Rabh17 I vaguely remember the 1980's version when it was on TV-- (My reception in my part of town sucked-- real bad) And the ONE good TV with DishTV feed was occupied by my Mother watching. . .whatever it was she was watching. And on regular Poor People TV (Read: Free TV) Either A Star Trek Show or maybe Babylon 5 was on-- so it was No Contest.I confess-- I never read the story. Mind you-- I like Leguin ...My favorite book is "The Telling".Having said that, a friend got me the DVD for my Birthday in 2007-- and after many false starts I decided to watch it. It's different. No Guns. No Booms. No Explosions. No splattered Ichor. No Aliens with acid blood. No HyperTech Space Marines in Orbital Dropships. No Hyper-intelligent robots. No Nanites. It's not a fast story. But then that's an American expectation which has been trained by Hollywood to expect that Sci-Fi equals Lots of Guns and NonStop violent Action and Epilepsy inducing FX usually involving the "End Of The World". . .if not the "Universe". To the people who royally panned this version-- I would counter by saying that it's a Leguin Story. To everyone else-- If you've got nothing else to watch-- give it a chance. I call it mild entertainment. It won't keep you on the edge of your seat-- but you can pause it and rummage through the fridge-- without worries about breaking the mood. And I dare say: If you're a guy, your girlfriend will like it. She can yitter-yatter through the entire thing without annoying you. And the odds are that she'll like it-- for reasons that will vaguely only make sense to female logic. But still. . . Which means she will like YOU better, for reasons you would say have nothing to do with this movie other than Haas and Bonet talking to each other in Bed. Again-- Female logic. Don't try and decipher it. Just trust me on this one.First CON-- The costume designers should be shot. People in the future will NOT dress like that. Second CON-- Why do the main characters all MURMUR?Most Dangerous CON-- This movie is turning into a story about a RELATIONSHIP. By the end of the movie, your girlfriend may have a thoughtful look. And for a guy-- this usually means 'trouble'. So be warned.

anabissell If not for the title, I would barely have recognized LeGuin's book. The story and characters have been dumbed down so much they barely exist. There's no development of either plot or people. There's no hint of motivation for any character, especially Dr. Haber: no interior monologue, no back-story. There's no tension, either between characters or in the society. The actors appear to be sleepwalking (except for David Straithern, wonderful as always as Manny). The script is so bland, it could have been computer generated. I can't believe Brcce Davison, who was in the wonderful 1980 version, or LeGuin would have allowed this travesty to be made -- they turned a brilliant book into a chick-flick. Blech.

bmcd I thought this was a well made re-make of the 1980 PBS special, which starred Bruce Davison, not Craig Wasson as another reviewer mistakenly noted. (You might remember Bruce Davison as Senator Kelly form X-Men) the real fun I noticed was the Six degrees of separation aspect that Kevin Conway who played Dr. Haber in the 1980 version starred in a movie in 1991 called Rambling Rose with Lukas Haas who would end up playing Orr in this re-make. But I digress, The most exciting thing about this film was it's ability to prove that Lisa Bonet actually CAN act. Seriously, this is a cerebral Sci-Fi movie and a very watchable one at that. I thought Haas was a mismatch for the part but he was able to pull it off.

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.