Rating: 
Summary: Not Stephen King's Best
Review: We watched this last night, and I am an avid Stephen King fan. I read the book when it first came out and was unimpressed. I have been unimpressed by most of his recent (5-10 years) stuff. But the book was a pleasant way to kill some winter hours. The video was impressively true to the book. There are only two scenes I can think of that were missing from the movie, that were in the book (I'm sure there are more but I don't remember them): the approval of Duddits' mom from the get-go (in the movie we don't meet her until the end) and when Mr. Gray stops in a diner to eat for the first time in a human body (would have been a great scene).I think the movie was a good adaptation of a so-so/weird book. I prefer Stephen King's mind-thrilling twisting plots with plenty of down-to-earth irony and horror (like Christine, Carrie, Needful Things), not far-fetched sci-fi imagination with no catharsis.
Rating: 
Summary: Just plain awful
Review: This supposed "horror" movie has a lame plot that never develops despite expecting you to sit through it's awful 124 minute run time. "Dreamcatcher," like most Stephen King movies, should have aired on TV and spared the poor saps who spent money on his latest piece of trash.
Rating: 
Summary: Dreamcatcher (Widescreen Edition)
Review: I haven't seen the DVD, but some time ago I saw the movie in the theatre. Please forgive me for not having clearer details for you. While I agree that this movie isn't a classic by any means, I will say that there is an aspect of the film that appealed to me. The film impressed me with it's depiction of the mental state that has often been described as either an "out of body experience" or "possessed and out of body control". In the movie, one of the characters has his body possessed and he is seen as inhabiting a room. The room has secrets that he is attempting to guard from the invading entity. The door to the room is locked and being assaulted by the entity. While in the room, the character looks through a window and sees all the things that his body is doing, but of course which he isn't performing. He speaks to the other characters without being heard. He laments the horror that befalls his friends but is helpless to assist them. His only recourse is to fight off letting the entity enter the room. I love innovation and I thought that this was creative. Perhaps the other reviewers remember these scenes, or will look at the movie again and hopefully see the "new" thought that was given to this reported phenomenon. Mass murderers, psychos, demon possessed individuals who commit atrocities upon our society, could creatively be depicted in this fashion in film and it would give greater depth to their story of not feeling responsible. Anyway, I thought that it was innovative, and it's probably the sole reason that I will purchase the DVD.
Rating:
Summary: Should have rented "Dumb & Dumberer"
Review: I didn't really have high hopes for this movie but sometimes you're just in the mood for a scary movie set in the snowy woods of Maine. The best things about this film were the chilling opening credits and the special effects. The beginning of the film showed some promise; the characters seemed to have some depth and the story was mysterious. But once the four got together in that cabin, the whole thing took a nose-dive. It turned into a bad version of "The Thing." But it wasn't scary. It was funny without trying to be. The possessed guy sounded like Mr. Wick from the Drew Carey Show. This is the only time I've seen Morgan Freeman suck. (The script's fault, not Morgan's) In the interview with Stephen King on the DVD, he sums it all up when he says that the main reason he wrote the book was for the toilet scene. He wanted that scene to do for the toilet what Psycho did for the shower. The main difference being, the Psycho scene was scary. This DVD contains "deleted" scenes; they really should have deleted all of them. In closing, I believe that the only people to have made a decent film based on a Stephen King story are Tobe Hooper and Stanley Kubrick...
Rating:
Summary: Mucho Crapoo!
Review: Geeez, what a truly horrible mess this movie turned out to be! And with such a talented cast and crew, you would've thought it be at least a decent flick. It's like someone threw 4 Stephen King novels into a blender, turned it up on high for an hour, and then poured this unforgivable gunk out and this was used as the working script. First, the few good words of praise. The cast is good, the technical stuff is slick, too, and I liked the first, tall alien that appears in the log cabin. Now, for the minuses. I am totally, absolutely nauseated with this whole "cute" wave of bathroom crud that you see in recent movies. I have a weak stomach and get so completely enraged when everyone in different scenes thinks it's hiliarious when someone passes gas or belches, etc. In this nightmare, the bathroom sequence alone can make you want to hurl. You're shown in gory, explicit detail how the alien emerges from human into our world. And oh, yeahhhh, it comes with sound effects, too. Somehow, the script jumps to a childhood sequence where our fab five use their extrasensory powers and discover a missing girl. "Jonesy" is the appalling, "cute" little misfit that only a mother--or in this case--our fab four could love. He was so smart-assy neurotic that I could understand why the bullies wanted to beat the hell out of him. And Morgan Freeman! What an embarassment! It looks like he walked through his scenes to just collect that multi-million dollar paycheck. He has one expression that looks carved on his face: Pissed-Off! While watching this endless junk I kept thinking of its $80-100 million dollar price tag. And then I thought of the great cult horror films that were made for peanuts: "Carnival of Souls" ($32,000 budget) "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" ($74,000); "Horror Hotel" ($65,000)"Halloween" ($55,000). If they ever make a sequel to this hideous misfire of a movie, maybe they could title it: "Crapcatcher". The name would suit it perfectly.
