Review of Dreamcatcher

→ in
Tools    





I know it hasn't been released to the public theatrically yet, but I have seen it and would like to give my review...(with no spoilers)...for all MoFos.


I love Stephen King. I've always been a devoted fan of his work, and he's rarely let me down. I thought DREAMCATCHER, the first book he wrote after his horrific accident, was a rollicking, fun, go-for-broke novel that strutted tall.

King was in fairly conventional territory (and even in areas he's been in before; the book had elements of IT, THE STAND, STAND BY ME [a.k.a. THE BODY], and TOMMYKNOCKERS), but you felt the absolute joy of the book -- in its heft and humor and meaty, cinematic action.
DREAMCATCHER tells the story of four longtime friends who go hunting in the Maine woods every year. They have quite a past, these fellows. When they were young they saved a mentally- challenged boy named Douglas from bullies. They grow close to the boy, called "Duddits," and the special man invests in them something...powerful. Each man has some sort of odd ESP. One can see "a line" to missing objects. Others get flashes of the future when they close their eyes. Needless to say, Duddits is not your average mentally-challenged young kid, and the day they saved him -- the day they were "meant" to find him -- changed their lives forever.

In my opinion, this is probably the best adaptation of King's work ever. Even MISERY, which Goldman also wrote, toned down the book and made it conventional. Kasdan and Goldman take all the highlights from the book, roll them out, cutting down on some of the character stuff, but without losing an inch of the power. All the great moments are here to feast on
DREAMCATCHER the novel was cinematic. It had plenty of cool, swaggering action scenes and all that ALIEN stuff going for it. But Kasdan and Goldman were not blinded by this seductive material and smartly kept the more character-driven portions of the book, involving the relationship of the friends and their bond with Duddits. They basically change very little of King's book (he's practically a screenwriter here) and whether it was out of necessity or faith in its audience, I like that Kasdan doesn't shy away from the weirder and less commonplace elements

DREAMCATCHER, matching the tone of King's book, is exciting, rousing, swift, smart, and tons-a-fun. I had a great time reading the book, jouncing along as it drove over the edge, and the script does a nice job of matching that. I feel Goldman and Kasdan did as good as can be expected in translating such a long book. Reading it gives the impression that you are actually reading the novel -- it's that close -- but that's a testament to how slyly the writers have pared down the story (a dialogue snip here, a character gone there, a reduction here). But it's King's work, through and through and undiluted by Hollywood standards, and I think King fans -- who, like myself, cringe at a lot of the movies made from his books (HEARTS IN ATLANTIS included) -- are in for a welcome surprise.

However, you shouldn't be too worried. Because before and after that the script is damned good. This is by far the best script venerable Goldman has been involved with in years. It's sort of sad, really, that Goldman has become two things: the guy to call if you want to adapt Stephen King and an action-script rewriter. It's great to see him credited with good material again. (The last thing he wrote of any wealth was a rewrite on the John Travolta flick THE GENERAL'S DAUGHTER, and that was four years ago; before that, I think his last worthy script was MISERY.)

Kasdan, who is brilliantly diverse, is almost ludicrously perfect for this material. He knows how to do the whole alien-dogfight thing -- he knows how to wrench drama from extraterrestrial doings (thanks to those STAR WARS gigs) -- and he's the master of the character piece. From THE BIG CHILL (which, admittedly, people think is a rip-off) to his recent MUMFORD. Kasdan, who's a refreshingly smart guy, always colors his films with that aptitude, and though he's sort of dropped out of the movie world for a while and might just have been forgotten, this is going to bring him back -- with a Technicolor contrail of sparkling red across the sky. If the script I read is any indication, this is going to be a big, expensive movie with numerous shifts in tone. It's a tremendous job, and if it was anyone but Kasdan I might worry...but I have no doubt he'll handle it with ease.

Kasdan has assembled an interesting cast, made up of some of my favorite actors, but I can't agree with everything he's done.
First up we have Curtis, played by Morgan Freeman. Freeman is, bar none, the best living actor, and possibly the best actor of our generation. The man could make reading a laundry list intoxicating with that deep purr of a voice. He's simply outstanding. But in this role? I just don't see him. Freeman is about control and being unflappable and cool. I can't picture him playing this role as written unless he's bringing something radically different to the table.

