Friends on a camping trip , they meet for a weekend at their remote cabin in the forests and discover that the town they're vacationing in, is being plagued in an unusual fashion by parasitic aliens from outer space . Four friends : Thomas Jane as Henry , Jason Lee as Beaver , Damian Lewis as Jonesy and Timothy Olyphant as Pete share extrasensory powers and hung a dreamcatcher in their cabin. It's about to catch something it cannot stop and the things are definitely going awry . Meanwhile , military officers (Morgan Freeman , Tom Sizemore) attempt to stop them and we reach the final highlight with the future of mankind at danger.

This Sci-Fi movie contains , thrills , suspense , intrigue , strange events and is pretty entertaining . The film is a blend of genres as a yucky monsters movie , a military paranoia picture and drama about childhood with influence on adult life ; all of them squashed into one . Being difficult to muster these diverse elements and director fails partially in its union . It's a rendition of a Stephen King novel , King sold the movie rights for $1 . There were many references to other Stephen King projects, such as: Misery (car wreck in the snow); Stand by Me (boyhood friends walking on railroad tracks , a typical Stephen King nostalgia vignette); It (flashbacks showing growing friendships), etc. And of course the story taking place in Maine - Stephen King's state of birth. This was the story that Stephen wrote while he recovered from his near fatal accident , it is reflected in the story, especially in a graphic scene in which a major character in run down by a vehicle and he wrote the novel in longhand. This marks the third film that William Goldman has adapted from a Stephen King novel , the others were Hearts in Atlantis (2001) and Misery (1990).

Rousing musical score by the successful composer James Newton Howard . Colorful though dark cinematography by John Seale . This moving Sci-fi , as long as spectacular, has become a nice film , being finely written and directed by Lawrence Kasdan who also directed other genres as Western as ¨Wyatt Earp¨ and ¨Silverado¨. Furthermore , he made other good movies as ¨Body heat¨, ¨The big chill¨ , ¨Grand Canyon¨ . Rating : 6 , acceptable and passable but overlong as the runtime is approx two hours and some . Even those who don't usually like Science Fiction or monster movies are sure to enjoy it . Worthwhile watching .

The first third of Dreamcatcher is worth the time. Four childhood friends make their annual trip to a hunting cabin, weird things happen, and, before you know it, you're smack-dab in the world of Stephen King, at his most darkly comical and gaily grotesque. It's flatulent, bloody fun on the page, and Goldman had no problem translating this hideous orgy of gas and guts from novel to screenplay form. As the screenplay proceeds, it strays from the book to the point where the film becomes a Hollywood embarrassment of epic proportions.

The Dreamcatcher novel also fell apart in its second half, but what kept you reading the book was the mind games going on in the lead character, Jonesy's (Damian Lewis) head. Jonesy's brain and body has been taken hostage by an alien named, Mr. Gray. In the novel, Jonesy notices Gray becoming tempted by the trappings of humanity, and uses that to his advantage. It's fun to watch the alien craving various human indulgences, more and more, with each passing minute. This aspect of the novel is completely removed from the film, leaving us with nothing more than Damian Lewis, playing both Jonesy and Mr. Gray, making silly faces, and putting on goofy accents, as he goes between the two characters.

The second act of the film, one taking place in a concentration camp for American citizens whom may or may not be contaminated with an alien virus, is nothing more than a shadow of what is shown in the book. Even the shoddiest of cliffnote "authors" would be embarrassed to condense a novel down to this elementary a form.

In the book, the head of the camp, Colonel Abraham Kurtz, played in the film by Morgan Freeman, was a nasty man, so over the edge that he was frightening, from his first appearance to his last. In the movie, we're made aware of the fact that he has lost it, but almost exclusively through exposition, rather than action. Seeing these innocent civilians locked up like animals was disturbing in the novel, and would make for an extremely tense mid-section of this movie, if this movie dared to have any tension.

In King's Dreamcatcher, the people locked in the camps join together, with help from the telepathic Dr. Henry Devlin, in the film played by Thomas Jane, and start a massive uprising against the guards. At the same time, Devlin is working on Colonel Kurtz's more conscientious subordinates, both through words, and the power that he, along with Jonesy, Beaver and Pete, was given by a mysterious fifth friend, Duddits. In the movie, the uprising never occurs, and it feels as though each of the concentration camp scenes were put into the film to pad it out, while giving a plum role to Morgan Freeman.

I won't give away the finale to either the novel or the film, but I will say that everything good about the finish of the book form of Dreamcatcher, is noticeably missing from the film version. Instead of an emotionally moving climax, we get a sloppy CGI-fest that reminded me a bit of Godzilla VS. King Kong, or maybe even Species 2. Although I found myself squirming over the laziness displayed during the majority of the second half of the picture, I was still undecided as to whether or not I would recommend it. The lousy last few minutes of film made up my mind.

This is the first movie I can think of that I can only recommend in patches. Drink a couple of gallons of water before you attend the picture, and run to the bathroom to let it out, whenever things start getting stupid.

