Rating: 
Summary: Horrible Movie!
Review: I could not believe that a movie this bad was actually released into theaters! For the first 45 minutes of the movie, you are set up to believe that it might actually be decent. However, when you realize what the "Scary" thing in the woods is, you realize that the movie is taking a bad turn. For there on, it goes from bad to worse. I love Stephen King and love reading his books and have loved many of his movies. This one was horrible. He does cameos in most of his movies and did not in this one. Perhaps that means this is a movie even he is not proud of.
Rating: 
Summary: Stand by Me + IT + Aliens = Dreamcatcher
Review: This is a classic Stephen King story about how friendship can defeat evil (at the cost of a couple of friends). Mom and Pop are'nt going to this film: 5 decapitations, slimy monsters, exploding colons? No way they would make it through this film. But I liked it for those reasons. The monsters looked pretty cool, they had some real sneaky tricks up their sleeves, or tails. I did have problems with the ending: too abrupt and too silly and it was'nt really explained well. Tom Sizemore did a decent job but Morgan Freeman was completely wasted in the film, he did and probably could do nothing with his role in the film. At least the monster had a sense of humor and parts of the movie were genuinely funny. One scene in particular is a good warning about why sarcastic remarks are wasted on slimy, toothy monsters. And one more thing: Wondering if it is worth it just so you can see the Matrix animated movie in the beginning? It is - it was super-cool!
Rating: 
Summary: How can you people say this is bad?
Review: I have to admit, this wasn't the best movie I ever saw. There are very good movie's out there, but this isn't a B-movie. Seriously, did you really watch it? If you did than you know Dreamcatcher was good. Bad points: child acting was a little weak, sound was a little screwy, ending didn't really tie anything together. Other than that, it was a good movie. And it did it's job of having a bit of everything: had humor (i don't mean the farts, that wasn't really a joke and took up only 2% of the movie), suspense, good acting, scare sequences, super natural, psychological troubles, and plenty of character development, action, plot, etc. The adaptation of a book doesn't always have to be exact. Take The Shining, it left A LOT out and changed various things around. And that made it a better movie. Same goess with Dreamcatcher. It's not a 3-star movie, it should rank at 4-stars at the least.
Rating: 
Summary: Lots of aliens=awful
Review: I was really exited to see the movie thinking it was gonna be
really scary and at least good.When the movie started it
was not so scary but very good.Until the aliens are shown on the
screen.Small alien worms,giant alien worms,big head aliens,guys talking to guns=really awful.Some things make no sense with
the movie like a space ship that is shown one time in the
whole movie.If i new that it would be this awful i could have
gone see The Hunted.I give it 2 stars because it was funny and
the beginning was cool.See it to know what i mean.
Rating:
Summary: So horribly bad that it's entertaining
Review: This movie was so incredibly bad that it is now in my list of top 10 worst-best movie of all time (this list includes films such as 'Showgirls' and 'Grease 2'). Be forewarned: if you're looking for a quality horror movie, this isn't it. If you're looking for an intentionally funny horror movie, this isn't it. If you're looking for an outlet for your sarcastic comments, however, this movie is for you. The plot -- about the fight against a race of shape-shifting aliens determined to take over the world -- is filled with more holes than a sponge. It's a pretty ridiculous premise that's taken to comical levels when it's revealed who will be able to fight and destroy the alien leader. The aliens -- eel-like creatures with a slit-like mouth and lots of teeth -- develop in human hosts a la "Alien". But instead of exploding out of one's abdomen when they're ripe, they propel themselves out of the, ahem, backside. The movie also contains some of the most ridiculous metaphors ever put to film. There's way too many ridiculous and hilarious details about this film to list here. Go see it for a good laugh. I plan on buying this DVD once it comes out. It's almost so bad that it could qualify for cult status in a few years.
Rating:
Summary: Great adaptation...HORRIBLE acting
Review: In my opinion, "Dreamcatcher" is the best book that Stephen King has ever written. So with that being said, my love for the novel provided me with enough inspiration to go and see this film. My expectations were extremely low however, simply because there have only been a few films to offer a worthy adaptation of a Stephen King book. King's books are often quite long and filled with tons of description. "Dreamcatcher" is 900 pages long, and had to be condensed down into a 135 minute film. With that in mind, you must know that certain aspects of the story had to be shortened and others had to be removed. But for the most part, every major aspect of the story was effectively captured in the film. Even down to the smallest detail, which included Beaver's trademark dialogue. The adaptation is so good in fact, that I would rank it up there with "The Shawshank Redemption" , "The Green Mile", and "Misery". The film itself features outstanding special effects, and a vast array of well executed action scenes. Up until this point, it sounds like a 5 star film, and you are probably wondering why I gave the film only a 3 star rating. Anytime that you have a film based on a book, or a horror film in general, you need to have the right actors to make the roles convincing. This simply was not the case with "Dreamcatcher". By the end of the film, I found myself wondering how Director Lawrence Kasdan could do such a great job with every aspect of the film, and not have the acting to back it all up. With the acception of Damian Lewis who played Jonsey/Mr. Gray, the rest of the cast was absolutely terrible. Morgan Freeman plays the story's villan Colonel Abraham Kurtz. Freeman has played nothing but good guy roles, and it is impossible to take him seriously as a villan. In the book, Kurtz was a dispicable villan who cared only for himself. Freeman portrays the character as having a hard time choosing between right and wrong. His actions overall make the character seem too human. Jason Lee was the wrong choice simply because he will always be seen as Brody from the film "Mallrats". No character in the film is supposed to serve as comic relief, and even when harm was coming to his character Beaver, I found myself laughing. Henry is the main hero of the story, who is on the edge of committing suicide. That means that the actor chosen should display a wide variety of different emotions, and have a lot of inner conflict to deal with. Thomas Jane who played Henry, spoke in a mono-tone for the whole film, and showed absolutely no emotion. I felt like I was watching Keanu Reeves. The biggest dissapointment of all were the young actors chosen to play the characters as children. These kids had absolutely no talent at all. The film itself was well put together and the story followed the book almost perfectly. But the acting was poorly executed, and caused the film to suffer in the long run. Final Grade : C+
Rating: 
Summary: Not scary, but it wasn't suppose to be!
