Dreamcatcher

Dreamcatcher is one of those films that you don’t believe the filmmakers could have intended seriously. It insults your intelligence and your wallet. It’s not a completed film, but Hollywood bullshit of the highest (or rather lowest) calibre that resembles a rough cut of a cross between a psychological thriller and Outbreak. I’m giving it one star solely for the promising first half-hour. (28.04.2003)

Very good atmosphere, the winter landscape really works wonders and favours the camera. The feeling of isolation in the middle of deep forests was also impressive. Plot-wise, however, it was a bit muddled, the flashbacks didn't hold together with the present plot and the slimy stick with teeth, or rather the alien invader, was rather laughable. Still, I can say that I survived the two hours quite unscathed, not least because I didn’t read the book. Otherwise, my opinion would be different, very different perhaps. (31.08.2004)

Judging by the promise of the book and the resulting script, Kasdan fucked up King's novel pretty bad. Despite its two-hour length, the film remains incredibly short, in many moments without logical connections, and the overall impression is that Kasdan is not much of a director. Instead of giving more meaningful connections between flashbacks from childhood (and thus the personal history of the characters), and the events at the cottage and at the military headquarters, he lets the actors prattle on in such poorly written dialogue that it sometimes degrades into self-parody. Still, the two hours go by fairly quickly, mainly thanks to the actors and the uneasy atmosphere, which is more than enough in the frosty forests. And, despite the negatives I mentioned, I still find the film (ironically) likable, some moments of which will tend to stay in your head. 3 ½ [rounded up for no logical reason :)] (29.02.2008)

At least a hint of a snippet of King's solidly crafted (and nothing more) writing can be found in it where, specifically? If it wasn't for the cinematography, which captures the snowy Maine woods quite impressively, it wouldn't be watchable. (01.02.2005)

The main problem with Dreamcatcher is undoubtedly the screenwriter who cut and shortened King's original. And not only that. As they tend to, of course, he changed the ending. Basically, the first hour and a quarter are pretty solid but the rest of the film has to be confusing for anyone unfamiliar with the original, and for the connoisseurs, the ending is ruined. As for Kasdan, he did relatively well in the director's chair, except for the childhood moments which didn't have the right atmosphere. The actors also did a decent job - I think I was most captivated by the drunkard Pete (Timothy Olyphant). The special effects are on a very decent level and the whole story is accompanied by James Newton Howard’s amazing music. Too bad it didn't work out. Next time, make it three hours long and include all the action instead of two hours with only half. (01.11.2006)

More Stephen King crap. Once again, it takes place in the legendary small town of Derry, Maine. And while in It, the boogeyman from outer space at least had a need to adapt and disguise himself, since he liked living in the sewers and needed to feed on kids every 27 years, this film is such bullshit that I can't believe how decent a cast it has. (05.07.2020)

Dreamcatcher is not completely bad, at least the visuals are worth praising. I haven't read the book, but at times I felt it was a cheap mix of Alien, The Thing, and who knows what else. At least the actors do a good job, and in the first half, it had a pretty interesting story, which in the second half took a turn with cliché after cliché. (19.08.2004)

One of the better Stephen King adaptations and a slightly above average sci-fi horror murder mystery. Compared to the novel, the ending has been changed (primarily) and I dare say that a person who hasn’t read the book may not understand at first the scenes taking place inside the head... But there are well chosen actors, great cinematography and music, and quite a decent atmosphere. Three and a half. (07.11.2009)

Lawrence Kasdan made a below-average film that doesn't stand out in any significant way. At the time, it wanted to present itself as a blockbuster, but after eleven years, no one really cares about it. And deservedly so. This is a King adaptation that doesn't deserve much attention. It just tries to replicate what works in King's books, but it didn't succeed in translating it well onto the screen. A mediocre film that wants to appear as something a little more. (19.02.2014)