Rating: 
Summary: Mommy, My Head Hurts
Review: AHHH!!! WHAT IS THIS? Oh thats right, yet another bad Hollywood movie. Odd.You would really think Laurance Kasdan could do better than this, don't you. I mean, the guy who made the underrated "Mumford" and the excellent "Grand Canyon" can bring depth and reality to any charactor. But not this time. What's it about? Well, a group of friends go to a remote hunting cabin. And wouldn't you know that there's aliens there. Man, what an easy way to kill a good time of drinking beer, chewing on toothpicks and making fart jokes. And all this time, big brother has known about it, hiring Morgan Freeman(with the worst proshetetic eyebrows ever) to kill all the people who may be infected by the aliens. And by God, he's CRAZY!!! Uh-oh, we're in trouble. I guess I really can't hold Laurence Kasden fully resoponsible here. Just partially. The movie is based on a Stephen King book, and a pretty bad one at that. I mean, aliens coming out of peoples butts? Did anyone really think that was a good idea? And if so, I want to meet him. The cast has to be held in bad respect also. I love Morgan Freeman, so the ones question you have to ask is why? First a Ben Affleck vehicle, and now you play a guy with racoons for eyebrows? FIRE YOUR AGENT DUDE!!! And the usually dependable Jason Lee? Sorry bro, but this isn't your movie. Tom Sizemore? Well, he's the only person having a good time, so I'll let him slide this time. And Donnie Wahlburg as a retarded alien genius? Stick with your good TV show, "Boomtown" brother. Man, my head is hurting. This movie just ate up thousands of my brain cells. Gotta go and lay down. AVOID "DREAMCATCHER" LIKE THE PLAGUE!
Rating:
Summary: Dreadful. I'll never recover those 2 precious, wasted hours
Review: This is perhaps the worst big-budget horror film I've ever seen. I'm just surprised these guys didn't realize what a horrible turkey they had on their hands and sent it straight to video. At least then they could salve their pride. Despite very good special effects, there are about a half dozen plot-holes that would swallow a skyscraper. Not the least of which: 1) Super-intelligent aliens probably wouldn't let Apache
helicopters napalm them and gun them down.
It's against their interest. If not, then they're just
a bunch of dumb f*cks from outer space. 2) That guy who had Mr. Gray in his head.
He transformed back and forth from monster to human
a couple times. That's impossible - everyone else died.
You can't set up rules for the audience to follow then break them all the time. The guy was toast. 3) How is this autistic guy some sort of alien-in-disguise psychic? I'm sure there was something more in the book about it, but here it's just ridiculous and unexplained. 4) The containment-theory of the disease is bogus. If they wanted to attack the water supply it would be impossible to protect. They could drop into lake Superior and it's a done deal - the world is over. We can't even stop killer bees. Basically this is a monster movie masquerading as science fiction, but it's just not smart enough to be convincing in either genre. The script is just too thin, despite being amazingly long. Lawrence Kasdan is a legendary talent - I'm sure this project was sold on his famous name. For him to come up with something like this means he's lost his gifts. I only pray he finds them again.
Rating: 
Summary: Nothing is ALL bad.......
Review: DREAMCATCHER, as a title, suggests there may be story reasons for spending time watching this movie. Stephen King does know how to spin a tale (as we are reminded in seeing at least one of his books make it to the screen every year). The problem is there just is no story here. A scary movie? No, a very funny spoof of the alien genre duds perhaps. BUT, there are four really good reasons to sit through this otherwise forgetable bit of indigestion: Damien Lewis, Thomas Jane, Jason Lee, and Timothy Olyphant. They make the best of a scrawny script and play off each other very well. As for Donnie Wahlberg, Morgan Freeman and Tom Sizemore - well, maybe it was easy money. A movie to see only if the desperation level is higher than the judicious taste level.
Rating: 
Summary: What Happened?
Review: I'd been waiting for this movie ever since they kicked me out of the theater because I didn't have parental guidance. This film is all I've been thinking about for months. So, in waiting I read the book. It rocked. Okay, September rolls around and I immeadiately purchase this film, first day. And when I watch, I nod for the first hour or so, not a bad adaption. But as soon as the film nears the end everything falls apart. Kind of makes me wonder wheteher Kasdan even read the ending. Everythin has changed for the worst. What happened to the big "Duddits is our Dreamcatcher ending?" Instead of this deep meaning they go for something like Duddits is really an alien. What is this crap? My advice, if you have to se the movie, don't read the book first. You'll be thorugly disappointed. I know I was.
Rating:
Summary: Please stop making bad Stephen King book adaptions, please
Review: Sometimes Stephen King novels can make excellent film adaptions. This is not one of those films. So badly acted to the point that I began to wonder if the acting was deliberately cheesy.
And why are the Maine accents in these Stephen King movies always so exaggerated?? Maine is beautiful , but I think the mention of Maine and Massachusetts in this film was a little much, yes we get it, we know the locale, yeah it is cool to be filming a Stephen king novel, blah blah.
Some of the phrases, delivered in moments of suprise or fright, obviously lifted right out of the book, just seemed so acted and unnatural. (And who really talks like this anyway, except in a King novel)
We start the story with 4 young friends who come to the rescue of a "challenged" boy. One of these kids decides it will soothe the boy to start singing "Blue Bayou" (caution: cringe worthy scene).
