‘Dreams’ Interpretation Misses the Metaphysical

Kenneth Turan’s review of the Robin Williams movie “What Dreams May Come” painted it as a sappy love story, with insufficient background for us to really identify and care for the main characters, and too much gushy love-lasts-forever-and-endures-all stuff (“Drowning in a River of Tears,” Oct. 2). But that’s not what the picture was about. I would have hoped Turan might have been astute enough to notice that the movie had to do with the fact that we create our own realities, both here and in the afterlife.

If Turan sees this as a bloated love story, rather than a daring and ingenious metaphysical masterpiece, he missed the point of the film completely. That is sad for any competent movie reviewer. But then, this is the same man who panned “Titanic,” so his ideas of what the public will see in a film, and how it will like it, are not something I would depend on.

NEALE DONALD WALSCH

Ashland, Ore.

*

Turan really shot himself in the foot with his comment that “his Oscar for ‘Good Will Hunting’ and his three other nominations and assorted honors notwithstanding,” Robin Williams is “no more than a passable actor.”

The reason Williams has received the aforementioned Oscar, nominations, etc., is because he’s much more than a passable actor. And if Turan would get off his high horse just once and try watching “Dead Poets Society,” “Awakenings” and “Good Will Hunting” (just to name a few), he might realize he’s been wrong all along about Williams’ acting skills.

JOHN McELLIGOTT JR.

Fullerton

*

Turan noted favorably the effects for the painted world sequence and correctly credited Joel Hynek and Nick Brooks. Unfortunately, he did not correctly credit the companies involved.

The painted world sequence and effects were achieved through a collaboration of the following: Mobility, Giant Killer Robots, Mass Illusions and Shadowcaster. Digital Domain did only the 3-D bird, and POP only some composites for this sequence.

KAREN ANSEL

CG Supervisor, Mobility Inc.

Venice