Dreamcatcher Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Four friends hung a dreamcatcher in their cabin. It's about to catch something it cannot stop.
Evil Slips Through
A circle of friendship. A web of mystery. A pattern of fear.
Catch The Nightmare.
Das Böse findet einen Weg (The evil finds a way)
Four friends sruggling with life meet in the Maine woods for their annual hunting trip. When a stranger stumbles in to their camp disoriented mumbling things about lights in the sky the four friends put in a struggle with a psychotic army colonel and a being that has taken control of one of their minds.
| Thomas Jane | Dr. Henry Devlin |
| Jason Lee | Joe 'Beaver' Clarenden |
| Tom Sizemore | Lt. Owen Underhill |
| Morgan Freeman | Col. Abraham Curtis |
| Damian Lewis | Gary 'Jonesy' Jones |
| Timothy Olyphant | Pete Moore |
| Donnie Wahlberg | Douglas 'Duddits' Cavell |
| Mikey Holekamp | Young Henry |
| Reece Thompson | Young Beaver |
| Giacomo Baessato | Young Jonesy |
| Joel Palmer | Young Pete |
| Andrew Robb | Young Duddits |
| Eric Keenleyside | Rick McCarthy |
| Rosemary Dunsmore | Roberta Cavell |
| Lawrence Kasdan |
5.20 out of 10 (17158 votes)
Visitor Reviews
what the hell
posted on 24 Aug 2009I don't know what went wrong with this movie. It had great writers, a solid director and a well chosen cast, but there was so much that I did not understand. Freeman, Sizemore, and Lee are all on my list as being actors I truly like to watch on screen, but not in this movie. Someone owes me 7.50.
The trailer was good... the movie was not.
posted on 10 Aug 2009Both the teaser trailer and the full trailer for Dreamcatcher did a good job at grabbing my attention to what I thought would be a "Signs" -esqe alien horror film. I give great kudos to the makers of the trailer. And those are the only people associated with Dreamcatcher that I give compliment. They did a good job of taking out all the wierd and unnessicary parts of the feature film that made it so very very bad.This will be a spoiler but believe me you wont be missing anything anyways! I was playing along with Dreamcatcher untill about 1/4th into the movie, where they just show too much. I may be spoiled by seeing M. Night Shamalan's "Signs," but lets get real, giant elephant sized larve taking over the world... and they have British accents!?! Putting top billing on Morgan Freeman capitalized on his big name, but he wasnt even in 1/2 of the movie, and his character was just around as a side-plot, a rather cliched bad-general who wants to kill thousands of diseased Americans without batting an eye.I got to see the Animatrix cgi cartoon, so thats good right? And the opening credits sequence to Dreamcatcher was cool! I would say the movie itself was interesting untill they killed Jason Lee's witty character. That was dissapointing. I'm honestly at a loss for words, this movie was filled with wierd computer animated creatures that looked like glorified boogers and fart joke after fart joke. Thats right, thats how the aliens hijack our bodies, by making us fart. Donny Whalberg's late entry into the film playing a 'mentally handicapped' friend was good. Whalberg seems to have a nack at playing characters with mental problems, a much better film example in "The Sixth Sense." But overall this movie robbed me of 2 hours of my life.I have come to the conclusion that, even though Steven King is a great author, there seems to be problems when translating his horror literature onto the big screen. Remember Thinner? The Langoliers? IT? Also not very impressive. King's dramatic work is excellent though, The Green Mile, Stand by Me, and (one of the best films ever) The Shawshank Redemption.So, my advice is: If you want to see a good alien-oriented horror film, see Signs. If you want to see a good Stephen King based film, see The Shawshank Redemption. Maybe wait to rent Dreamcatcher if you get in the mood for a bad 50s' creature film made in modern times... and watch it on a black and white TV because there really is nothing more one could do to this movie to make it any worse than it already is.Thumbs down!