Then we see the boys all grown up and in a cabin in the middle of nowhere. Alien encounters ensue. The aliens invade the victims body, then cause intestinal discomfort, exiting through the bowels. If you haven't turned off the film by now due to a wretched scene of an obese man passing gas, and then depositing the alien into the toilet, then you really do have nothing better to do.
Enter into the picture Morgan Freeman, wearing 2 bunny rabbits where his eyebrows should be, to save the day.
The scenery in the film saves the film from being a total failure. Set in a winter snowstorm, the nature shots are incredible. I am sure they are digitally created however, but it was still good photography and good special effects. It seemed to me like an extended episode of THE X FILES or a cross between STAND BY ME and THE TOMMYKNOCKERS. It was entertaining to an extent, just not a movie I would care to see again, especially all the disgusting flatulence..
Rating:
Summary: Dreamcatcher faithfull to book
Review: Unlike many reviews I have seen, I have actually read the novel. While Dreamcatcher is not a great movie by any means, it is certaqinly better than most of the terrible sequels we have today. This is probably the most faithful adaption of a King novel to date. It has a good cast and I feel they do their best with the material they were given. Many Sci-Fi fans will sense a loose similarity to John Carpenter's The Thing, which was a better movie. Dreamcatcher is not to everyones taste as it has many of the unpleasent bodily function scenes and some of the graphic gore as described in the novel. Also because the novel is over 900 pages long, there are some parts that had to be trimmed. This would leave the viewers, who have not read the book, guessing about some of the plot or feeling something is missing. I would agree that I would not have spent the price of a movie ticket and purchased the popcorn and coke (which all adds up to about 12 dollars around here) for this film. However, for the price of a movie rental you could do a lot worse. I think the Hardcore fans of Stephen King and anyone that read the book will like this movie. To everyone else its really up to what you consider is entertaining.
Rating:
Summary: I bought it; stupid me.
Review: I was really looking forward to this movie, since Dreamcatcher is my favorite Stephen King novel. Kasden, Freeman, Sizemore...how could you go wrong. Well, I wish I had rented instead of purchased. The characters are very shallow in the movie, a byproduct of making a huge King novel into a two hour flick. The characters in the book are what makes the read so compelling. Without the depth of the characters the movie becomes a paint-by-numbers exercise. The aliens look slick in the film which is a plus. The acting is good by everyone involved. The rest of the film is thin. Even if I hadn't been a fan of the book I would still be disappointed by this movie. Save yourself some money and rent this one if you really need to see it.
Rating:
Summary: Brutalized the book
Review: This movie proves the thesis that Stephen King's books make terrible movies. Basically a retelling of the monster in the woods tale, the success of the book is in the complex and textured interweaving of five friends, all linked, all with extraordinary gifts. One is extraordinary; although the weakest in body and mind, he is the strongest in spirit. The movie misses all of this, and butcher's the ending. This is among King's masterworks, and the movie does it little justice. Morgan Freeman, usually a strong enough force to carry a script on his own shoulders, is wooden and stereotypic. It might take you longer, but I recommend that you spend a couple of days reading the book than trying to make sense of this hacked up and bland rendering.
Rating:
Summary: Somewhat hackneyed treatment of the Stephen King "Formula"
Review: I'll start by saying that I have not read the book, so all I have to talk about here is the film, which in the end must stand or fall on its own merits, or lack thereof. Unfortunately, the main elements are all-too-familiar Stephen King fare; telepathy, childhood buddies, a mentally handicapped person with unusual powers, etc. A couple of the flashback scenes could have been taken straight from "Stand by Me". While the book could conceivably (and probably does) layer on enough depth over the aforementioned basic elements to make the story more interesting and engaging, the film does not. Instead, it comes across more as a feature-length "Tales from The Crypt" episode. Despite all this, there are some good performances, notably by Damian Lewis, who continues to demonstrate the low-key style he put to such good effect in "Band of Brothers". Here, he's able to playfully counterpoint with a totally over-the-top portrayal of his "Jonesey" character taken over by an alien entity (getting to use a version of his native English accent in the process). Surprisingly, Morgan Freeman "phones in" his performance as the unhinged covert government alien fighter. Granted, the script doesn't give him a whole lot to work with. The creature effects are reasonably well done, but anything less would be totally unacceptable in this day and age. I originally had misgivings about watching this movie alone at night. I needn't have worried; because of its failure to engage the audience on several levels, this film is not nearly as scary as it might have been, so it clearly misses the mark.
Rating:
Summary: Confusing
Review: I'm not a fan of Stephen King's work so I was a bit hesitant to rent this movie. And the fact that the movie had aliens in it didn't make me want to see it. However, I did rent it and I must say that it wasn't all that bad. Stephen King has a certain style; foul language and confusing storylines. This movie had both. Four childhood friends, all with special abilities, agree to meet on the weekend at a cabin when they are trapped by a blizzard. Challenged to stop an alien force, the friends must first prevent the slaughter of innocent civilians by the military, then overcome a threat to the bond between them.
| 
