Dreamcatcher

Something to note about Stephen King is that while I've really come to love a lot of his books and just the way he tells stories, I have started to notice that a lot of his work, especially his lesser known works, seem to repeat a lot of the same aspects and tropes he's used in the past. Sometimes it doesn't matter and can contribute to a larger universe. I find it really interesting when his stories interconnect and he makes reference to places like Derry, Maine from IT, or characters have psychic abilities that might be connected to the same Shining ability that Danny has in The Shining. 

So in that sense, there are some aspects of Dreamcatcher that I find interesting. If you're a fan of Stephen King's mythology and story telling, you might find some enjoyment in this film. But that only can get you so far and eventually you have to recognize how horrible this film is. 

Dreamcatcher follows the story of four friends Henry, Jonesy, Pete, and Beaver (played by Thomas

Jane, Damien Lewis, Timothy Olyphant, and Jason Lee respectively). Each one of them have psychic abilities and the four of them gather in a cabin in the woods every year to reminisce of the old times they used to have as kids.

This particular year though, they find themselves in the middle of an alien invasion as aliens that burrow inside a person and explode out their butt start to stalk them. The four friends must survive the onslaught of "shit weasels", the military quarantine led by a ruthless, ridiculous eye browed Morgan Freeman, and sort of using their psychic abilities to save their skin...

And that's about it. That's not a joke... this movie is about aliens that explode out of people's asses and Stephen King thought we'd take it seriously. The problem first and foremost is the fact that the premise is impossible to take seriously. It sounds more like a plot of a parody horror film or a B movie, not a high budget Stephen King novel directed by the guy who brought us The Empire Strikes Back.

The second biggest problem is that this movie is full of actors who I think have proven themselves to do a good job, or at least have done it since this movie but just give either horrible or just lackluster performances in this movie.

The two big names I can think of are from Morgan Freeman and Damien Lewis. Now to be fair to Freeman, he's not a very well written character from the get go.

At the beginning of the film, they set him up as this hardened military general whose dialogue probably wasn't updated from the book at all. He calls people "Bucko" and just has some of the worst lines that I'm sure Freeman had the ability to make work, but it doesn't really seem like he's invested in this film at all so it's kind of moot. He's a good example of a character that I'm sure might have worked in the book. But when adapted to film, the character probably is true to the description in the book but that makes him only come off as cartoon-y and silly.

And then there's Damien Lewis.

 I'm a little bit disappointed with Damien Lewis. I've been watching him in Homeland recently and he's really good. But I think there was definitely some development of his abilities between 2003 and 2011. His character Jonesy starts out as probably the most interesting of the four and remains that way despite being posessed by the alien, but for some reason this meant that Lewis needed to have some kind of split personality complex between his American character, and a British accent alien that took over his bodily functions. So while he might be the most interesting character and probably the best part of the movie, he's still very disappointing in the way he's written and his performance.

The other actors really struggle to keep me invested both in their performance and the way they're written. None of these characters have very interesting pasts or backgrounds and there's not really an internal struggle that gets resolved by the end of the movie.

The character of Henry for some reason thinks about killing himself at the beginning of the movie and it's only really mentioned one other time. The other motivations for the other characters are either very week or nonexistent, and therefore I don't really care when some of them get axed off.

If I didn't care about Jason Lee's character, and I don't care about Thomas Jane's character or Damien Lewis's character, why should I care when one of their friends die?

Are there interesting parts about the movie? Yes. There's a part of this movie centered on the fact that Damien Lewis's character stores all his memories in a "memory warehouse". There is some cerebral elements of the movie that are really interesting but I think that is attributed to King's imagination more than the execution of the movie. Like I said, the whole aspect of Stephen King's universe being utilized for a new setting and conflict is entertaining. The idea of four friends having psychic abilities is somewhat interesting and in better hands could have been really interesting. An alien invasion where the aliens attack you in a very intrusive and personal way I think would be difficult but could potentially be made into something interesting. But all the potential is lost when the movie just wants to be a poor slasher monster movie.

The movie does another Stephen King trope where they show flashbacks of these kids in a small town with bullies who are psychopaths instead of realistic bullies.

I'm not so worried that this just seems like a repeat of other Stephen King works like Stand By Me or IT, it's more that these younger characters are boring. Maybe they developed them more in the book, but for the movie they just come off as weak stereotypes of other stronger child groups like Stand By Me. There is a weak connection to their experiences as kids to the present day, especially with their mentally challenged friend Duditz (who as an adult is played by Donnie Wahlberg), but overall these scenes are way too long and could have been cut down. They could have also been extended to make a more interesting story, but without any kind of development or even base for the characters internal struggles in the present, they continue to follow a trend of just being boring.

I really wanted to give this movie a fair shake. I have seen some very critical reviews of the movie but I wanted to go in and see if there was something redeemable about it. Unfortunately, I was very underwhelmed and the movie became entertaining not because there were good parts, but because it was entertaining taking note of all the things it gets wrong.

I think Stephen King is getting a little bit of a revival these days because the good adaptations have built on the mythos that King has established. IT, 11/22/63, and Castle Rock (I think, I haven't watched it yet) seem to take the great parts of their lore and update it to today's standards, not keeping it locked in the past to stay true to King's books.

Furthermore, shows like Stranger Things harken back to the good parts of Stephen Kings work and leave out the bad parts like Dreamcatcher.

But I do have to give King some credit. He has the ability to just write and throw whatever he can at the wall. Writing a story about aliens that burrow out your butts wouldn't be a subject that any normal writer could handle, but King is the only one I can think of who I would trust to do something like that.

The movie is not great, but I still do have to applaud King for creative ideas... even if not all of them are classics.

But those are my thoughts on Dreamcatcher. What do you think? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter, @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading!