Rating: 
Summary: A good question
Review: It generally isn't worth thinking too hard about movies like Dreamcatcher, but as I finished watching it with my friends, one of them asked an excellent question: as the director and the actors and the screenwriter were all doing their respective jobs during the making of this movie, crafting dialogue, framing shots, delivering lines, did they actually think that what they were producing was good? For example, did the screenwriter, as he was throwing in the completely unnecessary subplot involving the military personnel, and wasting the talents of some of the betters actors in the cinema today, actually think that he was adding something to the value of the final product? And while he was throwing in lines of incredibly clunky dialogue, and had to resort to getting one of the characters drunk to deliver some important expository information, did he think he had produced something sparkling on the page? What about the actors? Were they ashamed of what they were willing to do for money, or did they actually look over their scenes and think: wow, I've really gotten to the heart of this character, even though he has no noticeable personality! I really turned in a great bit of acting as I beat off that little CGI worm! I'm also curious about Kasdan, the director, who has produced a large quantity of mediocre work already. Did he wonder about the poor pacing, the wandering story, the loose ends and unanswered questions? Or did he think he had made a cool movie that was worth people spending their time and money on? I wonder, as he screened the final cut, whether he asked what exactly that car accident had to do with Jonesy being impervious to the alien - did he think we were too stupid to ask this question, or was he too dumb to ask it himself? A tremendous amount of money and effort went into this terrible piece of work and, well, it just confuses me. Is it made by people who are trying to pander to an audience that they don't realize is smarter than they think, or are they just not that bright themselves? Or do they start making a movie that think could be good and realize, in the middle, that it is in fact going to be very bad - and then they just have to cobble together something to release, no matter how it is, in the hope that they'll recover some money and, god willing, someone will give them a chance to make another picture? I think Morgan Freeman and Tom Sizemore were probably bright enough to realize that they were wasting their time, but I'm going to be more charitable to the rest of the people and guess that they were doing their best; and sadly, just don't have much talent. But you don't need much talent to succeed in Hollywood, so they should at least try to follow these rules the next time they try to make a mediocre horror/sci-fi movie: 1. Never show too much of the monster too soon. The second we see all of creature or villian - as we do about a third of the way into this movie - it's lost its power to scare us. Also, when the creature is clearly created by a computer, it doesn't seem too terrifying. Fear is always created by the imagination. People have forgotten this rule since it was played to perfection in Alien - and, incidentally, that creature was so frightening because it looked like it could actually be alive. It was gooey and messy and disgusting, and didn't have the smooth plastic surfaces of computer generated characters, which - unless they live in a CGI world - never seem convincingly alive or part of their environment. 2. The plot should be streamlined: a basic situation should be established - for example, we're all stuck in a spaceship and there's an alien, oh no - and the personalities of the characters (if you're even going to bother with that) should be explored only within that situation. There should be no silly flashbacks, no completely unrelated story about how the characters got special powers, and no subplots that habe nothing to do with the central situation. In other words, the movie should not be Dreamcatcher. Most Hollywood movies will not be great, obviously, but considering how much focus-grouping and rewriting goes into them, shouldn't they at least be tolerable? And shouldn't they at least make sense? Maybe someone responsible for this awful movie will consider a couple of these simple rules and objections when they move on to their next project or, if some executive finally wonders why he keeps losing so much money, they will be punished for producing tripe, and the millions shall be given to someone else with ambition and talent. Who will make Dreamcatcher II: The Return of Dudditts. They Dudditts again.
Rating: 
Summary: Totally Blew Me Away
Review: This is hands down the best movie I have seen in a long time, and I'm shocked to find such a plethora of negative reviews! I am a gigantic sci-fi/horror/alien fan, and am usually hyper-critical of plot tightness, dialogue, special effects, etc. Perhaps my immense enjoyment of this film had something to do with the fact that I was expecting nothing going into it...I had vaguely heard of the book/movie, but had no idea what it was about and no idea what anyone else thought of it. I can understand why some people who had read the book may have been let down, but you have to remember that it's impossible to translate EVERYTHING into a movie. That's why there are two separate formats, and that's why they should be viewed as two separate entities. I can tell you that from the completely objective standpoint of a sci-fi lover who went in with no expectations, this movie is AMAZING!!! I thought the combination of character development, eerie foreboding, metaphoric imagery, suspenseful fighting, awesome special effects, and flat-out gross monster action was perfect! In particular, the acting of the characters Jonesy and Duddits was incredible. Yeah it was kind-of funny that Mr. Gray had a high-society british accent, but to me the "why" of it didn't really matter. I just enjoyed the golem-esque banter inside Jonesy's head, and thought the circular "memory warehouse" was an unbelieveably cool idea. I found that there was just the right amount of plot left up to your imagination, and just the right amount was very solidly explained. I'm also very glad that the director chose to not use the "original ending," as the one he used was much more satisfying. I can't think of a single loose end that the story didn't tie up, as my boyfriend and I spent hours discussing the film afterwards and really could detect no flaws whotsoever. That's saying a lot from two people who spend alot of time watching these types of movies. I don't think I've ever been so moved to go out and buy a DVD the DAY AFTER renting a film, and I could go on and on about how brilliant it is. If you've got a brain in you, give this film a try.