The friends are played by Thomas Jane (Henry), Jason Lee (Beaver), Timothy Olyphant (Pete) and Damian Lewis (Jonesy). Let me first say that Thomas Jane is perfectly cast. I have a feeling this will be the film that rockets his career stratospherically. Timothy Olyphant, who you've seen in GO and GONE IN SIXTY SECONDS, is an underrated actor who will also get a boost from the film. Now we come to Jason Lee, an amazing, natural actor who can do no wrong. Tom Sizemore (HEAT) plays Underhill. And Donnie Wahlberg is the adult role of Duddits. I'm guessing Kasdan saw Donnie's haunting work in THE SIXTH SENSE and knew he had his man. Donnie pulled off this part perfectly. My problem, as it was in the book, is that Duddits is a woefully inaccurate character. He's sort of this angelic, mumbling man- child. Kasdan and Goldman dream up some connections to things in the friends' lives that I don't remember from the book -- especially about Duddits -- and they work surprisingly well. So the script has a greater excuse for its Duddits behavior.
DREAMCATCHER was a great book, and it's been turned into a damn good script. Goldman and Kasdan get everything right until the end, and they perfectly capture the freewheeling pulse of King's novel. As a lifelong devotee of King's work, I think the greatest, most laudatory thing I can say is this.....

Goldman, Kasdan -- You didn't screw up the book. Congratulations!!!

Grade - A+



Tuna's Avatar
Hi
This is nice..I was planning on seeing Dreamcatcher for the Animatrix movie but i can also catch a good movie along with it thanks.
__________________
Boards don't hit back



SPIDEI2_MAN__'s Avatar
BANNED
wow Dreamcatcher is nothing like i expected it to be.....



Registered User
thanks for you original post JRS..i saw dreamcatcher last night and immediately thought it would be great book to read

i've been dissappointed in the past with King novels turned movies, but you've definately made this sound like a must read story

i really enjoyed the special effects in the movie...i didn't know anything about it before seeing it and was really pleasantly suprised...and i agree with you about the casting (maybe except for morgan freeman, although it was quite a differnet role for him, so that was good to see too)

WARNING: "dreamcatcher" spoilers below
the bit where the aliens are caling "help us, don't hurt us" and the choppers comes in shooting at them was awesome, as was the explosion of their ship that followed (i assumed it was their ship)...

the worms themselves too were creeeeeeeepy with all their teeth, and very nicely done...i haven't seen a movie in ages that made me squirm

there were a couple of things i didn't get...Mr Gray, what was all that about....at first i thought the guys was a schizo, but then it was showing him driving the cop car talking to himself, but also back at the lodge "seeing" everything that was happening - for a while i thought it was a different guy...but there were only 4 of them - one died in the bathroom, the other out in the snow watching the girl, the third was with the military guys, so it must have been the same guy in the lodge and in the police car...please explain??

i also didn't get Duddits at the end...he turned into some sort of alien and ate the worm?? so the earlier comments about him being from another planet (although made by one of the characters when he was drunk) were right?? was he an alien or was it just part of his special powers to turn into whatever he needs to in order to win??



not having read the book, it did feel like there were some things missing, you could tell it was a bigger story made short...i didn't get the whole military presence thing...they seemed to "know" things, but the movie didn't really say how

JRS, or someone else who's read the book, i'd love to hear your replies

ps...what are spidergobbles
__________________
"So you take me for what I am...a psychopathic, schizophrenic, serial-killing, femme fatale?"



As I was watching Dreamcatcher last week in front of my friend's TV having breakfast, I saw the helicopters and them telling the people to move and get out of the way. Shooting down below and etc....They did know what was goin on. As far a I can figure it out in the film itself is that they (Morgan Freeman and his men) through their military equipment , found out the "aliens are here" and knew...."It's not where they're running to, but who are they running from??"



Registered User
WARNING: "dreamcatcher" spoilers below
no, i meant when the choppers were flying over the aliens and shot at THEM, not the humans

also, morgan freeman's character made reference to "having done this for 10 years"...since you've read the book, did he mean "chasing aliens" or "being in the military" for 10 years??



