Dreamcatcher Reviews

Page 2 of 203
September 17, 2015
Creepy, suspenseful, and very entertaining monster movie! A-
July 29, 2009
worst stephen king adaptation ever. it has such a great cast too... what a shame.
½ July 8, 2015
Stephen King's novel is slimmed down and diluted to make it more watchable, and is more sci-fi than thriller or horror.
½ June 28, 2015
To me,the worst King adaptation period and end of discussion.
½ June 17, 2015
crap movie, crap book
½ June 11, 2015
Dreamcatcher starts off compelling and turns into a tedious, confusing, really stupid monster movie about people pooping out aliens.
May 8, 2015
Loved the short story by Stephen King. Everything was close to the book except the ending scene. That was a little disappointing.
½ April 11, 2015
Quite the mixed bag, with too much going on. The acting is quite good, and there is lots of fun especially with the psychic moments between the four friends. Their backstory is interesting, but the aliens....sigh. Bum lampreys for everyone
½ August 30, 2011
The movie makes little sense. If it only takes one alien in the water supply to invade Earth then why did the aliens wait until they crash landed to do it? And why did one of the characters try to pick up toothpicks when doing so would put his life in infinitely more peril? The movie had potential, but too many plot holes like these make the movie a stinker.
½ July 31, 2007
Nice cinematography and color scheme choice, although Morgan Freeman could've been a bit better.
½ February 27, 2015
I'm not a tough critic but this film was a letdown. There's some real craft here, but the story isn't interesting and the film left me feeling cold (literally and figuratively). Best not to see it at all.
½ December 27, 2014
Poor film treatment of an excellent book.
December 8, 2014
This is a movie about 4 friends who done something awesome. Later as adults they go on a hunting trip, one of the Jonsey finds a sick man and lets him in their home. The man is housing a alien in his butthole and has to poo it out. and that's where the scary stuff begins.................
The movie is very scary for younger kids, and has sences of nudity gore and disturbing moments. There are these aliens called the ripley eho just look very scary. there is one moment where the alien mr grey pops into nothing and then red mist and blood circle everywhere and that's very intensely scary.
the movie is to long though, 2 and a half hrs I think and drags von for a long time before the scary stuff, I like how this focuses on friendships and it's a lot like IT how it does it's flashback and does have it emitonal parts, but overall its trying to gross you out and scare you not make you cry. Stephen King is the best book athour and is awesome. This movie overall is vey sary and if your kid is watching this it does have a very gross part where someone dis on the toilet and if they watch it they mite not want to use the toilet ever again. JK but really the aliens are scary and this is a good movie
November 28, 2014
It could be better!!
½ October 16, 2014
Overwrought and over acted (especially Damian Lewis, who really chews up the scenery), The cast does their best with what they have here, but you just expect so much better from director Kasdan. It's over long and very confusing and really isn't that scary, considering the Stephen King source. The visual effects aren't that bad and it does have its moments of gore. Meh...
September 14, 2014
Considered a bomb when it first came out, it's gotten somewhat better with age and lowered expectations. I think expectations were too high when you had an A-List director like Lawrence Kasdan taking on a genre Stephen King sci-fi/horror novel hybrid, featuring a script by an Oscar winner writer, William Goldman, who'd previously adapted the terrific King novel, "Misery". Add on top of that a cast that includes Morgan Freeman, Thomas Jane, Jason Lee, Timothy Olyphant, Damian Lewis, Tom Sizemore and Donnie Wahlberg and it seems like a film that couldn't miss. I think the films main downfall is that it feels like tow different films. The first half is along the lines of John Carpenter's "The Thing" with a monster terrorizing a group of men isolated in the snowy woods. It's when the film drifts into an alien "Independence Day" government conspiracy story line that the film loses it's way. The second half feels like a completely different movie. Either the first half or the second half probably should have been shortened so the film would have had a consistent focus. Still, I really did like the first half and that's enough for me to be a fan of this film. The film also had a good balance of practical and digital special effects. I remember reading an interview with Kasdan at the time and he said something along the lines of, you know how people says it's always scarier when you don't show the monster? I totally disagree with that and it's way scarier when you show the monster! I remember thinking I kind of liked that aesthetic to the film, making sure it had a good scary monster. The story does seem to be a bit of a King cliche, which flashback to the now grown up group of men as kids growing up and having traumatizing experiences as children (i.e. "IT" "Stand by Me" etc.) Despite it's faults, it's not a bad film but it probably could have been better.
September 12, 2014
First half -> 4 stars
Second half -> 2.5 stars
Ending -> Lackluster and out of place
August 29, 2014
good film extremely underrated
February 21, 2014
This sucked. A total confusing mess of plot/writing with too much going on and not a damn given through out. The acting was average for most of the cast. The alien worms coming out of people butts? Come on Stephen King, you're better than that. The parts with cast were children was the only good part of the film but even that was flawed. The film seems too long as well, could've shaved off a few minutes to make it slightly less crappy. There are better adaptions of King's work, you should avoid this one by all costs unless you don't think what-so-ever, which even then is a little insulting.
February 3, 2014
It started off so well! But why did they start to change the adaptation so much from the book, subsequently losing almost all of its heart, wit, and most of all horror?! Big disappointment. Colonel Kurtz from the book is definitely the more interesting, sadistic and disturbing psychopath as opposed to the boring and pretty irrelevant (to the film's storyline, apart from a crappy action sequence near the end) 'Curtis'.
Page 2 of 203