great book
posted on 02 Aug 2009First off, Stephen King is a genius story teller. The book was absolutely incredible, probably the best book i've ever read. The first twenty or so minutes of this film were very entertaining but from then on, it went downhill very fast This movie could have been made a lot better. if Kubrick was alive, i think he would have done a really good job, unfortunately he's not. :( Anyway, the conclusion is that it was interesting, especially in the beginning, but it could have had a much better script, better acting and it also could have been more accurate to the book. 4/10
This is the WORST film I've ever seen in my life.
posted on 31 Jul 2009I can not believe Morgan Freeman of all people took a role in a train wreck of a film like Dreamcatcher. He must of been hard up for cash.What was this film even about? A bunch of aliens come all the way to American just to drive across country?I've seen some bad films in my day but this takes the cake. Amazing that it even got made to begin with. It's hard to even come up with 10 lines to write about this movie. Who were we at war with, the aliens or the military?Movies like this make me never want to spend 10 bucks on a film again. The producers and writes of this disaster of a film should quit their day jobs.
You won't believe how bad this film is till you see it!!!
posted on 27 Jul 2009Dreamcatcher should have never been made for the big screen, more like the small screen like other Stephen King novels like The Stand and The Tommy Knockers. Films like IT was a great idea to put onto TV instead of the cinemas. I went into this film without reading the book and with the book being a bestseller and a few mates telling me how good it was I was ready for a great suspense horror film and what I got was 128 Minutes of complete crap. I didn't like the look of it from the start and it put's me off reading the book but there are a lot of novels that have been adapted into movies and the movies turn out terrible but the book is still great so I will read the book sometime with an open mind but there are a lot of people who will just avoid the book after watching this. Jason Lee was the only worthy character watching and he went out of the story after 45 minutes so I was left with an extra one hour and 23 minutes of something that should have been something but like a lot of films these days turned into nothing. If Dreamcatcher was made for TV then I think it would have been a lot better as it would have had more time to breathe and make the friendship between all the characters more interesting especially when they were young like they did with IT because you felt part of their lives in IT but you have no care for them in Dreamcatcher.Morgan Freeman as well, what the hell was he thinking, must have been a gun to his head to sign on the dotted line and the same goes for Jason Lee who was the only character worth paying attention to. I am not to sure at all about trusting Lawrence Kasadan anymore with a film because he directed Silverado and Wyatt Earp which were two good films but could have been so much more so I don't think it's the writer fault, more blame towards the director and the actors because they were awful. I can imagine the script was actually quite good but the acting in this film is more than awful it's criminal and you can't get worse than that.. There was no thought put into this and it feels like the film was rushed in parts to be released for Summer and that sounds typical from Hollywood but this goes in the history book as one of the worst films I have ever seen and most badly acted since god knows when and Morgan freeman is starting to look like an actor who will star in anything these days, it makes you appreciate his roles in The Shawshank Redemption, Glory and Unforgiven compared to the crap he puts out now. Warner Brothers really do need to start bucking up there ideas unless they want to be left on the scarp heap the same way Disney are going at the moment.
The problem with `Dreamcatcher' lies in the fact that trying to convert a Stephen King novel is no easy task.
posted on 25 Jul 2009My initial response after walking out of the theater was, `I just don't know how to feel about this one.' I couldn't really complain about the acting; it was good, as was the direction from Lawrence Kasdan (`Mumford,' `French Kiss'). However, I think the real problem with `Dreamcatcher' lies in the fact that trying to convert a Stephen King novel is no easy task. As a matter of fact, it's bewildering. Between an intricate plot and troubled characters, trying to transform a novel of such magnitude into a two hour, and sixteen minute film is nearly impossible. But Kasdan did it, with flaws mind you. There are moments in the film that just seem to drag on and left me feeling drowsy. Then there are those moments when your hands are clenching the arms of the seat, trying to hold back your fear of what's about to happen on the screen.