If you're a fan of horror, you will enjoy the first hour of the film. The bathroom sequence is a near-masterpiece, and, for that alone, Lawrence Kasdan should be commended. Kasdan also handles the flashback scenes, featuring the four main characters as children, adequately enough to get my thumb working its way toward the "up" direction. Finally, during those few times Kasdan does take us into Jonesy's brain, he does so in an incredibly interesting, oftentimes humorous, manner.

When Jonesy leaves the relative safety of the locked room he has nuzzled deep within his cerebrum, only to find the evil that is hiding behind boxes of stored memories inside his mind's warehouse, it genuinely gave me chills. More scary moments like this, placed throughout the film, and Kasdan may have had his first instant classic in a long while.

There was a lot of money and time put into Dreamcatcher, and it shows on the screen. Steve Johnson's work on the puppet versions of the "s***weasels" is extremely effective, and shows, once again, that anything CG can do, human hands can do better. The CG isn't the best I've seen, but it's significantly less cartoony than either of the last two Star Wars prequels, and does the job nicely, even though I would have enjoyed the effects far more, if CG wasn't a part of them. The cinematography by John Seale (The English Patient, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Witness) is gorgeous, but not noteworthy enough to make the Director of Photography the star of the film, like Caleb Deschanel's work did for him in the recent semi-stinker, The Hunted.

What we end up with is a nice looking film that feels hollow.

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

I'm a sci-fi fan, but am pretty discriminating. Often _years_ will go by where I don't like even a single sci-fi film that comes out. This one scared and "wow-ed" me. Doesn't just rely on special effects, but has a good plot and at least decent acting. I don't see why this film was rated so poorly, unless other viewers didn't know ahead of time it had a strong sci-fi bent (I didn't). Great storyline, eerie memorable scenes, and a complex background story that evolves slowly but consistently throughout the movie through flashbacks from the main characters. Great way to condense the novel, I assume.

I actually liked Dreamcatcher enough that I saw it twice. However, this may be mostly due to the fact that I really liked Jason Lee as Beaver and Timothy Olyphant as Pete. Regardless, this was actually a movie I did enjoy seeing.

I was not particularly interested in seeing Dreamcatcher initially. And this is me, who wants to see every scary movie. Not Scream type horror, but certainly of the creepy not entirely natural variety: Ring, Resident Evil (is that even horror?), you get the idea. However, my sister and her friend convinced me to go. After seeing an interview with Jason and some video clips from the movie, I was actually more enthusiastic.

Part of the reason I did enjoy the movie is because of the younger era flashbacks of the four friends. It had a kind of supernatural stand by me feel to it for those scenes, and I'm quite a fan of Stand By Me so that appealed to me. It also appealed to me because it did seem like a nice jump-out-and-scare-you horror. It's no psychological thriller which relies on your own imagination to scare you (and the fear stays with you well after you're done seeing it). It's much more blood and gore and chase the monster down kind of fun, which thrills you while you watch. I just love horror movies - any kind.

Also, I think that the movie did manage to get you to like most of these characters. Beaver was just loveable off the bat because of his "beaverisms" and his general charm. (I think Lee did a great job). Timothy Olyphant's character was also likeable (whether or not that it attributed to his acting skill, I don't know. I'm a horrible judge of acting, so I could say good but not really know the difference.) But I think his introduction scene worked well to help you connect to him despite his limited screen time (compared to the other "main" characters).

Thomas Jane and Damian Lewis were well enough. I don't think I grew particularly attached to either of their characters - Jonesy or Henry. And I'm sorry but the whole "british" Mr. Gray really threw me. It seemed so oddly thrown in - Why would an Alien speak with a British Accent? I realize on some level it was to draw a distinction, but still.

Morgan Freeman, I love him. I can't be unbiased about his role, because I just love him too much. I also liked Tom Sizemore, or at least his character was very likeable. And talk about creepy: "No infection here." stuff.

The effects were well done (I think) and I liked the soundtrack. That opening main theme, I want it! It was great and creepy and mysterious. I think the composer was the same guy who did the theme music for Unbreakable and Signs, and well, I like those too.

What can I say? The show entertained me. Maybe it's not a masterpiece but I think it was money well spent. I wasn't bored at any time. I was interested in how everything came about. I can completely see why those who read the book first would be disappointed. I read the Harry Potter books prior to seeing the movies and I hate every change they made - and that movie is always said to be so faithful. So I can see people's issues with the end and other changes.

I think a lot of the other reasons people dislike the movie is that it does have a lot of different ideas coming together. I read a review critiquing it's various directions, but honestly, I think all the different pieces come together fine as a cohesive whole. I understood the storyline and I wasn't jarred by flashbacks or scene changes. To me, it flowed, made sense. I could connect the dots easily enough.

And hell, if that ripley red-fungus s*** isn't enjoyably disgusting, I don't know.

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.

This movie starts very interesting and then, around the arrival of Morgan Feeman, becomes almost total crap. What I thought was going to be a supernatural thriller, the way it started, turns out to be a silly sci-fi horror almost as bad as the Stephen King adaptation of 'Sleepwalkers', just to name one.

