Dreamcatcher

User Score
5.2

Mixed or average reviews- based on 86 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 33 out of 86
  2. Negative: 26 out of 86

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

  1. NickS.
    Mar 20, 2003
    6
    The first thing I have to say is that I am a huge fan of this book. But like most Stephen King novels, it's too hard to adapt to a normal length film. There was SO much left out of the script and SO many changes made that I know it would confuse everyone who didn't read the book. I was able to fill in the gaps due to my prior knowledge so as it's own film, Dreamcatcher The first thing I have to say is that I am a huge fan of this book. But like most Stephen King novels, it's too hard to adapt to a normal length film. There was SO much left out of the script and SO many changes made that I know it would confuse everyone who didn't read the book. I was able to fill in the gaps due to my prior knowledge so as it's own film, Dreamcatcher didn't quite deliver. The storylines were all over the place as well as the tone. Kasdan did a nice job combining humor and spookiness in the film which was reminiscent to the style of another great filmmaker, M.Night Shyamalan. I'm just waiting for the 5 hour unedited DVD or the mini-series that should someday be made. Another thing, the adults were all cast very well even though poor Morgan Freeman had a dismal role and couldn't really shine. All of the kids' scenes were horribly acted and not very typical of Kasdan. All in all, it's a decent film that will make you laugh, make you jump, and do a decent job of entertaining you. But I definitely recommend reading the book before seeing this. C'mon, it's only about 800 pages! Expand
  2. AngelP.
    Oct 26, 2003
    6
    This movie starts out as the most brilliant of King's stories that were put to screen. About life and friendship with a smattering of the supernatural for good measure. Then about 40% of the way through the movie, it all goes horribly wrong!!!
  3. AlexH.
    Jun 8, 2009
    6
    Somehow, Stephen King movies never follow the book with the films endings compared to the books. Dreamcatcher isn't necessarily a bad movie, but it isn't a good one. As it lagged through the middle of the movie, I found myself waiting, starring at my computer screen, waiting for the movie to pick up where it first started.
  4. Ishii
    Oct 25, 2003
    5
    Well that made a lot of sense.
  5. TinaT.
    Mar 21, 2003
    4
    This movie was so godawful that it provided 2 1/2 hours of near nonstop laughs at the end of a terribly tense week. This is the kind of flick Mystery Science Theater would have snapped up in a heartbeat.
  6. Jovi
    Mar 20, 2003
    5
    How many times will Stephen King books get butchered on screen? The book is amazing, and the film's first 30 minutes delivers, however, after that it's all downhill. We go from a smart Sci Fi thriller with some great scares to your generic, been there, alien film. Very disappointing considering the great cast and director. They should have made this a mini series for cable or a How many times will Stephen King books get butchered on screen? The book is amazing, and the film's first 30 minutes delivers, however, after that it's all downhill. We go from a smart Sci Fi thriller with some great scares to your generic, been there, alien film. Very disappointing considering the great cast and director. They should have made this a mini series for cable or a 4 hour film. Unless you know the book, you will not know what the hell is going on and why. Expand
  7. AdamE.
    Apr 28, 2003
    6
    Metascore 30 ? Ridiculous! This film was messed up but the acting I thought was excellent and the beginning of the film brilliant! It's when the aliens appear that it all goes pear shaped.
  8. AlanB.
    Mar 31, 2004
    5
    I put a 5 rating for this because, honestly, this is a series of images committed to film that simply defies qualitative logic. It is, on all scales, the first film of this or any other century. Filmmaking has been redefined forever in the light of this mess that proves that even the most talented contributors (Freeman, Kasdan, Goldman) can be left wondering how the hell they got attached I put a 5 rating for this because, honestly, this is a series of images committed to film that simply defies qualitative logic. It is, on all scales, the first film of this or any other century. Filmmaking has been redefined forever in the light of this mess that proves that even the most talented contributors (Freeman, Kasdan, Goldman) can be left wondering how the hell they got attached to this. "Dreamcatcher" moves from astonishing to absurd and back while leaving the audience cursing themselves for having seen it and laughing at others for having not seen it. Truly an experience that simultaneously makes you better and worse for having endured it. Expand
  9. PituG.
    Oct 26, 2003
    6
    Was expecting much more.
  10. PhillipK.
    Mar 22, 2003
    4
    This film suffers from a serious identity crisis. The paranormal themes thrown together with an alien invasion and male bonding drama may have been successfully pulled off in King's book (I didn't read it) but these things simply cannot be taken seriously as a single storyline for a 2-hour movie. Kasdan tried to incorporate too many of the characters with backstories of their This film suffers from a serious identity crisis. The paranormal themes thrown together with an alien invasion and male bonding drama may have been successfully pulled off in King's book (I didn't read it) but these things simply cannot be taken seriously as a single storyline for a 2-hour movie. Kasdan tried to incorporate too many of the characters with backstories of their own and ended up spreading them all very thin. And the various plots/subplots seem forced and poorly tied together, probably because there was no time to flesh out what King took 800 pages to explain. Then Kasdan to make room for gross-out/whiz-bang special effects sequences on top of everything else. But who can swallow a movie that starts off like a credible Stand By Me-type buddy picture and develops into a story with hideous flesh-eating alien slugs, kids with ESP, sci-fi body-snatching, and a miliitary assault on a stadium-sized turtle-shaped spaceship (a scene which just seemed to come out of nowhere)? Not me. Collapse
  11. ChadS.
    Mar 24, 2003
    6
    Of note, "Dreamcatcher" gives the mentally challenged their own superhero. The ending is ludicrous and yet undeniably exhilirating. If the millitary aspect of the film was scaled down and the action genre inevitables(Freeman's showdown with Sizemore) left on the cutting room floor, you'd have a pretty good monster flick. The blending of "Alien" and "Stand by Me" isn't the Of note, "Dreamcatcher" gives the mentally challenged their own superhero. The ending is ludicrous and yet undeniably exhilirating. If the millitary aspect of the film was scaled down and the action genre inevitables(Freeman's showdown with Sizemore) left on the cutting room floor, you'd have a pretty good monster flick. The blending of "Alien" and "Stand by Me" isn't the problem. It's that third strand. Morgan Freeman and Tom Sizemore are unwelcome here. Expand
  12. TerryG.
    Jun 24, 2004
    6
    Anyone who read the book is gonna be disappointed in the movie version. To stay true to the storyline all the way to the end and then change the ending ruins the whole experience. Caught myself screaming at the screen (and my wife) "That's not how it ends!!!" Would've been higher if ending would've been the same.
  13. Jul 15, 2016
    6
    It's a stupid movie. A rather juvenile affair. You've got burping, farting, and aliens crawling out of people's buttholes. However, there is a sense of brilliance and imagination here. Deeper elements going on in the background to make it more mature than it otherwise seems. It really makes me wish I read the book. Unfortunately the movie seems to focus on the stupider elements of theIt's a stupid movie. A rather juvenile affair. You've got burping, farting, and aliens crawling out of people's buttholes. However, there is a sense of brilliance and imagination here. Deeper elements going on in the background to make it more mature than it otherwise seems. It really makes me wish I read the book. Unfortunately the movie seems to focus on the stupider elements of the Stephen King novel and leaves the more thoughtful ones to the wayside.

