Customer Reviews

Dreamcatcher (Full Screen Edition)

5 star:		(37)
4 star:		(32)
3 star:		(38)
2 star:		(46)
1 star:		(89)

 

 

There's just a cozy feeling to it. It's a constantly white-out snowing, Stephen King style, humor mixed with gore, great movie. And, I even like the story. Okay, it's not Great-Great, but really good. Especially when you have to stay inside (snow, flu, broken leg etc.).

Regardless, it's definitely worth a look. I never met anyone who just hated it. And if you don't love it, you'll probably just be glad to have seen it and move on to your next scary/funny, sunday/rainy movie.

But again, this is one of my favorite movies for some strange reason. Everybody's got a few of those, so I know you'll understand.

AND, you might want to buy it now, they're not producing this edition anymore and I already can't find it in a retail store.

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.

Dreamcatcher's first half is the best. It has the character interaction that is trademark of King's writing and the cast was chosen (and performed) well. The second half was "science fiction neat," offering an action-based, and clearly established backstory (barely discussed) to the conflict between the invaders and the government, but it disrupts the psychological and personal mood set up in the first half. Ultimately, the fun/neat science fiction portion fails to deliver its apex in the way that you are lead to expect as it quickly ducks back into being a more psychological and personal story about the core people.

Low Points:

- Poor resolution between character conflicts in the military side. Even Sizemore complained about that in some behind the scenes stuff (i'm trying not to spoil).

- Science fiction moments that are more a really well done tease than a complete offering to science fiction fans.

- Not really scarey, but that's not a requirement for everyone.

High Points:

- Morgan Freeman and Tom Sizemore in what is a nice reversal of their usual type casting (i hate typecasting and love to see people turn on theirs and applaud casting agents and directors who choose to do so).

- Great visual effects

- Humor and horror combined well as often with King's material and the cast involved.

- Fantastic cast.

- The science fiction tease that hints at a HUGE and ongoing back story, which makes the overall film feel bigger than it really is. A three or four hour miniseries might have covered this better. i am getting the book, just in curiosity.

- A great score. The music combines creepy, science fiction and fairytale in an unobtrusive manner at moments (and i didn't notice much more than the excellent theme, so i count that as a good score if it leaves me remembering liking it... sort of).

- Beautiful cinematography, in my opinion. Visual effects moments mix well with the lovely snow landscape.

Overall, if you enjoy horror and science fiction crossovers that aren't outright tricks (like Event Horizon), and if you're a relatively forgiving film enthusiast who does not expect everything to meet your ideals, this movie will entertain and amuse you and maybe find a space on your shelf for future reviewing. i'm struggling with the idea of buying it myself. i seem to have a knack for liking the underdogs. The ones with great elements but which fail to maintain or deliver throughout. It seems to be my trademark...

I watched this flick years ago and recently purchased it-I loved it even more this time. Watch the alternate ending-both have deep meanings but I think the director's picked the best in the original release! If anyone doesn't get the meaning behind the plot-they need to watch it again-it helped me understand that the boys bonded for life by a (chanced?)single event...Destiny.

I've never read the book, so I won't pass judgment on Stephen King, but as for this movie...oh boy. And what a movie it was too - a race of fart-worms born of our butts invades New England and it's up to a mentally challenged alien with a dosage of puppy power to stop them. You're probably saying, "Stop it, TrezKu13, you're not funny." Oh ho ho ho, gentle reader...if only I WAS trying to be funny...

The problem with these Stephen King adaptations is that many times they take an interesting concept and then try to do too much with it, or add too much. For example, with "Storm of the Century" it's a nice idea to have a stranger go into a perfect little town and reveal hidden secrets...but THREE HOURS OF IT!? It's the same thing with this movie - OK, so an alien race invades and a military organization works to contain them. Sound familiar? Well, there's something to add to that: four friends who were granted special powers at an early age and they must use it against the aliens to stop the destruction of their world. In my opinion, though, the special powers weren't all that great - I mean come on, two of the four die halfway through the movie. In fact one guy doesn't even use his powers, he just gets killed - and might I add for a freggin' toothpick! That bizarre scene might have gone on better if they hadn't dragged it out for ten minutes, but sadly that's what this movie does the whole time: drag things out for as long as possible. The last thirty minutes felt like the longest thirty minutes I had ever watched; it's almost like the cast decided to mill around for a while. The only thing they do rush is the ending, which takes a cue from kung-fu movies and ends RIGHT AFTER the death of the villain.