To describe `Dreamcatcher,' first consider this notion-it's `Close Encounters Of The Third Kind' combined with a really twisted episode of `The X-Files.' It's the story of four friends, while on a weekend camping trip, encounter a stranger in the woods with a bizarre bruise on his face. Between this stranger's unusual story of being lost in the woods to his constant flatulence problem, the men try to help him by providing food and a place to rest. However, these four friends have no idea of the events that are about to take place around them-a government quarantine of the area and the appearance of ‘visitors' who overtake the mind of the one of the campers, played by Damian Lewis. Now one of the four friends (Thomas Jane) must try to stop a renegade colonel (Morgan Freeman) from killing innocent civilians, and what's more, the destruction of the human race from the mysterious ‘visitors.' Among the flaws that exist in `Dreamcatcher,' probably the biggest one of them all is that the story is too elaborate. When dealing with film, one has to realize that there are limits, unlike a book in which an author's world is infinite. For one, generally you don't want to make your film too long or else your audience could get bored. Second, it's easy to confuse the audience with too many plot intricacies. That was the problem that many critics agreed upon with Cameron Crowe's `Vanilla Sky,' the remake of a Spanish film called, `Abre Los Ojos.'
I was able to understand `Dreamcatcher's' story line, but I couldn't help but feel disconcerted by the whole thing; it was just too much. And the film was rather long, with trailers and a short computer animated skit prior to the film, `The Animatrix,' which was actually quite impressive. Performances in the film were good, but nothing great. Morgan Freeman is usually a good bet when casting a film. His role here reminded me of the Wolfgang Peterson film, `Outbreak,' in which he also played a military official pushed to the extreme in extraordinary circumstances. Thomas Jane, the lead actor in this film, has been in several films including `Face/Off,' `Deep Blue Sea,' and more recent romantic comedy, `The Sweetest Thing,' which starred Cameron Diaz.
All in all, `Dreamcatcher' proves to be too complex for it's own good, not to mention that there are some very grotesque scenes along with frightening monster-like beings. I would like to see it again, actually, because I feel as if I missed some vital parts of the story. I have heard that it more or less stays truthful to the King novel, but audience reaction seems to be mixed. **1/2
It had plenty of it's cruddy moments
posted on 19 Jul 2009I would first like to say that no one should ever see this movie without reading the book first, because that totally ruins it even more than seeing movies first usually does. *SPOILER ALERT* The whole thing about Duddits being an alien? No, that's not right and it annoyed me. I think it was Pete in the book who said that he even thought sometimes that Duddits "wasn't from this world", but nowhere was it said that he really was a bloody alien; the ending got totally screwed up, I don't have any clue what the director was thinking.Like many people, I think the first half was really good. Beaver was my favorite character in the book, and even though I thought the movie was mediocre, I thought his part was great. Jason Lee was a great guy for the part, even though his personality strayed from the book somewhat. The bathroom scene was near genius and even removed some unnecessary dirty things (i.e.: in the book, Beaver gets his balls busted).The guy who played Jonesy (sorry, I forget his name) was okay. He had a good American accent, but he didn't seem to have enough emotion for the things he was going through.Pete, as in the book, was underrated; he's obviously supposed to be the least likable character, but I thought they did a good job a making him a little more likable in the scene where he's alone with the woman(forget her name too). I was a little disappointed that in the flashback Beaver finds the girl instead of Pete, which diminishes his value even more.The guy who played Henry wasn't too great. He was a lot like the guy who played Jonesy and he kinda seemed like an idiot. I didn't like how in the beginning he was about to shoot himself (not that way in the book, but they did have to show that he wanted to kill himself), and as I sat there I was thinking, "If the phone rang while I had a gun to my head, I think I'd be shocked into shooting myself", but that's just getting nit picky, sorry.Morgan Freeman. Oh, Morgan Freeman. After Duddits's 'surprise' ending, this is what made me give the movie a low rating. What the hell, man? Kurtz was supposed to be crazy, but he didn't have as huge of a role as the movie gave him. I hated his entire part. He stole the whole movie, and as far as I'm concerned, the only reason he was in it was to have some bigger names in the movie, and he probably just insisted on having a big part. A movie like this smashed into just over two hours should have spent more time on the transition from the connection of the friends to sci-fi, and explaining things better, rather than the monstrosity that Morgan Freeman made.The thoughts of Jonesy were portrayed rather well I thought. The s***-weasels were just as SK described them in the book, and I guess the reason they were scarier in the book was because books leave things up to your imagination, so I in no way blame the director for that bit.I guess then (got a bit carried away and wrote more than I meant) I'll finish by saying: read the book and watch the movie for the bathroom scene and a little more characterization of Pete. At the end, you'll probably be disappointed, but you might want to go back and watch that scene again because it is so deliciously bloody and sadistically amazing.
