Rating: 
Summary: just saw it, and it rocks
Review: i wont spoil it but i will say that its very good. if you have read the book it should be very similar. some good gore also. all the actors in the movie were great. (eg. jason lee) go see the movie cause i dont think it will do good in theaters. bottom line is that if you like sifi stuff or aliens you will like this movie. i will see it more then twice in the theaters.
ITS THAT GOOD
Rating: 
Summary: Yes, It's VERY Bad...
Review: After just viewing the film, I still have a fresh perspective.I'll start with the pros of the film. The first 10-20 minutes worked quiet well. It gives you an idea what kind of people these men are. Also worth mentioning is the cinematography. Through the entire film, the photography shines beautifully. Now we're at the cons. This film is FILLED with problems. I did read the Stephen King novel. Like the film, the book started off quiet good with character development. After awhile, I was getting frustrated with where this story was supposed to be heading. Going through scenes describing ,in detail, how bad one character stinks after farting didn't help much either. The script was simply horrible. You'd think the script would be filled with top-notch writing. All of the "flashbacks" proved to be totally pointless. The ending was the biggest disgrace. "Dreamcatcher" is the kind of book that should have been made into a television mini-series. Jason Lee gives the best performance and it's sad because he's not in the film that much. It's amazing to note that Morgan Freeman plays the "villain" in "Dreamcatcher!" Thomas Jane tries his best to play the "hero" of the film even though he's not given enough time to really be "heroic."
Rating:
Summary: had everything
Review: I read this book several months ago and loved it. Tonight I got to see the movie. What a movie it was. It followed the book pretty close. The acting was surprisingly good. The first part was vintage Stephen King. Then it suddenly took off in several directions. They did a great job with things that I though, when reading the book, they'd have to cut out. They didn't though and it was great. It was bloody, gory, sad, funny, exciting, great special effects, intense in parts, and somewhat scary in parts. This was a little different for Stephen King. I would describe it as a combination of "It", "The X-files", and "Alien". I was hoping for scarier, but then again I haven't truly been scared since 1973 (The Exorcist). I would definitely recommend this movie if you just want nonstop fun.
Rating:
Summary: One nightmare that's been missed.
Review: Many people who have read the book, of the same title, have shown their disgust for the movie. And if you were to compare the two (it's hard not to, but it's the best way to get a true opinion on the movie itself) you'd be happy in the beginning and confused in the end. And even the ones who haven't read the book might say the same. Here's why: First, the movie is just too corny to really take seriously. I laughed in this movie, and it was supposed to be taken seriously (or should have been). C'mon, the ending concocted with Duddits was outrageous. If you need to change the book to fit a better screenplay, by all means, do it but do it right. Don't just add some lame dues ex machina style ending to appease the short attention span of most people watching the movie. I also suspect many people were confused, but since I've read the book I understood (for the most part. excluding all the mangled parts added into the screenplay) why and what was going on. But still, it was pretty confusing and seemed to have no aim. As if it took all the characters and tied them together through some weak change of events. Change a few lines of dialog here and there, and wallah! It all barely comes together, but enough so each scene has some relevance (but hardly). A great cast wasted (Jason Lee had his character down pretty well and made the first half of the movie interesting). I reiterate on comparing the book to the movie, it's usually hard to do without being biased to the book. But, in Dreamcatcher's case, it's necessary. And after thinking about it, it's a great book that really has no chance of being translated into a 2 hour movie. There is just too much content to mix and change altogether in that short span. So, anything that's 2 hours long just gets ripped apart and stitched together in some odd fashion and has a few more things put into it, that it didn't have before. To sum it all up in one phrase: This movie is a mess. A huge disappointment. Dreamcatcher is weak, itself being the only nightmare it can't contain.
Rating: 
Summary: One of the worst movies in recent memory...
Review: ...P>I'll admit, the first 45 minutes or so kept my attention. But after that, it felt as if I was watching some made for tv movie. This may have been better than as a TV mini-series, cause at least we could change the channel. Don't waste your time or money, this is truly awful entertainment.
Rating:
Summary: Get the book....