By the way, the three-star general walking in with the 10th Mountain Division patch on his beret made me laugh my head off. You don't wear your unit patch on your beret you wear your rank. You would think that would be a simply concept for a movie to follow. I used to live on Fort Drum, the home of the 10th, and even their commanding general didn't wear the patch on his beret.

I just saw this movie last night, and I don't get why there are so many negative reviews up here. I thought it was well-filmed and well-acted, with the possible exception of whoever played Henry. I kept thinking he sounded like the doctor guy from the spoof "Airplane." ("Not war, water! Mr. Gray wants water! And don't call me Shirley!") Beav (Jason Lee, I think) was hilarious, though, despite his weird toothpick obsession. Morgan Freeman wasn't bad, I guess. He reminded me of an inept Hannibal Lecter with eyebrow toupees.
The movie/plot/character development was all interesting and true to the book. It really wasn't scary, more action/adventure, but I didn't mind and most viewers probably won't. I figure the reason most people watch or read horror anyway is because they like seeing people who are worse off than themselves, and this flick had that in spades. (Giant intestinal parasite, anyone? No? How about some evil Space Truffles or whatever the fungus thing was called?) Its high point was the relationships between the characters, something King has always been really good at portraying.
Anyway, this movie was fun and good for a Friday night. I'd recommend it. Enjoy!

Alright first of all I have to admit, I am a huge Stephen King fan, I absolutely love the way the man writes, he just seems to draw me in like no other author can do. However when it comes to his work being presented on the screen I am usually not impressed (except for The Shining of course)

However I enjoyed Dreamcatcher, now unlike other reviewers I will not be posting spoilers, I find the story to be very interesting, compelling and at time scary.

I think if you like a good sci-fi thriller with a lot of comedy, if you like Stephen King, I suggest you definitely check this movie out, you, in my opinion, will not be disappointed

However I don't really think this movie is too scary, as a matter of fact most of the time I was laughing out loud, not because the movie is bad but because there is some hilarious dialogue in the movie, especially Jason Lee as "Beaver" is phenomenal, granted you have to like his sort of humour but if you do you are in for a treat (think a tamer version of Jay and Silent Bob as the character he represents)

I'm a huge fan of anything Stephan King, that being said I'm embarassed for him for having put his name on this movie. I've read the book and this movie is a huge disappointment. This movie has none of the depth or character developement of the book. You don't get a sense of the friendships, why they work, how or why they've lasted this long. The intorduction of the binding facgor of these friendships (the man child they saved a pre-teens)was sloppy at best, and pretentious at worst.

If you haven't read the book then you might fine this movie (and I use the term losely) entertaining. But I highly doubt it.

Ok, I read part of the book before seeing the movie, and my dad and friend read the whole book before seeing the movie, and it seems like the screen writer guy or whoever read half of it, got bored, and read the clif notes. The first half of the movie pretty much follows the book, but the last half just takes a completely different turn, and not for the better, but the movie is overall, alright, but it could'a been way better.

Someone at my local movie group suggested this movie be re-titled "Earth Versus the Arse-Monsters". The idea was that such a stupid title would give the movie an appropriate cheesy B-grade air, allowing us to enjoy it on a so-bad-it's-almost-good basis. A movie called 'Dreamcatcher' based on a novel by someone the calibre of Stephen King just makes it all seem too serious.

I think the big problem with this movie is that it's full of ideas that don't translate that well to the screen. For example, the "memory warehouse" works alot better as an abstact thought from a book. Seeing them depict an actual warehouse filled with physical memories that the character searches through comes across as silly instead of mysterious. Likewise, the concept of aliens breeding inside people's intestines could be horrific or disturbing, but actually seeing people exploding blood and flatulence from their backsides is just corny.

It doesn't help that there were some very strange artistic decisions made here. Why the toothpick on the floor? Why the gun-telephone?? Why does Jonesy talk like a demented English butler when possessed?? What's with the eyebrows? There are just too many of these unintentionally funny moments that distract us. Likewise, the random gore, the often cheesy dialogue, and the cliched characterisation are more suited to a teen slasher flick than the supposedly serious movie this tries to be.

To me, it appears the filmakers were uncertain whether to remain loyal to King's deeper, intellectual story or just go for a straight thriller/horror flick. In the end 'Dreamcatcher' doesn't really do either. It's too unintentionally silly and corny to take seriously, but too po-faced and self-conscious to be enjoyed as a mindless popcorn slasher. The fact that it can't appeal to either audience is obviously why it flopped. Perhaps it might have been better in a different format, but I feel 'Dreamcatcher' is one of those books that just doesn't work on the big screen. It should have been left alone.