristic-like but unmodified outdoor buildings and scenery. The costumes were pretty well done though.Sadly, though, to me both films are either too abstract for me or logically complete. Maybe that's the problem with a plotline where you give a character transcendent, unlimited, unexplainable powers. I mean, realize I'm a huge Philip Dick fan, and enjoy thought-provoking, open-ended endings. But both the A&E and PBS versions leave me with that incomplete, unsatisfied feeling.

escoles 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.