May be it is very hard to make a good Stephen King adaptation when it involves creatures not from this earth, or in a different time, or et cetera. 'The Langoliers' is another great example of something that starts very interesting and once those monsters appear becomes something stupid. There it took a while for them to appear, here we are only at a quarter of the movie.

The interesting supernatural part I was talking about involves the four friends Henry, Beaver, Jonesy and Pete. As kids they meet the mentally retarded Duddits, who seems to have supernatural powers and passes some of them to the four friends. As adults (they are played by Thomas Jane, Jason Lee, Damian Lewis and Timothy Olyphant) they still have the powers and that is where the movie begins. They have telepathic gifts; they know things from strangers and are able to have contact with each other without speaking, and this is demonstrated with the great opening scenes.

When the four friends go to the woods for some hunting things go wrong. With them, and the movie. I will not tell you what happens exactly because you can guess by then. The movie never gets scary or interesting after the opening scenes again. For me the only thing I could enjoy from there was snow falling from the sky and performances that were alright. With two hours and ten minutes the movie is way too long and with a something this stupid and predictable you can only waste your time. Read the book and make your own version 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.

I have never read the book, I have only read a small handful of Stephen King's works ... they're generally not my preferred genre. I could go on here, but I don't think most of you care if you are reading this.

Okay, I liked the movie. I would rate it around 7 or 8 for sheer entertainment factor. Sure, there were a few scenes that were a little thin, there were a few elements of dialogue (sp: I'm Canadian, eh?) that were a little weak. But since I didn't even know this was a SK movie, I had absolutely no predisposition regarding this movie.

In fact, I hadn't even reviewed any of the synopses or shorts regarding this film ... I was totally green going into it. And I found myself highly entertained. I liked seeing a bunch of characters whom I am not entirely familiar with, and I appreciated the casting of a few well-knows.

Enjoyment: 8 Cast: 8 Acting: 6 for some, 7 or 8 for others. Dialogue: 6 in general CGI: 7 (pretty good, but lots of 'off screen' stuff) Overall: 7

If movies have taught me one thing it's that aliens are obsessed with the human anus. They cross galaxies to probe and explore it. What mysteries lie up there…? But Dreamcatcher goes one step further. These aliens aren't merely obsessed with exploring the rectum; they hide up it. It should be a shock, but aliens have been crawling out of my colon for years…

Dreamcatcher gets off to a reasonable enough start. We get a nice little sequence where we're introduced to the four main characters and their respective powers – they're telepathic. Then we get a bit of King-style strangeness when one of the characters gets run over. So far so good. The man survives and then we get a pleasant sequence in a log cabin where the friends talk, joke and give thanks to the kid that gave them their strange gifts. It's here that the film begins to go downhill. We get a Stand by Me-style flashback to their childhood where the four friends save a half-wit from a couple of bullies who want to make him eat faeces. It's not a terrible scene, but the kids come over as insufferable do-gooders. The fact that they're fans of Scooby-Doo speaks volumes. But they save the half-wit, a kid called Duddits (is it law that movie half-wits have to be infuriatingly lovable?) and he gives them all sorts of gnarly powers. It's not a great sequence, but the film is still chugging along.

The film derails, though, when we go back to the log cabin and the adult characters. Jonesy (Damien Lewis) stumbles upon a man lost in the snow. The stranger's not feeling too well and he's got a strange red mark on his face, so Jonesy gives him shelter. The man is grateful but he keeps on farting. Then Beaver, played by Jason Lee, stumbles into the cabin and the two friends have to put up with the noxious fumes. To cut a long story short the two friends then give the bloke a place to sleep but he ends up dying on the toilet. You see, this is what happens when aliens invade. They find a nice warm place in your colon and then you die on the bog when they want some fresh air.

The scene that follows is laughable. The two friends have the alien trapped in the toilet (it can't get out while the fat bloke is sitting on the khazi) but somehow Beaver ends up sitting on the closed toilet lid instead. Jonesy then decides that it's a good idea to get some tape from the shed to keep the lid shut, so he leaves Beaver alone on the lav. It's kind of like Lethal Weapon 2, only with an alien instead of a bomb. But to show how stupid the film is, Beaver is wrested from his safe position because for some reason he wants a toothpick to keep him calm (is he Razor Ramon?). Personally I'd be more worried about my bum. But the alien gets loose and kills poor Beaver right before Jonesy's eyes (Jonesy takes an age to find the tape).

But what of the alien? What does it look like? Well, it's worm in shape but it has a mouth like a tooth-filled vagina. I'll get onto my interpretation of this in a moment…

But the worm isn't the real alien. The real alien confronts Jonsey a few moments later. It's a CGI monstrosity and is kind of a human-shaped blob. But then after it stares at Jonesy it seems to explode in front of his face. I was puzzled for a moment or two but then it's revealed that the alien has possessed him. And how does the alien speak? Why, it speaks in an English accent, of course! Pip-pip, old chap! But the Gollum-like scenes where the real Jonesy and the camp English alien Jonesy talk to one another are hilarious. I kept wondering whether it was a joke. Surely such assured filmmakers couldn't make such a grave miscalculation. But apparently they could, because the film only gets increasingly stupid.