Review: First off, I know this is marketed as a horror film, it is not one. It is best viewed as a dark comedy or sci-fi flick. The acting isn't great, not even from morgan freeman, but it is still entertaining. Yes the plot does come together at the end, but during the movie you'll be confused. This would have been better as a t.v. mini-series rather than a theatrical released.
Rating:
Summary: Strong movie on a bad book
Review: As a fan of Stephen King, I was fairly disappointed after reading the novel. The vivid characters that King usually delievers to his readers were missing, and the book just wasn't very enjoyable to read. Therefore, when I found out that Lawrence Kasdan was going to direct Dreamcatcher, I thought that they were going to finally make a decent movie out of a King work, albiet one of his worst. (Misery, Shawshank, and Stand By Me are easily overshadowed by [others] such as Lawnmower Man, Thinner, etc.) The movie is a very faithful and decent adaptation of the book. Considering the source where it came from, the filmmakers made the best of the situation and crafted a strong movie out of a weak book.
Rating:
Summary: After strong start, movie is a big letdown
Review: DREAMCATCHER is one of King's big, sprawling books, and you always worry when someone decides to make a movie from a story that is really mini-series length. The book is also a bit sloppy from a storytelling standpoint (I like it alot, but it veers from a personal story about four old friends and their connection to a strange, developmentally challenged fifth friend to a large scale invasion by aliens bent on world domination!). The early parts of the film are very well done. It takes its time letting us get to know the four men, and gives us a good sense of the ties that bind them together which go beyond normal friendship to some low-grade (and sometimes not so low) ESP and other psychic powers. When the go on their annual trip to their hunting lodge, two of the friends encounter an older man who appears to be a hunter who has lost his way in the woods and ate some poisoned berries. We suspect that this hunter may be carrying something a bit deadlier than berries, and there are some very tense scenes when the two friends realise that something has gone horribly wrong. They overcome their fear in order to help and investigate, and when things go horribly wrong, we can feel their fear, their decency, their love for each other and their sense of loss. It's pretty creepy, powerful stuff and very faithful to King's book. Then, the plot begins to move along at a rapid fire pace, and while essentially faithful to King's book, huge chunks of character development (and logic) are left out, and as the movie hurtles towards its conclusion, virtually all interest in the outcome is drained away. The climactic scene is presented in an unforgiveably ho-hum manner, and one leaves with a profound sense of disappointment. The best known actors in the movie are Morgan Freeman(as a slightly crazy army colonel...it's also Freemans least convincing performance EVER!) and Tom Sizemore as his sidekick who has serious doubts about his commander's motives. Sizemore is not a great actor, but he usually has a very charismatic screen presence and is always a pleasure to watch. He's somewhat neutered in this movie, because his motivations are only hinted at, and he is very much a cypher. Jason Lee plays one of the group of four friends, but he has the least screen time. He's very good, and its nice to see him playing a part that doesn't involve hijinks with Tom Green or Selma Blair. He actually plays an adult,and he's very likeable. I hope Hollywood takes note, and starts offering the guy decent work again. The other actors playing the friends are relatively obscure, and they are decent but not overwhelming. Donnie Wahlberg has a small role, and his performance barely registers. It's not his fault...his critical character has been horribly underwritten. Also, the end of the movie departs somewhat hugely from King's, and it's a HORRIBLY misconceived ending. If you've read the book, your jaw will drop at how the character of Duddits has been changed (I'll say no more). If you've read the book, I can highly recommend the first hour. After than, you may just want to leave, or be ready to cringe. If you haven't, I suggest investing in the book and really digging in for some entertainment. If you see the movie first, it's unlikely you'll feel inspired to read the book...and that would be a shame. Also, the movie is not really for kids...the gore is strictly PG-13, but there is some strongly R-rated dialogue among the friends, and parents may squirm having their young kids along.
Rating:
Summary: good, and not so
Review: The first half of this movie ROCKS. Funny, scary, and imaginative. The bathroom scene was so funny and disturbing at the same time; never been so creeped out while wearing such a big smile. And the animal push through the forest was done very well. And the four main characters were great; cast well, preformed well. I enjoyed being in their company. But as the alien presence increases the story weakens with steriotypical characters; and the final showdown just didn't jive--the aliens just needed to get a bug into the water to win?--why not drop it there initially? The book deals with this better. But still, i really enjoyed the movie. It captured the emotion of the book, which is what a fan wants. It is escapeism, a fun movie that i do recommend, but make sure you see it knowing its is just that. Fun and light and scary. Then you be glad you saw it, especially the first have.
|