Not bad... but not one of the very best
posted on 19 Jul 2009The movie was not bad, but unfortunately not one of the very best. There was too many things in it, that all of us have already seen in other movies. The story of a invasion form outer space (popular since H.G. Wells "The War of the Worlds"), the hiding of the alien offspring in human bodies (yes, we all have seen it in "Alien"), the little worms remember me to some parts used in "The X-Files" and so on, and so on. Some parts of the movie was borrowed from older stories from Stephen King too: Remember "It" or "Stand by me" in both the story was build up on a childhood-friendship of the actors too. So we see nothing really new in it, no new idea. It was build up on parts "borrowed" from other movies. The FX was well made and the story was good made too in its development, but a lot of the potential of the story was thrown away: I remember a very similar movie, in which a giant fungus grow under a town and kill all the people after he had learned to read her thoughts and later think for himself he was God. Unfortunately i don't remember the movie-title, but this story was really far better and contains a lot of new ideas. "Dreamcatcher" was not bad at all, but i can give it only 6 out of 10 stars.
not sure what to make of this?
posted on 15 Jul 2009Dreamcatcher is one of those movies that, when asked right after leaving the cinema, I couldn't answer if I liked it or not.At first I should note that I felt somewhat disappointed after every stephen king adaptations. Dreamcatcher had all the necesary ingredients to make it a block buster, yet still for one reason or another I haven't met anyone who really liked the movie beyond doubt. On the positive side there's a great visual language, well realised CGI and SFX work, and a good performance by at least some of the principal characters. But obviously that wasn't enough: both Morgan Freeman's and Tom Sizemore's characters lacked depth, or personality, or whatever one wants to call it. The plot (if one can call it that) runs on too many levels and is confusing rather than catching. Maybe the makers of this movie should have done it like Peter Jackson with Lord of the Rings, by choosing and focusing on one story-line (Frodo) and leaving out everything that's not crucially necessary.I didn't consider this movie a waste of ticket-money, as it is beatiful to watch and entertaining to a certain degree, but it sure won't make it on my favourite list.
Crazy Mix...Yet Tons of Fun!
posted on 07 Jul 2009Big Stephen King fans will like this film. It is not perfect, Morgan Freeman is over the top and arbitrary in the film. The four friends and Duddits are interesting. Kudos to Jason Lee as Beaver. Also, Jonsey is very convincing and it is freaky when he 'changes'. Good special effects. Worth your time if you love SK. There are aspects of the film that remind me of The King books Regulators and Desperation...aliens that can enter your mind and such. King seems to have a fascination with inner dialog and this movie explores this with a literal representation of someone's "inner library" and this becomes a key part of this film. Most reviews are critical about the haphazard way the film jumps between a 'buddy' picture and an 'alien' movie...but I found this refreshing because it is different. In a film with a more conventional narrative, the aliens would be a secret. But, in Dreamcatcher, the government has been fighting a war with them for 20+ years and no one knows about it. This aspect reminded me of MIB (but in this movie they would rather kill you than erase your memory). -Treats
I WAS SCARRED...
posted on 01 Jul 2009...during this one, but after I watched it, i totally forgot about it. Why? Stupid script with some parts that didn't make any sense whatsoever, wooden acting, very weak characters,... It could be one of the worst in 2003, except it got some tense creepy moments that make you watch this one through the end. So the horror part was quite o.k., while everything else was a failure.But, i wouldn't watch it again, if they pay me, so that's why only4 out of 10 (and for second watching 1 out of 10).