    Like most Stephen King stories, this is very character driven. Only it seems somebody forgot to tell the director that. There is painfully little context as to whose these people are or how their little catchphrases, nicknames, and shared insights originated. That's the issue with the movie. It's more intelligent material is left unexplained. It merely lays out the basic plot and asks viewers not to ask questions about the deeper fiction holding all together that was required for it to succeed in the first place. As far as the plot goes, it just leaves you wondering. Baffled as well.

    Yep, this body horror is all about the blood, guts, and bodily functions. The movie approaches all of these with a sense of glee and self-amusement. The results are surprisingly not terrible. I can't attest to how well it stays faithful to the source material, but one thing is certain and that's Stephen King certainly got imaginative with this one.

    It's all really bat crap crazy. Certainly one of the most unique and unpredictable movies I have ever seen. The cast seems totally committed, even if there is a certain hammy tone to each of their performances at times. It's the level of insanity on display that adds an entertaining nature to the film. It's hard to not be interested in what's going on even if you are just there to look for answers that will never come.

    I can't say I totally feel like I wasted my time on this one. I was certainly never bored with it. The plot and immaturity left me disappointed with the overall results, and it's certainly not scary in any way. That being said I still had fun with it even in it's childish of moments. Admittedly despite myself.

    Does that mean I can recommend it? Yes and no. If you are looking for a movie truly unlike anything else out there then it's definitely worth a look. It won't leave you completely satisfied with the end results, but at least it will get you thinking. However for those looking for genuine frights and thrills to go along with the gore, as well as a plot that won't leave you frustrated and clueless with it's more compelling elements, then you should likely look elsewhere. Dreamcatcher isn't exactly a bad film. It's definitely got it's enjoyable elements. It's just not exactly a good movie either. That's because it fails to touch on the more complex parts of King's story.
    Expand
  14. Jul 7, 2013
    5
    The idea for this science fiction horror film is remarkable. But the poor executions makes the film ends up as a ridiculous and pointless monster film.
Metascore
35

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 38 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 7 out of 38
  2. Negative: 16 out of 38
  1. Reviewed by: David Rooney
    30
    Overlong and unwieldy grab-bag of vintage monster-movie elements starts intriguingly as a snowbound deep-woods chiller, but gradually dissolves into a mess of other-worldly invasion and military counter-offensive.
  2. 20
    Perhaps due to the talent of everyone involved, Dreamcatcher moves with an oddly exhilarating awfulness that sets it apart from more run-of-the-mill horror films, which lack the imagination and budget to be so thoroughly misconceived.
  3. 40
    A really illogical and silly movie.