Dreamcatcher (2003) Reviews

• Based on a Stephen king novel that packs drama , monster movie , aliens and extrasensory powers

  ma-cortes2012-05-07

  Friends on a camping trip , they meet for a weekend at their remote cabin in the forests and discover that the town they're vacationing in, is being plagued in an unusual fashion by parasitic aliens from outer space . Four friends : Thomas Jane as Henry , Jason Lee as Beaver , Damian Lewis as Jonesy and Timothy Olyphant as Pete share extrasensory powers and hung a dreamcatcher in their cabin. It's about to catch something it cannot stop and the things are definitely going awry . Meanwhile , military officers (Morgan Freeman , Tom Sizemore) attempt to stop them and we reach the final highlight with the future of mankind at danger. This Sci-Fi movie contains , thrills , suspense , intrigue , strange events and is pretty entertaining . The film is a blend of genres as a yucky monsters movie , a military paranoia picture and drama about childhood with influence on adult life ; all of them squashed into one . Being difficult to muster these diverse elements and director fails partially in its union . It's a rendition of a Stephen King novel , King sold the movie rights for $1 . There were many references to other Stephen King projects, such as: Misery (car wreck in the snow); Stand by Me (boyhood friends walking on railroad tracks , a typical Stephen King nostalgia vignette); It (flashbacks showing growing friendships), etc. And of course the story taking place in Maine - Stephen King's state of birth. This was the story that Stephen wrote while he recovered from his near fatal accident , it is reflected in the story, especially in a graphic scene in which a major character in run down by a vehicle and he wrote the novel in longhand. This marks the third film that William Goldman has adapted from a Stephen King novel , the others were Hearts in Atlantis (2001) and Misery (1990). Rousing musical score by the successful composer James Newton Howard . Colorful though dark cinematography by John Seale . This moving Sci-fi , as long as spectacular, has become a nice film , being finely written and directed by Lawrence Kasdan who also directed other genres as Western as ¨Wyatt Earp¨ and ¨Silverado¨. Furthermore , he made other good movies as ¨Body heat¨, ¨The big chill¨ , ¨Grand Canyon¨ . Rating : 6 , acceptable and passable but overlong as the runtime is approx two hours and some . Even those who don't usually like Science Fiction or monster movies are sure to enjoy it . Worthwhile watching .

• Nice looking, but hollow

  sloopydrew2003-03-18

  The first third of Dreamcatcher is worth the time. Four childhood friends make their annual trip to a hunting cabin, weird things happen, and, before you know it, you're smack-dab in the world of Stephen King, at his most darkly comical and gaily grotesque. It's flatulent, bloody fun on the page, and Goldman had no problem translating this hideous orgy of gas and guts from novel to screenplay form. As the screenplay proceeds, it strays from the book to the point where the film becomes a Hollywood embarrassment of epic proportions. The Dreamcatcher novel also fell apart in its second half, but what kept you reading the book was the mind games going on in the lead character, Jonesy's (Damian Lewis) head. Jonesy's brain and body has been taken hostage by an alien named, Mr. Gray. In the novel, Jonesy notices Gray becoming tempted by the trappings of humanity, and uses that to his advantage. It's fun to watch the alien craving various human indulgences, more and more, with each passing minute. This aspect of the novel is completely removed from the film, leaving us with nothing more than Damian Lewis, playing both Jonesy and Mr. Gray, making silly faces, and putting on goofy accents, as he goes between the two characters. The second act of the film, one taking place in a concentration camp for American citizens whom may or may not be contaminated with an alien virus, is nothing more than a shadow of what is shown in the book. Even the shoddiest of cliffnote "authors" would be embarrassed to condense a novel down to this elementary a form. In the book, the head of the camp, Colonel Abraham Kurtz, played in the film by Morgan Freeman, was a nasty man, so over the edge that he was frightening, from his first appearance to his last. In the movie, we're made aware of the fact that he has lost it, but almost exclusively through exposition, rather than action. Seeing these innocent civilians locked up like animals was disturbing in the novel, and would make for an extremely tense mid-section of this movie, if this movie dared to have any tension. In King's Dreamcatcher, the people locked in the camps join together, with help from the telepathic Dr. Henry Devlin, in the film played by Thomas Jane, and start a massive uprising against the guards. At the same time, Devlin is working on Colonel Kurtz's more conscientious subordinates, both through words, and the power that he, along with Jonesy, Beaver and Pete, was given by a mysterious fifth friend, Duddits. In the movie, the uprising never occurs, and it feels as though each of the concentration camp scenes were put into the film to pad it out, while giving a plum role to Morgan Freeman. I won't give away the finale to either the novel or the film, but I will say that everything good about the finish of the book form of Dreamcatcher, is noticeably missing from the film version. Instead of an emotionally moving climax, we get a sloppy CGI-fest that reminded me a bit of Godzilla VS. King Kong, or maybe even Species 2. Although I found myself squirming over the laziness displayed during the majority of the second half of the picture, I was still undecided as to whether or not I would recommend it. The lousy last few minutes of film made up my mind. This is the first movie I can think of that I can only recommend in patches. Drink a couple of gallons of water before you attend the picture, and run to the bathroom to let it out, whenever things start getting stupid. If you're a fan of horror, you will enjoy the first hour of the film. The bathroom sequence is a near-masterpiece, and, for that alone, Lawrence Kasdan should be commended. Kasdan also handles the flashback scenes, featuring the four main characters as children, adequately enough to get my thumb working its way toward the "up" direction. Finally, during those few times Kasdan does take us into Jonesy's brain, he does so in an incredibly interesting, oftentimes humorous, manner. When Jonesy leaves the relative safety of the locked room he has nuzzled deep within his cerebrum, only to find the evil that is hiding behind boxes of stored memories inside his mind's warehouse, it genuinely gave me chills. More scary moments like this, placed throughout the film, and Kasdan may have had his first instant classic in a long while. There was a lot of money and time put into Dreamcatcher, and it shows on the screen. Steve Johnson's work on the puppet versions of the "s***weasels" is extremely effective, and shows, once again, that anything CG can do, human hands can do better. The CG isn't the best I've seen, but it's significantly less cartoony than either of the last two Star Wars prequels, and does the job nicely, even though I would have enjoyed the effects far more, if CG wasn't a part of them. The cinematography by John Seale (The English Patient, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Witness) is gorgeous, but not noteworthy enough to make the Director of Photography the star of the film, like Caleb Deschanel's work did for him in the recent semi-stinker, The Hunted. What we end up with is a nice looking film that feels hollow.