Promising, then disappointing
posted on 29 Jun 2009I read the book while on holiday last year; Stephen King's novels are always great holiday reads. I loved the book. The cast of the film looked promising. Morgan Freeman and Damian Lewis are always worth watching. As others have noted, the film starts very well indeed. It's true to the book. [ And yes, in response to another reviewer, the belching and farting *is* in the book - in fact King makes rather more of it than the film does ]. I'd also agree that not much of the beginning makes sense unless you have read the book. Once the action starts, though, it all goes downhill. Damian Lewis switching between an American accent and his native British accent is a brave attempt to deal with the book's discussions between Jonesy and Mr Gray, but ultimately it doesn't work. Perhaps because the British accent is a bit hammy. [ Oh, and as an aside - I notice evil has a British accent. Again. ] The final multi-way chase between Kurtz/Owen/Jonesy/Henry/Duddits is in many ways the core of the book and it seems to be just thrown away in the screenplay. All the tension is gone. This film has the same problem as many adaptations of Stephen King's work. Much of it is ultimately unfilmable - his writing is always full of characters struggling with their own inner demons. In this story they're "real" but usually they're just internal arguments, and these never come across on film. Unfortunately, they're one of King's principal devices in building and maintaining tension. And that's why this, like so many others, is ultimately a disappointing translation of the book.
The biggest mixed bag of tricks EVER.
posted on 15 Jun 2009This is one of the strangest movies I have ever seen. The center plot it good, the alien plot is surreal, and the entire movie is more of an acid trip than anything. The tricks this movie throws at you is astonishing and done extremely well. While it obviously has its down sides, the acting was horrible; the down sides are irrelevant to what the movie was about to me.
This movie was meant to send you can a ride and it did.The best part of this movie was the cinematography, which is beautiful. The huge camera spans of the Maine's frozen forests, the snow flakes drifting past the camera allowing you to see their shapes, and the scenes with the helicopters flying around was gorgeous. For me, this made the movie. The lack of pot reasoning is also what made this movie different. There is no real reason for the aliens to be there, but there they are.A perfect mix of horror and sci-fi that I haven't seen since John Carpenter's remake of "The Thing." Don't go into this movie expecting it understand it because you won't. It was strange, bizarre, scary at some points and an acid trip all the way through... I loved it!8/10
Worst Movie Ever !!!!!!
posted on 05 Jun 2009Please don't waste your time on this one as I did , I am trying to save you two hours of your life that you can never retrieve. I am ashamed that I ever watched this one, rent ANYTHING INSTEAD and I mean anything. I am also ashamed of the actors involved with this project. If I could have the two hours back, I promise, I would do community service for FOUR hours. TAKE HEED. There they be S___t.
It Was Cool *SPOILER*
posted on 05 Jun 2009This movie had cool ideas and fantastic special effects. It had great one liners and great characters, except for Morgan Freeman's of course. True it bothered me when they didn't explain how duddits could be a alien and have human parents but i heard that the book didn't explain it either. I still give it three stars.P.S. The shinning is the worst King film ever.
Four men will enter. Five will leave.
posted on 28 May 2009Four friends go to the woods to kill some malnourished deer. Some drunken army colonel kills it instead with his bare hands and then starts muttering something along the lines of "Damn Red Sox!" Then some of the townspeople start dying for some unknown reason, presumably because of climate change and 9/11. The movie takes place in Maine, which for some odd reason seams to be the setting for most of Steven King's work. The four friends, and their new friend whom they lovingly call "Sarge" must work together to solve the problem, before it's too late. Similar movies include: Titanic, Master of Disguise, and Good Burger.