Another brilliantly dumb scene is when another one of the friends is stuck in the snow with some beer. He gets a little bit drunk and needs to urinate. So he's relieving himself, and writing a boy's name into the snow ('Duddits'), when one of the alien worms leaps out and bites his penis off. And this brings me onto my interpretation of the alien invasion (as its never explained). My theory is that a race of self-hating, gay, English aliens (there's no way alien Jonesy can be straight) are trying to kill Earth's homosexual population – none of the friends are married and one is rather fond of talking about his privates. And to do their bidding they have teeth-filled vagina worms to bite off the genitalia of any man who isn't 100% straight. Hey, it makes as much sense as the rest of the movie!

Adding credence to this far-fetched theory is Morgan Freeman's character. He and his second-in-command, Tom Sizemore (who are the gay military men trying to stop the gay alien invasion), spend a lot of time giving one another flirty glances. And Freeman's character has a John Wayne pistol, Dennis Healy eyebrows and talks of crap weasels. And the two men also end up killing one another. This scene is certainly one of the funniest. It's Tom Sizemore versus Morgan Freeman, only Freeman has a helicopter (with the most phallic mini-gun known to man attached to the nose) and Sizemore has a pistol. Who do you reckon wins? Man in helicopter? Or man on foot with a pistol? Why, the man on foot wins! It doesn't make any sense. But then again none of the film does. It's a Byzantine puzzle that begins with bums and ends with dumbness.

Plot heavy--TOO heavy--horror sci-fi film about 4 friends (Thomas Jane, Jason Lee, Timothy Olyphant, Damian Lewis) in the Maine woods squaring off against disgusting killer aliens and the Army led by Morgan Freeman and Tom Sizemore.

The film is well-directed by Lawrence Kasdan and well-acted (especially by Jane, Lewis and Olyphant) but there's too many plots going on and the movie rambles on for 135 minutes. I did sit through the whole thing, but I was never really involved or interested.

On the plus side, the special effects are great; the aliens are slimy and disgusting; the attack scenes are brutal (and bloody) and I LOVED the way Kasdan visualized Lewis' mind.

Still, the film has too many plots to handle and it's constantly loosing its focus. Not terrible or unwatchable, just disappointing.

I give it a 6.

Based on the Novel by Steven King - These words have been used to promote many films; most are utter crap, some are actually quite good. Dreamcatcher does not fall into the latter catagory however, and it ranks up there with Graveyard Shift, The Mangler, and Cujo as the worst films based on King's writings (which by this point is saying a lot).

The plot involves a group of you men who become mind-readers due to their childhood friendship with a retarded kid who carries around a Scooby Doo lunch box. As with all mentally challenged people in Hollywood movies this young man has a special gift, and he just happens to be psychic, and teaches his friends to use this power as well. The psychic powers these guys develop enable them to find car keys for hot chicks and psychoanalyze fatboys, but they are amazingly unable to use these powers to predict what is going to happen to them. So when alien beings begin to stalk them in the backwoods of Maine, their powers range from conveniently useful to non-existant depending on whether or not a particular character is going to die.

The aliens in question are trying to infect mankind with a virus that will spread their kind across the globe...and these aliens don't burst out of a character's chest, oh no, they exit through a person's ass. Whenever a character's stomach moves around strangely and they start farting constantly it is because they are about to crap out an alien. Keep this in mind next time someone sounds like they are dying in the stall next to yours in the restroom, because they may infact be ridding themself of an alien creature and not just a couple burritos from Taco Bell...

To say that a movie alien looks fake is something of a contradiction since I assume most of us have never seen a real alien, but the aliens in this film will more than likely provoke laughter from you, just as it did from me and several other members of the audience I was in. The alien in Mission to Mars is my benchmark for horrendously represented alien creatures, and while Dreamcatcher does not equal M2M,it is no slouch itself. You'll see many snake-like creatures with razor sharp teeth, a few tiny ones that look like leeches, and one horrible giant man-like alien that provided some unintentional comic relief. Then there is something at the end which is hardly shown much at all, but it basically looked like a larger version of the snake creatures, which is to say it looked like more CG animation gone terribly wrong.

There is too much talent involved with this film for it have been as bad as it was. Every aspect of this film is deficient...the plot was terrible and excrutiatingly predictable, the acting was about as stilted as your average circus clown, the dialogue atrocious, and the scares manufactured by music jolts. And poor Morgan Freeman, what in the world is this skilled thespian doing in this film, and why do his eyebrows look like they themselves are growing and trying to take over the world? Also, the finale has something to do with the aliens trying to get into the water supply, and this will supposedly doom all of mankind. Morgan "Shoulda refinanced that mortgage payment" Freeman states earlier in the film that he has been fighting aliens for 25 years...aliens are intelligent enough to come all this way through the universe yet they are now finally coming up with the plan for infecting our water supply after 25 years of futility? Please.