He meant (according to the book) chasing aliens and naturally, yes in the movie it is too. He has been following them for years because - according to the book, there have been previous abductions in the past ( by those aliens) that lead up to this very event .

When the ship arrives with the aliens attacking.....it's one hell of a ride.



well...as a person who's read the book and now seen the movie i can officially say that i was disapointed in the movie
don't get me wrong...it was great
but at the same time there were things most people wouldn't get unless they read the book and how they changed the end....not to meantion with how they ended the movie alone was a bit disapointing
__________________
The wold is full of kings and queens
Who blind our eyes and steal our dreams
it's heaven and hell



True...though with me i looked at the film and took the ending on the film's level. I thought it passed yet - - - one thing, it ended a little loosely. I wont say how it ended to those who haven't seen the movie but, if i had to choose the end for the movie myself? I would choose the book's.



wut can i say bout dreamcatcher other than it was a crappy movie.now we know wut crawled up their ass when they decided to make this movie



I'm not old, you're just 12.
As a King fan, I can say that this movie got pretty much everything wrong. Very few movies get Steven King right, but this was just bad. They took a truly creepy book, took out all the character bits, and replaced them with relentless Hollywood style "Action-Thriller" cliches. The Part with Blue Bayou was what made me hate this movie more than Morgan Freeman's over the top acting, the bad dialogue, or even Donnie Wahlberg's awful "Retard" voice. (Did he really need to spit out "Catch-Phrases" at the end? Is he the down's syndrome Schwarzennegger?) Anyone who's seen Adaptation will recognize the cliche of using a pop song as a recurring theme. I almost laughed that the screenwriter actually did that. But then, the same guy adapted Hearts In Atlantis, which was the WORST, most wrong King adaptation, possibly ever. The Matrix film with the CGI @ss was pretty cool though.
__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/



I'm not old, you're just 12.
I don't agree with that at all. I liked Kubrick's film, but I liked the book better. King used the haunted house genre to tell a story about alcoholism and confronting one's own inner demons, and Kubrick made an over the top movie about....Jack Nicholson going insane. It's a brilliant movie, but no, it didn't get the story right.



I would describe all the ways this movie sucked, but I value my time more than that.
__________________
Everything is destined to reappear as simulation.
Jean Baudrillard
America, 1988



Lets put a smile on that block
I think im a pretty good judge of a good film and a bad film and ive really gotta say i thought "Dreamcatcher" was absoloutly awful.
The acting in it was incredibly bad what with Jones going all British and Upper class "Jonesy! Ra Ra Cup of Tea anyone" and the dialogue in this film was so funny "We have to do something, or the ***** is really going to hit the planetery fan"

:! SPOLIER !:

Maybe it was just because i hadnt read the book and was expecting something much darker. Just the whole film was never really explained. What was the red mould stuff? who were the aliens they were shooting at and why and how could they read your minds? What was the big alien at the beginning that looked Jones right in the eye then turned to smoke and shot up his nose? What in the HELL was Duddits and why did he turn into that thing at the end and absorb (Id say it looked more like he was having sex) with that other alien? It was all just too strange, too comical and not explained enough. I was very suprised at freemans role in the film as well. he was a very starnge characetr that had one of the worst movie deaths ive seen for a long while....

Anyway, rant over, i just didnt like that film
__________________
Pumpkins scream in the DEAD of night!



The Adventure Starts Here!
I read the book. Haven't seen the movie. The ending is VERY different in the book -- and it actually makes sense! In the book, Duddits is just a mentally handicapped guy, not an alien. (Geez, what a crappy thing to change.) They also changed stuff about Jonesy too and who shoots whom at the very end.

All the red mold and aliens are explained far better in the book. And the whole thing does have this grotesque but hilarious romping quality to it for such a big fat book.

As with most King novels, I just don't see how it would properly translate to screen. King relies so heavily on internal monologue of his characters that I'm usually disappointed in King films (well, the horror-genre ones, anyway).

This one sounds like no exception. The several large changes in the ending alone tick me off. I'll see it when it's on HBO.

Linda



It was beauty killed the beast.
These aliens actually surpass the Signs aliens in the stupidity department. The movie is so wretched and lousy that it is actually funny at pretty consistent intervals so Kong was generous and gave the film ** of ****.