L'acchiappasogni

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.

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.

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

This is a pretty good movie. Exciting, nerve wracking and enough scary parts to keep you entertained. I don't get the low ratings honestly. I never read the book so maybe that favored in, but as a stand alone movie From 2003 I thought it was enjoyable.

The guy from homeland sucks though. Worst actor ever.

When John Grisham or Stephen King writes a book, everyone can expect it to be turned into some sort of movie that's not as good (the only one that hasn't had that happen to it is the latter's Insomnia-and it really deserves to be made into something great) as the book was. Of course, there's exceptions (such as The Shining and Carrie-both of which were poorly remade), but one that makes the book look like string cheese is Dreamcatcher. The book was 1000 pages of hit-or-miss horror, and the movie condenses it into two and a quarter hours that takes most of the best parts from the book. Having doubted William Goldman's ability since Marathon Man and the partial butchering of Misery, but since he's writing here with director Lawrence Kasdan, he can't foul up that badly.

The hardest part of having the arduous task of adapting a King book is taking 1000+ pages and putting it into a reasonable amount of time for the viewer. That's why the miniseries are always hot to trot, because they can stretch things out to the length of the book. Trouble is, eventually, it gets boring and too true to the book. That's how the aforementioned remakes failed. Filmmakers need to be able to have creative licenses, and that's what Kasdan does. He knows how to work with the material that he and Goldman wrote, and it turns out to be something much better than the source material.

Four childhood friends, Beaver (Jason Lee), Henry (Thomas Jane), Jonesy (Damian Lewis) and Pete (Timothy Olyphant), go to some woods in Maine for their annual hunting trip. In their childhood, they had been united by a mentally retarded friend, Duddits (Donnie Wahlberg), which linked all of them with some sort of telepathy that they usually don't talk about. During their twentieth year of going out there, aliens land nearby and alter the course of their lives forever. Meanwhile, Col. Abraham Curtis (Morgan Freeman, with the named changed from the original Kurtz, a reference to Apocalypse Now, because I guess hearing a name will automatically trigger the "plagiarism" sensor in viewer's minds more than reading it) is in charge of the governmental side of the aliens, while he supposedly goes crazy. For those who thought Jack Nicholson's transformation in The Shining happened too quickly, they obviously haven't seen Dreamcatcher.

I think the reason most people didn't like Dreamcatcher is that they didn't know what the hell was going on. I can understand it, since some of the most important stuff is just referenced in passing (such as most things relating to Mr. Gray). I thought that all of the Curtis subplot seemed to drag everything down, because everything that's done there could have been brought about some other way. But much of the movie is pretty scary, despite the absurdity of not only some of the aliens and the CGI, but the ending. I didn't have that many qualms with it, but those who did probably also complained with the oddity of the ending of The Hulk (understandably). The plot held up through all of the reductions, and makes an effectual, creepy film.

The acting, however, could have been better. Although Jason Lee is always good, all of his catchphrases that his character had in the book seemed scripted and stilted. The actor who played Beaver as a child also seemed to just be reading his lines. The other actors don't really bring any personality to their roles, although Lewis's "dual role" was pretty cool. There seems to be an overwhelming amount of material in this film, but when you think about it, it all flows together pretty well. And considering you're taking 1000 pages into a 135 page script, that's pretty good to have everything flow together. My respect for William Goldman has come back, as for good horror films. Dreamcatcher is not the best King adaptation, or the best King book, but it's entertaining and creepy, and that's all we ask for from Mr. King.

My rating: 7/10

Rated R for violence, gore and language.