Several people left the theater about 10 minutes before the end of the film...this is not a football game and they were worried about beating 50,000 people out the door to miss the traffic, because the movie let out at 12:45 am. This is the only film where I have seen 2 separate groups of people leave that close to the end of a film. I always stay through the end of a film, no matter how terrible, but I couldn't help but envy the value they put on their time.

A few moments of "so bad it's good" entertainment, but otherwise a complete waste of time and money, and I do not throw this insult out there lightly. It is quite simply an awful, awful film.



Lucky Boy

If there's any upside to the recent advent of DVDs adding audio-commentaries and documentaries to movies no one wanted to see in the first place, it's this; One can, perhaps, glean what went wrong with a movie that seemed to have so much going for it. In this case, with Dreamcatcher, that premise is put to the ultimate use.

It's quite telling that the Dreamcatcher DVD has included an interview with Stephen King after he has seen the rough cut of the film. First of all, King has little to say about the actual movie and more on his motivation on writing the book (the car accident in '99). His only bon mot seems to be a throw away comment that "it's very good." Yet, even with this slight endorsement from "The King" one is dumbfounded that he isn't cracking the camera lense with a pipe in pure, irrational vengence for making such a prime embarrassment out of his novel.

But no, here's King making a statement, which in itself by even agreeing to be seen associated with this free-wheeling catastrophe, is a sort of endoresment. So this tells me that somehow, somewhere at the sourse, there had to be something wrong in the batter. I think it's also valuable to note that King also DID NOT endorse the Kubrick version of The Shining, but rather, put his seal of approval on the later tv-movie version starring Stephen Weber. While Webers performance was admirable in this retooling, I don't think anyones making the mistake of replacing Jack Nicholson on their AFI lists.

So, here was have King wanting to fashion a sort of Stand By Me meets B-movie monster flick. Along comes Kasdan...who one would assume would rather retool this premise and find a way to keep all the monsters inside the characters heads and play out the movie in a therapists office (which, aptly, the movie actually does at the top. ) From there all resemblence to a Lawrence Kadan movie ends.

Which, once again, brings me back to the DVD. Kasdan tells how William Goldman took a pass at the script (not 'passed' which I'm sure alot of folks now wish they had)and alluded that he wanted to remove alot of the 'bigger aspects' of the script. One can only dream, pardon the pun, of what that film could have been. Kasdan continues to say that he put all those elements back cause he wanted to "Do something different." Well, he suceeded. The feeling is of a director who knows the exact nuance and fringes of character, behavior with a strong sense of dialogue and development who then careens off-the-road into a territory of the unknown where the boundaries of taste, believability and ridiculousness match that off only Ed Wood.

There was first, some sense that perhaps this production went south when Kasdan had wrapped the shooting and then lost all restraint in the post-production CGI effort. Maybe, just maybe, he farmed out the creature effects to a company and they muscled him into believing these were good ideas. But, alas, no. If there's only one scene that shatters that notion it's where Thomas Jane has a psychic conversation with Damian Lewis and he uses the gun handle as a psychic telephone. One wonders if/ how they kept a straight face through the shooting of that sequence and whether Tom Sizemore walked off the set to put a gun to his own head.

Which leads to, onceagain, to how did you have so many elemnts and go so wrong?It seems like Kasdan wasn't interested in making a an M. Night Shyamalan film...he WANTED the overblown sci-fi. It's simply a case of overcompensation, trying 'too hard' to escape those elemnts that you excel in It's akin to Morgan Freeman's performance in that you expect that usual astute, complex performance and instead he sheels you with bland, cliche military bravado with an occasional "Bucko" thrown in to remind you he's tried and true american.

There were fleeting moments through-out DC that I pondered some metaphor for communism. The recurring 'red' infection, the possession of the mind, the overblown americana and internment camps at the military base. But decided mid-way that the movie, if trying for such an outdated metaphor, wasn't worth the analysis.

All in all, it must be said that all these words wouldn't be put down about such a traesty if it didn't enrage people who were being led along into thinking this was gonna be a good movie. The cast of non-superstar, yet more ably talented movie regulars, in Tim Olyphant (GO, Gone in Sixty Seconds), Jason Lee (Mumford, Chasing Amy) Damian Lewis (Band of Brothers) and Thomas Jane (The Last Time I Committed Suicide, Boogie Nights)heralds in a touching, subtle and character driven opening...the Kasdan tease to lure you inot thinking this was revamp of The Big Chill. Rounded out by Morgan Freeman and Tom Sizemore one wonders if this ready-to-be-stars cast wasn't scribbling down oscar acceptance notes during shooting breaks. Now they're probably getting e-mail barrages begging thme to show up for the Raspberries.

Still, I'm haunted by the idea theres a version of William Goldmans script sitting out there...perhaps in a toilet with it's lid down popping up frantically to get out and attack this arena thats been sprayed with bloody crap. Maybe on the next dvd release, eh? What could have been.

