The style does not match the substance
Added 9/14/2009
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.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
I walked out after 30 minutes...it was that BAD!
Added 8/24/2009
I have NEVER walked out of a movie, however, I walked out of this one. This movie sucked so much. It would have not only been a waste of money, but time. I lost the money, but I sure as heck saved my time by walking out of the film.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Dreamcatcher (Widescreen Edition) (2003)-Sci-fi's first ugly look behind the bathroom door!
Added 6/18/2009
Dream Catcher (Widescreen Edition) (2003) could have been a good sci-fi experience for me but our first glimpse behind the bathroom door was just too unsightly, even for a die hard Steven King fan like me. As such, I can not rate this film at higher than 2 stars. If this visually explicit scene could have been eliminated I am sure I would have liked this film and rated it at least 3 to 4 stars.
It was enough to demonstrate that the creature gestated in the digestive tract of its host by the difficulty the victim had with eating and the resulting rude noises. The audience didn't need the very explicit lesson in Digestive Diseases. That scene aside, there was much I liked about the remainder of this movie. Pardon me for my sensibilities. I am still a Steven King fan but feel he should have stopped short at the Bathroom door since crossing that ugly threshold added nothing essential to the film.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Stephen King is King
Added 3/26/2009
Stephen King is the BEST!. I have read almost all of his books, and shorts. I have seen all of his movies. If you do not have a creative imagination, you won't understand his writing style. Hail to the KING!!!
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Aliens From Ur-Anus
Added 3/2/2009
As we all know, screen adaptions of Stephen King's books usually tend to stray from their source or just omit things entirely. Taking on Dreamcatcher is rather ambitious because it attempts to cram an 800+ page novel into a movie just over two hours. Not to mention that so much of the book takes place in people's thoughts and minds.
King's Dreamcatcher was an interesting take on the old alien invasion story, but with a little Stand By Me thrown into the mix. It wasn't King's best book, but it was a very good one. It involves four men, who as kids befriended a boy with Down Syndrome. As a result of their friendship with the boy, Duddits, he passes on his telepathic powers to his four new friends, creating a bond that lasts a lifetime. This bond comes into play when the four guys are on their annual hunting trip and they find themselves in the middle of an alien invasion. The invasion is only part of them problem coz the evil military is keeping the area under a quarantine and plans to kill off all those infected by the aliens(in the form of a red fungus called "Ripley Fungus"). Some folks are infected with eel-like alien parasites that incubate in their bellies and give them some rancid farts(kinda like some friends of mine) The military destroys the invaders early on, but one alien has taken possession of one of the protagonists and has a plan to infect the water supply.
Dreamcatcher wasn't a bad movie, but it might have fared better as a miniseries. Most of the important plot points from the book are in the movie, but in order to fit them all in, the movie moves at a fast pace, leaving little time for much character development. Once we get to the last act of the movie, Stephen King is pretty much given the boot and the screenwriters take control. This bugged me coz everything seemed rather accurate up to that point. Oh well.
The casting was okay. In the book, Henry is supposed to be more of a skinny, nerdy type, and Thomas Jayne just doesn't seem too much like a psychologist. Tom Sizemore was a great choice for Underhill as was Jason lee for Beaver. Morgan Freeman is the crazy Colonel leading the quarantine, but he seems a little more mellow and toned down than his character was supposed to be. It probably would have been much better to get an actor who had Down Syndrome to play Duddits rather than Donnie Wahlberg. I mean, come on!
The movie wasn't too bad. Not great or nearly as good as it could have been, but a harmless time killer. It's not nearly as bad as many reviews make it out to be.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
The style does not match the substance
Added 9/14/2009
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.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
I walked out after 30 minutes...it was that BAD!
Added 8/24/2009
I have NEVER walked out of a movie, however, I walked out of this one. This movie sucked so much. It would have not only been a waste of money, but time. I lost the money, but I sure as heck saved my time by walking out of the film.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Dreamcatcher (Widescreen Edition) (2003)-Sci-fi's first ugly look behind the bathroom door!
Added 6/18/2009
Dream Catcher (Widescreen Edition) (2003) could have been a good sci-fi experience for me but our first glimpse behind the bathroom door was just too unsightly, even for a die hard Steven King fan like me. As such, I can not rate this film at higher than 2 stars. If this visually explicit scene could have been eliminated I am sure I would have liked this film and rated it at least 3 to 4 stars.
It was enough to demonstrate that the creature gestated in the digestive tract of its host by the difficulty the victim had with eating and the resulting rude noises. The audience didn't need the very explicit lesson in Digestive Diseases. That scene aside, there was much I liked about the remainder of this movie. Pardon me for my sensibilities. I am still a Steven King fan but feel he should have stopped short at the Bathroom door since crossing that ugly threshold added nothing essential to the film.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