Rating: 
Summary: The Thing?, 'IT'?
Review: this movie started off really interesting and iwas really into it but as soon as i saw those mini versions of the monsters from dep rising it got pretty bad and the story changed entirely infact the first and last half of the film have no relavence to each other what so ever. Like i said it started off like the movie 'IT' and then tuned into a blatant rip off of 'The Thing' wich by the way was much better than dreamcatcher, the idea of changin something in the plot of a movie that really changes your perception of what your seeing can work very well thats if you turn it into something original and not so corny like dreamcatchers plot, if you wanna see a plot change that works fantastically and tuns into some thing much better than what you were watching and really makes you think more highly of it see 'Frailty' which was directed by bill paxton about the story of a father who claims he's been told by god to destry the demons of the world who are sinners (people) and its a really interesting movie and you'll really appreciate the plot turn at the end of the movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Not a great movie, but still good
Review: Dreamcatcher is an entertaining movie that starts off one way, but ends on a completely different note. It tells the story of four childhood friends who have now grown up. An experience from their childhood gave them special powers, most notably mindreading, which they don't understand how they got them. The four friends go on a camping/hunting/fishing trip one weekend, and things start to get ugly. They quickly discover something is seriously wrong, and find out that an alien have landed and are planning to take over the world. Soon enough, the army gets involved. This is an entertaining movie with a very good cast, but it is very uneven. It seems like it might be a pyschological thriller, but it turns into a bloody sci-fi movie with ravenous aliens. Either way, this is a good movie that deserves at least one watch if nothing else. Dreamcatcher does boast an impressive cast that helps the movie out when the story suffers. Thomas Jane, Jason Lee, Damian Lewis, and Timothy Olyphant are all very good as the four childhood friends who find themselves in the midst of an alien invasion. Morgan Freeman and Tom Sizemore are also very good as part of the secret military operation brought in to eliminate the aliens. Donnie Wahlberg also makes a brief appearance as a mentally challenged man who was befriended by the four friends as kids. His role is very small, but essential to the story. The DVD offers widescreen presentation, three separate documentaries, several TV spots, the original ending and three other scenes that weren't in the movie. Dreamcatcher is by no means a great movie, but it is very entertaining and well worth a watch.
Rating:
Summary: Dreamcatcher - A great movie I disagree with the naysayers
Review: I completely disagree with the majority of the reviewers who didn't like this movie. I was held in suspense during the entire movie right up until the end. Many have found fault with certain "impossibilities" or logical flaws in the movie, but come on if you're going to watch a movie about telepathy and aliens how can you possibly start picking apart minute flaws? How can you accept an alien attack and mental telepathy yet complain about an alien British accent. Give me a break. Obviously the purpose of the British accent was to differentiate between Jonesy and Mr. Gray. A little weird maybe but give the director some slack. It seems like too many reviewers spent the entire time looking for flaws instead of letting themselves become wrapped up in the movie. I thought the blizzard setting added a nice eerie, doom foreboding touch to a very suspenseful movie. I really enjoyed the way that the suspense was slowly, patiently and convincingly built throughout. When Jonesy found the lost hunter/farter you could feel that something was going to go wrong. Later when the car flipped, you really knew things were getting bad. The aliens coming out of the toilet and munching on the fingers and later body of the "glasses guy" made me jump. I also felt that the film's use of flashbacks was a great technique for heightening the interest and filling in prior knowledge. The flashbacks were much more interesting than say just coming out from the beginning and explaining the clairvoyant aspects of the 4 main characters, and Duddys. As the plot progressed we began to fully understand what their powers were and how they came to possess them. The military portion/concept was perhaps a little clunky but necessary for the advancement of the plot. The plot was so interesting that I was able to forgive the slight clunkiness. The 4 characters were likable which made me want to root for them, and find out exactly what the connection between their telepathy and the alien invasion was. I even liked the ending. Step on the worm, and end the flick. No cheesy wrap-ups of the plot, no dragging it out. Basically I was thoroughly entertained during the entire movie probably because I came into the movie with a suspension of disbelief. With this kind of movie how could you not? If you can't have suspension of disbelief for science fiction/fantasy/horror maybe you should pick another film genre.
Rating:
Summary: Stephen King still scary as ever
Review: "Dreamcatcher" was adapted from the book by the king of horror, Stephen King. Like all his books/movies, he takes an ordinary event and twists it to something original and supernatural. This movie remains one of the more unique works filmed. Its plot, which ties to one another smoothly, was written creatively. The writers offer the audience many unexpected twists and turns that keep their eyes wide open anxiously awaiting for what will happen next. Morgan Freeman, Tom Sizemore, Thomas Jane, Jason Lee, Donnie Wahlberg, and many others act their roles wonderfully. The special effects, especially the alien make-up and the design, were crafted realistic-looking, giving "Dreamcatcher" the added scary effect. Fans of Stephen King should watch this movie. It'll become a never-forgotten experience.