The mix of horror, thriller, spectacular science fiction and realistic science-fiction is not balanced very well and makes it confusing to see what you are actually watching.

The movie is interesting in the beginning but after about an hour the movie goes wild and all of the sudden we get a whole different story and movie. I don't blame the directing, I blame the story. The movie also leaves more question than answers.

And what was Morgan Freeman doing in this? Don't be fooled people, his role is actually a fairly small one. Come to think of it, his role was an totally unnecessary one. Also Tom Sizemore seemed to be walking around in this movie without having any idea what he was doing.

The movie had quite some potential but the execution of it is sloppy. The movie also fails to get scary and tense, instead the scene's get more comical in a way. Even though the movie is about 135 minutes long, it still feels short and very rushed, probably because there are too many story lines going on at once. Also the ending was quite disappointing.

Certainly watchable because of the directing, cinematography, special effects and soundtrack but it's not a must see.

5/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

DREAMCATCHER is the most recent in a long line of terrible Stephen King novel adaptations. Usually, this would mean that Stephen King himself had a hand in the film. However, he had nothing to do with this bomb, so I did expect a lot more, considering that it was directed by Lawrence Kasdan (THE BIG CHILL and SILVERADO) and written by William Goldman, who gave us BUTCH CASSIDY, ALL THE PRESIDENTS MEN, and THE PRINCESS BRIDE. The script consists almost entirely of inane, expository dialogue leading us from one painfully absurd situation to the next. The situations and set-ups are so absurd, in fact, that the parts that are supposed to be terrifying and thrilling are simply asinine. That alone would be bad enough, but there are several other ridiculous events going on simultaneously at any given time in the film. I guess Kasdan thought if he continuously jumped around among several sequences, no one would be able to stop and realize how bad the movie is. WARNING: SPOILER AHEAD! I haven't read the book, but what gets me is that the story in the movie has nothing to do with a dreamcatcher, the Indian device that hangs over a sleeper and "catchers" bad dreams. It has nothing to do with the supernatural, but rather, is about an alien invasion that follows no line of logic. If these aliens have been around for 20+ years, according to the colonel, played by Morgan Freeman, and it only takes one little vermiform creature to contaminate a city's water supply to start the destruction of mankind, then how inept must these aliens be to have failed in this simple task in that amount of time? And what did the main characters have to do with all of this, aside from befriending Duddits? What is Duddits and was his only purpose in life to kill Mr. Grey, a giant alien worm at the very moment he's about to destroy the world? Maybe the book expands on all of this, but the movie certainly does not.

DREAMCATCHER

Director: Lawrence Kasdan, Writers: William Goldman and Lawrence Kasdan, Starring: Morgan Freeman as Kurtz, Thomas Jane as Henry, Donnie Wahlberg as Dudits,

Rating: 4/4

`Dreamcatcher' works on so many different levels. It works great as a drama, as a comedy, as an action film, and as a horror film. I'm a big fan of Stephen King's novels and I'm pleased that `Dreamcatcher' is a faithful adaptation, unlike `The Shining' and `Apt Pupil.' There's a whole lot going on in this film so without ruining anything I'll tell you the basics: four boys were given telepathic powers by a young mentally retarded boy named Dudits. Now they're grown ups and they are spending a weekend in a cabin in a snowy area. What they don't know is that the area they're in a weird disease is loose. The disease is really started by an alien that goes through your body and out your ass. Yuck. The guys have to band together to use their telepathic powers to save the world. I wouldn't want to tell anymore or I'd give a lot of it away.

I'm really ticked that every freaking critic out there is giving this film a bad wrap. Of course, it's a sick and disgusting freak show with aliens crawling out of peoples asses, but that's what I liked about this film. It's a drama that doesn't give a crap about showing too much violence or gore. The movie is what it wants to be. The first half of the movie is a good drama then the second half is a blood and gore fiesta! I really liked the dark and scary tone. The camera work was excellent and so was the lighting. I really liked the subplot with Dudits. Dudits rocks! Director Lawrence Kasdan does a great job at showing us what an alien invasion. I also thought Kasdan and Goldman created a great script and faithful adaptation. Goldman did adapt two other of King's books: `Hearts in Atlantis,' and `Misery.' Everyone in this film does a great acting job. Freeman was really convincing as a crazed 'alien-hunter.' The four guys were all convincing as best buds. I really felt a connection between them all. One of my favorite actors, Tom Sizemore, does some of his best work here, and Donnie Wahlberg also does magnificent as a mentally retarded man. I actually felt sorry for him. So if you like horror films so see this movie. For some reason I don't think it'll be as good on the small screen when it comes to DVD.