• This is a failure, but a truly magnificent one!

  mezenov2003-06-14

  As Stephen King fans should probably know, there are a lot of things in Stephen Kings books that make sense only where they are - that is, in Stephen King books. Translating them to film is usually a bad idea, as many filmmakers who had adapted King's books before probably figured out. But along comes Lawrence Kasdan, a talented and acclaimed veteran director, who, with the aid of a no less acclaimed screenwriter William Goldman, decides while writing a script for Dreamcathcer that it would be better to bring along all the trademark King's weird goings-on - and voila! We have a movie filled with telepathy, butt-ripping aliens, crazy military types keen on killing everyone, telephone-guns, indian symbols and even a lot of CGI thrown in for a good measure. Of course, it all fails - but oh how gloriously! I'll go as far as to state that Dreamcatcher is absolutely the best unintentional B-movie trashfest in years! It was totally amusing that such a bunch of undoubtedly talented people (Morgan Freeman, Tom Sizemore, Thomas Jane, besides aforementioned Kasdan & Goldman) were able to make this film without a single smirk - while the material is pure trash'n'cheese. That was the whole beauty of it, for me, at least - the level of money, work and talent that went into creating this film. I would like to personally thank all the people involved with Dreamcathcer - they made my year! Thank you, Lawrence Kasdan! Thank you, William Goldman! Thank you, Morgan Freeman - your eyebrows rocked! And most of all, thank you, Jason Lee - the bathroom scene involving Beaver and an alien worm under the toilet lid is pure classic!

• Wow! Now that's a crazy movie!!!!

  zegabriel2004-03-05

  Man, where does Stephen King comes up with this things? Again, we have the childhood friends we think we know from "Stand by me" only this time they're older, have weird powers and face some really nasty creatures. I just come from watching it for the first time and i just wanted to say: What a weird movie!! I've seen some really weird movies, but this one... It's sort of a mixture of horror, sci-fi, comedy... At some point you don't know whether to be disgusted or to laugh! The special efects are great, and so is the music ("On blue bayou..."}. It may not be a great movie, but it's great entertainment. And it's sooooooo insane!!!! I liked it. Go see it. 7/10

• Why Rated So Low?!

  stephenhill82003-10-28

  I'm a sci-fi fan, but am pretty discriminating. Often _years_ will go by where I don't like even a single sci-fi film that comes out. This one scared and "wow-ed" me. Doesn't just rely on special effects, but has a good plot and at least decent acting. I don't see why this film was rated so poorly, unless other viewers didn't know ahead of time it had a strong sci-fi bent (I didn't). Great storyline, eerie memorable scenes, and a complex background story that evolves slowly but consistently throughout the movie through flashbacks from the main characters. Great way to condense the novel, I assume.