I-doubt-this
posted on 20 May 2009VITAL INFORMATION IS REVEALED IN FOLLOWING TEXT AND MAY THEREFORE NOT BE APPROPRIATE TO READ FOR PEOPLE CONSIDERING WATCHING THE ACTUAL MOVIESay whatever you like but Stephen King is a great author, he may have a low worst-level but he can indeed write masterpieces. Unfortunately, I haven't read "Dreamcatcher" (yet) but I'm sure that the movie is on completely wrong path.This is a typical spooky - alien - horror movie filled with weird happenings, events that don't get explained until the very end of the film. (for example; "The Others" / Who is a ghost and who is not? , "Final Fantasy" / Is this really an invasion? ) It's these question who often make the movie worth watching, but in "Dreamcatcher" however, breathtaking answers is given almost at once, leaving the audience constantly updated about what's happening. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is not a very good idea. It's like removing kicks from a Bruce Lee movie, The Grim Reaper from "The Seventh Seal" and the Force from "Star Wars".A second thing that turns out very wrong is the fact that the monsters / aliens is shown almost immediately after approach. Learn from "Alien".Besides this "Dreamcatcher" has a very poor dialogue. Even though the cast is quite good indeed, the visual effects not bad either and some smashing mind frightening scenes "Dreamcatcher" doesn't gain much praise from me.I Duddits is therefore I-doubt-this(I think I've figured out the meaning of SSDD = Scooby Scooby Dooby Doo (or something like that))
Not one of King's best adaptations
posted on 14 May 2009I read the book prior to watching the movie and was somehow disappointed by the end. I didn't like the filmmakers idea of Duddits being an alien. The movie itself is still worth watching, as it has its good sequences. The story is very mysterious and exciting, at least at the beginning when you don't know what the hell is going to happen. The bathroom/shower scene is very good, poor old Beaver. It is a typical Stephen King movie, as many of his stories have these flashback-to-the-past patterns. Here it was nice, but lacked some kind of real emotional affiliation with the present. It could have been made better, no doubt. The boys are doing a good job, though to me they seemed to be too different from the book.
This is why Stephen King books should not be made into movies
posted on 14 May 2009Stephen King is the greatest horror writer of all time, hands down. He has given us such masterpieces as THE SHINING, THE DEAD ZONE, THE STAND, IT and many many more.DREAMCATCHER was a phenomenal book. Over 800 pages long, I often questioned how they would take an 800 page book and make it into a 2 hour movie. Well they did and they did it badly. DREAMCATCHER is the reason why Stephen King books should not be made into movies. They took a great book and made it into a god awful movie not even worth the price of a three dollar rental at Blockbuster.Even with Lawrence Kasdan behind the reigns wasn't enough to save this movie. First of all, they did not develop any of the characters. Hence, you really don't give a good hoot who lives and who dies.Second, as in almost all SK translations to the big screen, the ending is changed. Sometimes they are changed for the better--see THE SHINING (1980). But here, the ending is very laughable. I remember seeing this film on opening night and saying out loud "you've got to be kidding me."This had the premise to be a good movie. A respected director, a great cast including Morgan Freeman, Tom Siezmore, Jason Lee, Thomas Jane, Timothy Olyphant. The main problem was William Goldman did a horrid job translating this to the screen. Save your money and rent either THE SHINING (1980) or THE DEAD ZONE (1983), two exceptional SK books that translated well into films.
Good Film
posted on 28 Aug 2009I really liked this movie. I've never read the book, but i've heard about it from people who have, and they say the ending is totally different from the book. I thought the movie worked good, it kept the story going and didn't lose my attention. I like the special effects. The bathroom scene was definently intense. Some parts actually had me jump in my seat. I would reccommend this movie to anyone who likes to get their money's worth.