El cazador de sueños

As Stephen King fans should probably know, there are a lot of things in Stephen Kings books that make sense only where they are - that is, in Stephen King books. Translating them to film is usually a bad idea, as many filmmakers who had adapted King's books before probably figured out. But along comes Lawrence Kasdan, a talented and acclaimed veteran director, who, with the aid of a no less acclaimed screenwriter William Goldman, decides while writing a script for Dreamcathcer that it would be better to bring along all the trademark King's weird goings-on - and voila! We have a movie filled with telepathy, butt-ripping aliens, crazy military types keen on killing everyone, telephone-guns, indian symbols and even a lot of CGI thrown in for a good measure. Of course, it all fails - but oh how gloriously! I'll go as far as to state that Dreamcatcher is absolutely the best unintentional B-movie trashfest in years! It was totally amusing that such a bunch of undoubtedly talented people (Morgan Freeman, Tom Sizemore, Thomas Jane, besides aforementioned Kasdan & Goldman) were able to make this film without a single smirk - while the material is pure trash'n'cheese. That was the whole beauty of it, for me, at least - the level of money, work and talent that went into creating this film. I would like to personally thank all the people involved with Dreamcathcer - they made my year! Thank you, Lawrence Kasdan! Thank you, William Goldman! Thank you, Morgan Freeman - your eyebrows rocked! And most of all, thank you, Jason Lee - the bathroom scene involving Beaver and an alien worm under the toilet lid is pure classic!

Man, where does Stephen King comes up with this things? Again, we have the childhood friends we think we know from "Stand by me" only this time they're older, have weird powers and face some really nasty creatures. I just come from watching it for the first time and i just wanted to say: What a weird movie!! I've seen some really weird movies, but this one... It's sort of a mixture of horror, sci-fi, comedy... At some point you don't know whether to be disgusted or to laugh! The special efects are great, and so is the music ("On blue bayou..."}. It may not be a great movie, but it's great entertainment. And it's sooooooo insane!!!! I liked it. Go see it. 7/10

For me this is one of the better Stephen King adaptations, largely due to the exceptional cast.

The plot is a bit iffy but the relationship between the 'boys' is quite engaging.

Worth a look :)

Rating: * out of ****

Those who know me realize I'm a pretty lenient guy when it comes to movies. And I have to be since I'm such a huge fan of horror, a genre renowned for spitting out crap at an alarmingly disproportional rate compared to its quality films. So being the easy guy that I am to please, I feel I should at least briefly mention what I liked about Dreamcatcher, namely that it boasts a first-rate cast and almost easily the best production values of any Stephen King adaptation and...well, that's about it.

Yet another addition to the pile of failed Stephen King adaptations, Dreamcatcher is little more than a mish-mash of almost every conceivable plot King has written since the beginning of his prolific career. An opening sequence gives us separate introductions to each of four best friends (played by Tom Jane, Damian Lewis, Jason Lee, and Timothy Olyphant), who all display somewhat varying levels of psychic abilities. Anyway, these four go on a hunting troop in the woods, but a couple of mishaps split them into groups of two and each pair must deal with a fairly immediate crisis.

To make matters worse, the animals in the vicinity all seem to be retreating from a perceived threat and the area is put under quarantine with the arrival of a black ops team (led by Morgan Freeman), whose specialty is (I kid you not) exterminating extraterrestrials that pose a threat to the survival of the human race. Freeman's second in command is played by Tom Sizemore, and it won't take a genius to guess the two will tussle over the way the situation should be handled. Meanwhile, the four pals have to deal with slithery aliens that can apparently shapeshift into more traditional grayish, bipedal E.T.'s (except way taller) and also turn into red dust that's capable of possessing a human body.

I'll start my critique off by stating who should not be blamed for the disaster the film turned out to be, and that's virtually the entire cast. With the exception of Donnie Wahlberg, this highly-talented ensemble does a more than passable job of mustering solid conviction when they deliver the cheese-dripping dialogue. It's all the more pity the film is as terrible as it is; this cast is arguably the best assembled for a Stephen King adaptation since The Shawshank Redemption.