Dr. Henry Devlin (Thomas Jane), Joe 'Beaver' Clarenden (Jason Lee), Gary 'Jonesy' Jones (Damian Lewis) and Pete Moore (Timothy Olyphant) are best friends since they were kids. They have a powerful telepathic power, given by their weird friend Douglas 'Duddits' Cavell (Donnie Wahlberg). Every year, they join each other in the mountains in Iowa for hunting. While waiting for Pete and Henry, Beaver and Jonesy help a wounded stranger, with farting problems, and lodge him in their cottage. Further, they see helicopters in the sky, and animals very afraid leaving the area. Meanwhile, Henry and Pete have a car accident caused by a wounded woman on the road full of snow. Pretty soon they realize what is happening in that region. This film has a very interesting and intriguing beginning, recalling an X-Files episode. However, in the middle of the plot, it becomes an authentic `salad' of science fiction and horror genres, with ET's, monsters, lunatics and bizarre characters and many clichés. There are some scenes that happen without any further explanations. For example, why Dr. Henry tries to commit suicide in the very beginning of the story? How a leader can shot the hand of his man, like the crazy Col. Abraham Curtis (Morgan Freeman) does with one of his soldier, without any consequences? Why the team of friends apparently had not visited Duddits along all those years? What is the relationship of the powerful retarded Duddits and Mr. Gray? How could such a powerful ET be so easily destroyed? Why such a difficult to plant a worm in the water reservoir having such a spacecraft and being so powerful? Anyway, if the viewer do not think too much, this movie may be a reasonable entertainment for affectionate in sci-fi, horror and Stephen King stories like me. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): `O Apanhador de Sonhos' (`The Dreamcatcher')

Yet another failed King adaptation brought to the screen, completely missing everything that made the book good. While the novel was a sort of best-of-King medley, the film focuses too much on the sci fi and action elements of the story. This means that most of the characterization and plot coherency is gone.

The film starts out decent enough and stays pretty true to the book for about half of the running time, but then the movie shifts gear and turns plain silly. The book isn't exactly easy to adapt for the screen (things like Jonesy hiding in his own head), but some of the choices the screenwriters did are just moronic (the ending is painfully bad).

The acting feels kind of stilted (probably due to lack of background story), and most of the characters are just anonymous faces. This leaves you with a film that sure looks good and feels expensive, but that can't hide the fact that their trying to hide the cheesy script behind a layer of visual effects. King definitely works best on the page. [3/10]

This movie marks the beginning of a new era of `B' movies. `B' movies are the old fashioned, corny as heck sci fi horror movies from the late 1950's and 1960's. I am talking about movies such as `IT! THE TERROR FROM BEYOND SPACE' or even `PLAN 9 FROM OUTERSPACE' or any of those super cheesy, awful sci movies. This movie should have been called `THE MAGIC RETARD FROM OUTER SPACE.' Because, mainly, that is what was about, and I believe the screenwriter was definitely mentally impaired.

My first complaint is somewhat technical and I want to comment on the essence of drama, which is conflict. If you have a scene, there must be conflict, or there is no scene. This movie lacked SCENES! This movie is FILLED with excessive expository dialogue, and it is totally PAINFUL to watch. Expository dialogue is what you see in the soap operas. This is when the writer does not know how to tell his story, so he just has the characters talk in such a way as to simply TELL the audience what is going on. The prime example is the `scene' with Morgan Freeman and Tom Sizemore when they explain directly to the audience who they are, `the blue men' a bunch of super elite commandos who will shoot each other in the hand for lying. Also, more expository dialogue wallpapers this movie as ALL of the characters babble on CONSTANTLY even when they are alone. They talk to themselves, and conveniently narrate what is happening in the movie.

These are all signs of an AMATURE scriptwriter. This amazes me, because these problems are commonly known in Hollywood, and production studios hire people with Masters Degrees in film whose job it is to look through scripts prior to production and look for these problems. When these problems are found, the script is either rejected or rewritten. Who is the dunce that greenlighted this pile of crap?

OK, so now about the movie. Magic retards from outer space, giant penis creatures that slither or walk with weird legs and come out of people's butts, an Alien being that possesses it's victims and forces them to argue with themselves in a bad English accent, giant mutant eyebrows on Morgan Freeman, and an alien infection that causes extreme flatulence.

Also, the movie has a few flash back `scenes' that return to the four character's boyhood adventures. These `scenes' are PARTICULARY bad! The dialogue is HORRIBLE, as I mentioned before, and the circumstances are totally ridiculous. The acting is REALLY, REALLY BAD! I have seen children act before, and they can be good. But, they did not have much to work with in the way of the script. It was incredibly bad!

One other `scene' that was particularly annoying was when Dr. Henry takes the psychic telephone call on the hand gun. Yes, you read that right, on a hand gun. He is holding a hand gun when his psychic friend calls him telepathically. He holds the GUN up to his ear like a phone and has a corny conversation with Jonesy. It is REALLY stupid, and the actor was obviously thinking `what the hell am I doing? This is stupid!'

The scene in the cabin when the monster first attacks is pretty good. The monster looks pretty menacing and I liked the tension they created. But this is THE ONLY scene like this in the movie. And the whole bit with the guy reaching for the toothpick was really stupid. Why did he HAVE to have that toothpick at that moment? Was it really worth giving up his life so he could chew on a stupid toothpick? That was bad.