Rating:
Summary: You have got to be kidding me
Review: A british accent.....why, dear god, why did the alien have a british accent...I admit, I laughed at some of the dialogue that was delivered by the decent cast but seriously, this movie had no plot...It's like the screenwriter had ADD. The story flipped around so dramatically, you had no real idea what was going on and not to mention the fact there was just some ridiculous stuff in it. Yeah, a homing beacon in hand gun which was used as a phone and later used to take a helicopter down that was doing strafing runs. The whole story would lead you to a point where it would explain things, then it would shove a new topic down your throat. Oh yeah, the ending was ridiculous and I'm not just talking about the the New Kid turning into an alien. The fact "Jonesy" steps on the damn worm and they look at each other and smile and that's the end. Thank god this is the first Stephen King book-to-movie that has flubbed...Oh wait! It's not. Hopefully, Hollywood will catch on and realize his books cannot be adapted to movies and go back to just filming worthless crap by no-name screen writers rather than ruining the name of a well-respected author.
Rating: 
Summary: This One Is A Bad Dream.....
Review: Perhaps I was jaded because I read the book and was taken in by the complexity of the characters that Stephen King created, or perhaps I was anticipating that the movie would be a linear depiction of the events portrayed in the novel, but I was truly disappointed in this film. The movie, which does contain elements of King's novel, starts off by introducing us to four men, each friends to the others and each possessing the gift of ESP. On an annual camping trip in the woods of Northern Maine, the men stumble upon a lost hunter, who is infected with an alien "byrum" which gestates inside him before being born in a graphic and bloody moment in the first third of the film. At this point, the story begins to become disjointed. In the original novel, the alien lifeform was a bacteria, using host bodies to survive by taking control of them, implanting their own minds in the mind of their hosts. One of the key elements of the book was that the alien lifeform was symbiotic, and genuinely needed human life to function. In the movie, the aliens are a monstrous collage of teeth and oozing worm, though monstrous and hideous, also largely unbelievable, especially when this "worm" emerges time and again from its host body, standing far larger than the man it has been hiding in. This, amongst the many other obvious flaws in this film detract from what could still be an intensely frightening story. To its credit, it has some beautiful special-effects, created for the film by Industrial Light and Magic, a veteran effects warehouse known for producing the effects on such films as Star Wars and Jurassic Park. The acting, too, is not a complete wash. Morgan Freeman, a veteran actor of the stage and screen, takes on the role of a soldier with a vandetta against these alien invaders. His character is unbelievable, as is most the film, but Freeman delivers a great performance despite the limitations of this script. I do not want to discourage anyone from seeing this film...as films of this genre go, I have definitely seen much worse, but for those who have taken the time to read the original novel, be warned that this film is a far cry from the nightmare Stephen King painted for us when he released this novel, a complicated depection of friendships and relationships faced with a horrific possibility of alien invasion. It should be viewed with that realization that Lawrence Kasdan (who directed this film) was admittedly looking to do "an (special) effects" film. He has, but as is often the case, effects take importance over story, leaving this Dreamcatcher blowing in the breeze.
Rating:
Summary: Not again !
Review: If you are 13 years old you may find this movie somewhat thought provoking. But I doubt it. Just like his books, the movie theme is the same recycled snooze fest as usual. This guy hasn't had an original idea since "The Dead Zone". I would expect some creative interpretation in the movie translation, but no chance. Don't waist your money renting this unless it's in the 99 cent shelf. I can't wait until the make a movie about grass growing into a killing machine. The producers of any Stephen King movie baised on his books should be arrested for larceny. They steal money from everyone dumb enough to pay to watch them. If this was a comedy I would have rated it higher.
Rating:
Summary: AWFUL!!!
Review: I thought this movie was absolutely awful! Yes, I did read the book. And yes, I thought the book was 100% better than the movie. First of all, I was offended at the portrayal of "Duddits" by a child that looked "normal" and only made a mockery of a Down's Syndrome child. On that same vein, Donnie Wahlberg as the adult "Duddits"?!?! Inappropriate and short-sighted. Morgan Freeman's character was not nearly as fleshed out as it should have been, and very vaguely represented the character I loved to hate in the novel. Owen barely existed in this movie, and had very little to do with the actual plot. In addition, I was deeply disappointed in the ending of the movie. It almost seemed as if a completely new set of screenwriters came in to finish the story! I'm not sure I understood the point of making Duddits an alien, or able to become an alien. Are we to assume that Duddits only had the abilities he possessed due to some cosmic genetic fluke? Overall I thought this movie was a waste of cinematic space. I believe the fault lies not with Stephen King, who wrote this book as a means to overcome his accident, but with the screenwriters, who took a well-written and original novel and turned it into a campy sci-fi faux horror.
|