I also liked the cinematography, which captured the beauty of the snow-covered landscape, even doing a fine job of developing a quietly sinister atmosphere in the film's early moments, and that's something most genre movies can't seem to accomplish these days. Some of the visual effects are also initially interesting to behold, though they grow more unconvincing as the film progresses.

But that's virtually the extent of everything I liked about Dreamcatcher. If I had to peg someone specifically for the crap this movie turned out to be, it'd have to be Stephen King, because the source novel itself is poorly written sci-fi nonsense. Chief among the poor writing is the "in-joke," nostalgic dialogue between the four friends that's obviously amusing to them, but is stale and silly to my ears. Perfect example? "Scooby-Dooby Doo, we've got work to do." The story is riddled with contrivances that rely on character stupidity, one such instance occurring early in the film which shows a compulsive toothpick-biter who's sitting on a toilet lid to keep an alien from getting out, but he actually risks getting off the seat just to reach for a toothpick on the floor; sorry, but that's the kind of "characters acting in stupid ways to advance the plot" b.s. I just can't buy.

The film boasts a number of baffling plot holes: why do only two men go in search of a renegade alien when the entire military is at their disposal (heck, it's only the entire world at stake)? How is Mr. Grey is able to turn back and forth from the alien shape to Jonesy without tearing any of his clothes? And why doesn't Jonesy just turn into his powerful Mr. Grey form to break down that door and remove the manhole rather than going through the trouble of it in his much weaker human form? The movie also frustratingly fails to establish what the alien creatures are fully capable of. Early scenes indicate they're shapeshifters, able to vacillate back-and-forth between their serpent forms, bipedal body structure, and that red dust, but none of this is explored to a satisfactory fashion. I'm also not sure why all the aliens didn't just use the red dust method to possess the humans in the surrounding area.

It's hard to say what director Lawrence Kasdan was aiming for. The early scenes indicate a more subtle, atmospheric approach, but that's out the window less than an hour in. Maybe that's just as well, I can't stand psychic links anyway, and couldn't bear to see a 136-minute movie devoted to this lazy plot device. To my chagrin, it still manages to figure into the last half-hour as a pretty lousy way of advancing the story.

As a gory slime-fest with hostile alien creatures, the movie's almost a total bore, the story switching back-and-forth between different characters and never developing momentum for any of these individual plot strands, not even when they eventually converge. You might also be a little miffed by the lack of man vs. monster action, these aliens prefer a sneakier approach to taking over the world.

If anything, Dreamcatcher is a good reminder that creature flicks work best when they maintain a stark simplicity rather than veering off on more "ambitious" tangents like this movie attempts. There are number of wonderful monster movies set in secluded locations, films like Pitch Black, Deep Rising, and John Carpenter's The Thing. I highly suggest you check all of those out instead.

I have read Dreamcatcher and think it is one of King's most under-appreciated books. In an interview, King said his wife didn't care for it. King wrote it out on a yellow legal pad while he was recovering from getting hit by that van.

I have also listened to the audio version of Dreamcatcher, so all that remained for me was to see this movie. While I knew there were things in the book that probably wouldn't make it to the screen, I was pleasantly surprised by how many did. However some scenes were so brief they were little more than tributes.

The cinematography was beautiful from start to finish, but where the first half of the film felt paced to perfection, the last half felt rushed. The ending was different than the book, so be prepared for a shocker.

The acting was good, I particularly enjoyed Jason Lee as Joe 'Beaver' Clarenden and Damian Lewis as Gary 'Jonesy' Jones.

A real disappointment was Thomas Jane as Dr. Henry Devlin. Pretty woody acting there.

Before seeing this movie, I would not have believed that Morgan Freeman could play Kurtz. I was wrong. That guy can play anything. Unfortunately, He didn't get enough chances to flesh out this crazy S.O.B.

Jonsey's dual nature was handled differently in the movie than it was in the book. Too bad. It was just right in the book, and was given a more "Hollywood" treatment in the movie.

Note to the director: This movie failed because not enough time was spent introducing these characters and making us care about them. The notable exceptions to this where Jonesy and the Beav.

Remember: SSDD.

No Bounce, No Play.