Review of Dreamcatcher (2003) by Jarrett M — 01 Sep 2012

Dreamcatcher falls into the category of "the book was better than the movie", but then again most movies that are based on books do. This one goes farther than that. It almost feels like they were making an attempt at making a movie that would appeal to as broad an audience as possible.

Instead, they have managed to alienate everyone they were trying to attract. The film has no identity and can't decide what it wants to be. Sci-fi? Horror? Thriller? It is all of these things, but will not appeal to fans of any of these genres, resultant from a slow pace, bloated running time and a lot of exposition.

The film does boast and impressive cast, but don't expect to be overly pleased with anyone on screen. Morgan Freeman was one of the bigger disappointments here, although I really don't think he's to blame.

The direction seems competant, but is also very lazy, as is the writing. As you're watching the film, you kinda get the feeling that nobody really gives a damn about what they're doing and you start to wonder why you should either.

Recommended only for the most die-hard of Stephen King or genre fans. Although this may be test for even the most patient filmgoer.