One more complaint: Just so you know, Dreamcatchers have NOTHING to do with this movie. Except for the fact that they have one hanging in the cabin overhead. I was shocked this movie was called DREAMCATCHER.

Overall, I hated this movie and I recommend you avoid it at all costs. I like good `B' movies. I hate to compare this to `IT! THE TERROR FROM BEYOND SPACE,' because that movie was actually enjoyable. It had that old, classic sci fi `B' movie quality that is really fun to enjoy. And, maybe, in fifty years, this movie will have a similar appeal. I recommend that you wait at least fifty years before viewing this terrible movie.

I only saw a portion of this movie on cable ( somewhere around where they meet the infected farting guy and some of the flashbacks ) and I know I didn't miss anything by changing the channel when Morgan Freeman began attacking the stupid worms with his helicopter gunships. The whole thing looked patched-up and rushed. I have not read this book as I am not a fan of Stephen King - "IT" was the only book of his that I finished; generally enjoyable, but with the silliest ending to a book ever printed. SK seems to concentrate on "psychic" ghost stories. And when he tries to introduce science-fiction elements into his horror writing - like this "Dreamcatcher" thing - it seems to fall way short of the Lovecraftian "Cosmic Horror" that he seems to aim for.

This movie will be a cult classic! I was enthralled with the four buddies and the first appearance of the alien was over the top. I had to look away the scene was ultra frightening. I have read a lot of bad reviews of this movie but I though the acting was wonderful The directing was good and CGI was great. I think a lot of people misunderstood this film because of the sub plots and genre twisting. I also thought Donnie Wahlberg is a gifted actor and much better than his brother. The cinematography was great and well crafted. It made winter into something beautiful. I would recommend this film for Stephen King fans and people who love SCI/FI Horror flicks

There is no real spoiler to this movie, because it's so bad that it will only help you to know the ending, so that you won't waste two hours of your life. I actually was dumb enough to go see this movie in the theaters, and let me tell you, I would have paid three times admission in order to not have to see this movie. Morgan Freeman reached a new low, Tom Sizemore took up another terrible role, and whoever plays the retard just ruined his career. The best actor in the whole movie is the alien that surfaced through Jonesy's (Mr. Gay) anus. I could go on for about three hours, just talking about how miserable this movie is, but I would be giving it too much attention.

After making a couple years search to find what could possibly be the worst film ever made, I think I've finally succeeded. It's really too bad, because Dreamcatcher starts out interesting enough, and drags down and down in a spiral of awfulness.

Five friends all have different gifts. Each year they get together and stay up at a mountain house for the weekend. The first thirty minutes of this movie are very intriguing and really spark your interest. All until you see the first alien, which looks like a human penis. The scene where one character is fighting with it made me laugh more then anything.

But if you're renting this film for a laugh, you'll be disappointed. After that initial scene, I didn't want to waste the energy on laughing anymore. The film gets worse and worse until you get to the point where you don't even care anymore. The only good acting job in this film is done by Thomas Jane. Even Morgan Freeman sucks in this movie. It's just overall awful.

I've never read the novel that this film is based on, and after watching the film, I have no desire to as well. It's just a craptacular work of film making.

Steer very clear of this pile.

I can picture the perceived triumph Laurence Kasdan may have felt when he landed the movie rights to a Stephen King property. Kasdan might have imagined a big come-back after his squandered, early success. But his movie is a raging pile of feeble, corporate-Hollywood-approved clichés. And King (who writes jejune garbage) contributes two dozen of his own lazy clichés: A group of adults who were friends as kids (It, Stand by Me) are hemmed in by a big snowstorm (Misery, The Shining) and threatened by a substance that grows along every surface (Creepshow), and a fanged/clawed tentacle (It, The Mist) shows up to bore us all over again.

Here's a small helping of the teeming awfulness in the first half hour of this movie: * The movie opens with a long, verbal product placement for Carls Jr. hamburgers * A passenger encourages a driver to speed through a snow storm, and gee, what happens? Darwin calling! * One kid wears improbably huge-dork glasses, one has red hair so that when the adult actors replace them, they can skip all that exposition explaining who's who.

There is no way to summarize this movie without sounding like a hyperactive 4 yr old. "...and then the friends get stuck in a cabin, and then an alien snake comes out of this guys butt, and then the guy becomes the alien, and then the guy pees in the snow and then a snake alien bites him on the wiener, and then the alien guy imagines he has an evil twin, and then the cabin window becomes a magic window, and then these kids join superpowers to find a missing girl, and then the aliens combine into a red cloud-forcefield..." Stephen King is absolutely ridiculous. Every elaboration he provides is insipid.

What a complete waste of three hot guys (Olyphant, Lee, Jayne). What a disgrace it must be to be an actor and have to accept jobs like this. Even if you know Kasdan is a hack, you'll be stunned by this atrocity. Saying it's "the worst movie ever made," doesn't come close...

Inconceivably terrible. Inept in every way.