Review: Alright. I'll lay it out for you. Already read the book? Then instead of going out and seeing this movie, re-read the book. Or pick up another one. Didn't read the book? Then get it, and read it. Let me start off by saying that I am a "constant reader" of King. I loved Dreamcatcher. When I saw the trailer I just had to go out and witness what I believed would be an awesome movie adaption. I must say, the first thirty minutes stick to the book well and I smiled seeing the characters come to life. However, after that, it seems the script writer took...*ahem*...a lot of liberties. Some change was to be expected, but they basically just used the settings and rewrote the rest of the book. The last hour and fortyfive minutes are confusing, laughable (especially the horrible destruction of the character of Duddits-my favorite in the book), and a waste of film and my money. I honestly believe that had I not read the book, I would not have enjoyed the movie anyways. ...P>So stick to my advice above. Read the book and see another movie. This was one of the worst adapations I've ever seen. Does no justice to this wonderful King read.
Rating:
Summary: Quite Enjoyable
Review: I have read "Dreamcatcher" and although the movie is an extremely edited version, I enjoyed it thouroughly. The comedic aspects of it are great. I am a huge King fan and also work with adults with mental retardation, which I'm sure influence my take on the movie, but overall I would recommend it to anyone. The movie deviates from the book much towards the end, but movies do that.
Rating: 
Summary: Thank goodness for the book!
Review: I read the book over a year ago. It was great. Had I known it would come out in a movie, I wouldn't have read it until after seeing the movie. The movie was filled with suspense, King's usual super-natural activities, ESP, visions, etc., and scary enough ETs. There were many sub-plots that were not fully explained in the movie (which is normal for a book to movie). Having read the book first, I understood what wasn't fully described thru scenes in the movie, but in the same context, I was waiting for things to happen or knew what would happen. The movie followed the book fairly well. Over-all the movie was good. I actually wouldn't mind seeing it again...
Rating:
Summary: 2.5 stars: funny and funky, but too long & too many subplots
Review: "Dreamcatcher" is one of the funniest movies I've seen this year. I laughed more during "Dreamcatcher" than I did during the frat-house farce "Old School," and I laughed a lot during "Old School." The problem is: "Dreamcatcher" is supposed to be a horror movie. At least, I think it's supposed to be a horror movie. Sometimes, it's hard to tell. When the story begins, four creepily chummy guys who have been friends since childhood - Henry, Beaver, Jonesy and Pete - gather at a cabin in the snowy woods of Maine for a hunting trip. There, they stumble onto a nasty species of alien worms that sneak into victim's stomachs, grow into vicious seal-like creatures, then exit the body from... well, from a place where the sun don't shine. It's kind of hard to be afraid of a movie monster whose arrival is signaled by the sound of violent gas-passing. But before the campers even have time to light a match, a military Special Ops team swoops into the forest to destroy the alien worms, and "Dreamcatcher" goes off in a half-dozen loopy directions with a little bit of everything thrown into the mix: Helicopter battles, quarantine drama, flashbacks to the 1980's, groan-inducing one-liners, gallons of gooey goop, psychic mumbo-jumbo, "Scooby-Doo" references and Morgan Freeman - as a renegade commander named Colonel Kurtz, no less - wearing strange, inch-long prosthetic eyebrows that filled me with shock and awe. Director Lawrence Kasdan and writer William Goldman adapted the script from Stephen King's novel. Kasdan wrote "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "The Empire Strikes Back," and Goldman is a screenwriting legend who wrote "All the President's Men" and "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," so obviously these are guys who know how to create plausible, entertaining crowd pleasers. But they didn't do that this time, and this is one bizarre flick. Damian Lewis, an actor who is best known for playing the chronically noble, infinitely reserved Capt. Winters in "Band of Brothers," plays the hero and the villain of the movie (don't ask) and seems to relish his opportunity to chew on some scenery. He's supposed to be possessed by alien forces but he seems to be possessed by the spirit of Malcolm McDowell -- which isn't necessarily a bad thing. He's so jazzed up, even the hood of his parka has its own sound effect. Had the filmmakers kept things short, they might have made a cool, kooky midnight movie along the lines of "Starship Troopers" or "Ravenous" or the "Evil Dead" movies. But "Dreamcatcher" stretches out for 134 minutes and too much of that time involves a bunch of hot air.
Rating:
Summary: Spectacularly bad
Review: I don't want to write a bad review. I like everyone involved with this movie. I didn't even go expecting to see that much. This is not a pleasureable movie to watch. Dreamcatcher is in the minority of Stephen King books that I have not read. I think you would need to read the book in order to make any sense of this movie. What are the [*] weasels? What's up with the British accent? What's up with Donnie Wahlberg? The whole thing is just an unpleasant mess.
| 