Rating:
Summary: A really Awful movie.I'd give it Zero stars if i could.
Review: Dreamcatcher,it is based on a stephen king book.This movie awful! It's about 4 boys who befriended a alien when they were young and developed telepathic powers and a few other neat abilities,then 20 years later those powers come in handy when an alien invasion takes place. Kinda sounds interesting and the first half of the movie is auctually decent.Showing the boys,now adults,useing their ability and the results.As well as slowly showing their past and how they met the mysterious alien and got to be like they are.For a short time there the flick was shapeing up to be okay and had a creepy style to it. The second half of the movie takes a huge nosedive though and turns into an awful alien B-movie.The kind you'd see on the sci-fi channel on a weekend and would only watch because nothing else is on.The strange thing is Morgan freemen is in this movie so you'd think it would at least be okay then right? Wrong.I wonder how the hell he was talked into starring in this turkey.... From what i hear the book was way better though and the director of the movie really swerved ofcoarse with it.Which is a shame as it started out interesting and had a decent,though horribley executed concept.There was also nothing scary about it either dispite the movie being billed as a horror flick.
Rating:
Summary: is this a comedy???
Review: This has to be one of the strangest mainstream films ever made, but i'm not sure that was entirely intentional. The first part of the movie sets things up well - classic chiller you might say (strange virus, atmospeheric Maine woods). Why then did the producers decide to turn the rest of the film into a made for tv b-movie? Damian Lewis's possession is hilarious, but is this the intended effect? You're left in little doubt that the film makers must be having fun with the audience when the next part of the film plays like some dreaful Independence day type nonsense, with Morgan Freeman completely wasted - he feels tagged on. And after all this, watching the end credits would make you think you'd just been watching Ghostbusters. This is a dreaful but enjoyable film.
Rating: 
Summary: Get over it already
Review: This isn't the book, how can it be? Get over it already. I've read the book. As a long time SK fan, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Why are you making comparisons? SK hardly ever contributes much to a movie based on one of his novels. Why are you bashing him? I dare say by the time a movie adaptation of one his novels hits the big screen, he's sick of the story and written four of five more new ones. That being said, I went in with no expectations and enjoyed the movie. It is a small group of people's interpretation of what that story (those people, that place) might look like. If everything was meant to be taken verbatim then I imagine Stephen King would have done it himself. Do yourselves a favor; put your expectations in the trash. You'll probably have a lot more fun in life.
Rating:
Summary: Not all that bad
Review: Dreamcatcher was slammed by the critics, so I was expecting the movie to be an ordeal, and almost put off watching it altogether. But I had read the King book, so I figured I could fill in the gaps. Well, it was ok, and worth a Friday night watch. Kasdan is a good director, so I suspect critics were expecting a Kubrick like A-film treatment. (Though I think Kubrick's Shining is overrated, or perhaps better- wrecked by Nicholson's hammy performance.) But the Shining is one of best of King's books. Dreamcatcher is not. It's a middle of the pack effort by King, with, admittedly, a hodge-podge of borrowings from other sci-fi & horror movies and stories. Still, if you liked It, with its circle of friends reuniting to face horror, you should be ok with Dreamcatcher (the novel). The first half of the movie is well done, pretty much following the novel. But about two thirds of the way through, I realized a lot of ground was going to have to be covered if the movie intended to continue following the novel. Actually, the ground did get covered, but in a very hurried way. And I was not crazy about the changed ending -- though I could live with it. This is a story that probably should of been given a tv mini-series, so that the characters could indeed unfold. And, more critically, that the figure of Duddits (a retarded boy) could establish his importance. To some extent, I can see why Kasdan altered the ending, and thus Duddets, since it allowed more for a short telling of the story. But by doing so Kasdan undercut one of most attractive elements of the story. The Duddets of the novel, with his love for Scooby Doo, is charming, and the kind of character King really does well. Duddets brings out the humanity of the novel's main characters. The Duddets of the movie exists more as an outline. The deep love the four friends in the movie feel for Duddets is not developed in a way that makes him necessarily central to the story. Moreover, his love of Scooby Doo, etc., for the most part doesn't make much sense, given his newly director imposed alien genes.
Rating: 
Summary: Most Enjoyable Formula
Review: This won't win many points for originality, but if you enjoy Stephen King's unique style then you will most likely appreciate it. Winning formulas such as James Bond movies are often lots of fun, and I rate this as being in that category. It is certainly a most entertaining movie and makes a change from more conventional thriller/horror movie material. As ever, adults and children are all tied in and it's a throwback to unusual events in childhood that will explain current events for the key characters. Whilst some movies of Stephen King books have been a bit slow, this one certainly moves fast enough. It mixes horror/gore with some suspense but without having the psychological disturbance of classics such as "the shining". The movie draws in horror creatures, military action, childhood flashbacks and a fair whack of nasty gore. Without giving away the plot, this one draws upon a lot of similar ideas in other Stephen King work, but it is far from being predictable. I rented this one and felt that I had got good value for my money.
| 
