CHUD.com Community › Forums › CREATURE CORNER › Creature Corner Main › Dreamcatcher. I don't get it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dreamcatcher. I don't get it.

post #1 of 41
11/18/03 at 12:52am
Thread Starter 
I just watched this and I have a couple of questions. Maybe I wasn't paying attention or maybe this movie sucks, I don't know. Anyway, here's my questions:


1. Why was it so goddamn important for Brody to get a fucking toothpick off the bathroom floor? Really, the guy got what he deserved.




2. If the snake things could lay eggs, why did they need to be inside a person? I mean, the snakes lay eggs and the eggs hatch. What did they need a host for?



I won't say anything else about this movie. Just don't get me started.
Reply
post #2 of 41
11/18/03 at 12:56am

Re: Dreamcatcher. I don't get it.

Quote:
Originally posted by soultaker
1. Why was it so goddamn important for Brody to get a fucking toothpick off the bathroom floor? Really, the guy got what he deserved.

2. If the snake things could lay eggs, why did they need to be inside a person? I mean, the snakes lay eggs and the eggs hatch. What did they need a host for?
1. Just nervous, I guess. Needed something to chew on to calm his nerves.

2. Dunno. Ask Stephen King.
Reply
post #3 of 41
11/18/03 at 2:12am

Re: Dreamcatcher. I don't get it.

Quote:
Originally posted by soultaker

2. If the snake things could lay eggs, why did they need to be inside a person? I mean, the snakes lay eggs and the eggs hatch. What did they need a host for?

Who cares, man, they're shooting out of people's asses!! And people use a gun as a phone, and the guy suffers horrible gas and body distortion from aliens living in his rectum and Morgan Freeman is insane and the menatlly challenged kid..well, we all know what happens to him "scooby doobie doo...we got some work to do now." There's a memory wharehouse and psychic powers and huge alien/helicopter battles and fingers and heads and all sorts of stuff dismembered and evil has a british accent....etc etc.

Just enjoy the ride. Thought this flick was a blast!
Reply
post #4 of 41
11/18/03 at 2:26am
Thread Starter 

Re: Re: Dreamcatcher. I don't get it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Vitus Werdegast
Who cares, man, they're shooting out of people's asses!! And people use a gun as a phone, and the guy suffers horrible gas and body distortion from aliens living in his rectum and Morgan Freeman is insane and the menatlly challenged kid..well, we all know what happens to him "scooby doobie doo...we got some work to do now." There's a memory wharehouse and psychic powers and huge alien/helicopter battles and fingers and heads and all sorts of stuff dismembered and evil has a british accent....etc etc.

Just enjoy the ride. Thought this flick was a blast!
As a Stephen King book I think all of those devices are really cool. Seing it in a movie was very much like seeing Billy Zane dressed as the Phantom.
Reply
post #5 of 41
11/18/03 at 3:42am
Not to nitpick but wasn't his name Beaver, or at least his nickname?

I enjoyed it right up until the end, it just seemed like a cop out to me. What was wrong with the ending of the book?
Reply
post #6 of 41
11/18/03 at 5:48am
I hated DREAMCATCHER.
Shit Weasels? C'mon, thats a sad sad attempt at intentional B-movie style "greatness".

And the acting was worse than anything in a Misty Mundae film. The kid that played the retard was...well...RETARDED!
Reply
post #7 of 41
11/18/03 at 6:23am
Quote:
Originally posted by shootitinthehead
Shit Weasels? C'mon, thats a sad sad attempt at intentional B-movie style "greatness".
No, that was a fairly brilliantly entertaining idea/concept by Stephan King. From what I hear, they screwed the adaptation royally on this one (I haven't seen the movie, but I loved the book), but from the sounds of it that is one thing they got right.

Quote:

As a Stephen King book I think all of those devices are really cool. Seing it in a movie was very much like seeing Billy Zane dressed as the Phantom.
As is this case with most Stephen King books. His style is nearly impossible to put on film without an overload of hokey cheesiness...all velveeta like.

Btw, Billy Zane in tights is never a bad thing.
Reply
post #8 of 41
11/18/03 at 6:58am
Yes, the book does come across as much less insane than the movie does and King's ideas are probably best left to the reader's imagination in some cases (a'la the shit weasels...there's no way any movie could depict what I saw in my head when reading that part...and its even more horrifying as the build up of the infected man with the gas problem is also better in the book.)

I just thought this movie was nuts. I'd never sit down and try to defend it to anyone, but the sheer amount of stuff they crammed into that movie and the tonal shifts, etc just left me kind of awed. It's kind of like Lifeforce in a way (though Lifeforce is the better film in my opinion) where Lifeforce just had so many different styles in it.

Dreamcatcher is like 6 movies in one. Now whether those are six good movies or not you'll never, ever, get me to say.
Reply
post #9 of 41
11/18/03 at 7:38am
Dreamcatcher was one of the most gay, stupid movies ever I have seen. Duddits was hands-down the MOST unrealistic mentally challenged person ever put on film. It was so bad, it must have been insulting to retards everywhere. That's just the tip of the Iceberg. The aliens were NOT scary, ESPECIALLY Mister Gay! Why the fuck did he speak in a British accent??? The writing in this was so bad, I can't understand why anybody signed on for it. It had some good stuff going for it, like FX and a few cool scenes, but overall it was juvinile to the point of me rolling my eyes or shouting at the screen every 5 minutes (and I was alone at the time). D-

God, nearly EVERYTHING in this movie was retarded and pissed me off. Ick.
Reply
post #10 of 41
11/18/03 at 9:19am

Re: Re: Re: Dreamcatcher. I don't get it.

Quote:
[Seing it in a movie was very much like seeing Billy Zane dressed as the Phantom. [/B]
HAHA Slam Evil!!
Reply
post #11 of 41
11/18/03 at 11:38am

Re: Re: Re: Dreamcatcher. I don't get it.

Quote:
Originally posted by soultaker
Seing it in a movie was very much like seeing Billy Zane dressed as the Phantom.
And what, may I ask, was wrong with that?

Next you're gonna tell me that you didn't enjoy Mr. Baldwin as The Shadow or Mr. Beatty as Dick Tracy. Madness I tell you, MADNESS!!!
Reply
post #12 of 41
11/18/03 at 12:23pm
I wanted to read the book before the DVD came out and I did manage to finish Dreamcatcher before the DVD date but I had no desire to see the movie afterwards. I'll bet a good two hundred pages were spent describing the smell of the noxious gas. How did all the farting and shit-weasels translate to film? Was it hilarious B-movie fun? I may give it a watch just to see Morgan Freeman's huge Fireball like eyebrows in action. Dear God. Did they actually put the Scooby-Doo song in it?
Reply
post #13 of 41
11/18/03 at 12:29pm
=NO!!
Reply
post #14 of 41
11/18/03 at 12:32pm
If anyone would like to re-live the visual-aid filled review I submitted to the corner back in March, you may do so by clicking here.

If it weren't for Gigli, this would've been on the top of everyone's list for worst film of the year. Hands down.
Reply
post #15 of 41
11/18/03 at 12:37pm
I remember the review


That is why I avoided it until it came out on DVD

...just to see Somerset with R. Lee Ermey eyebrows
Reply
post #16 of 41
11/18/03 at 1:30pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Beckmen
Dreamcatcher was one of the most gay, stupid movies ever I have seen. Duddits was hands-down the MOST unrealistic mentally challenged person ever put on film. It was so bad, it must have been insulting to retards everywhere. That's just the tip of the Iceberg. The aliens were NOT scary, ESPECIALLY Mister Gay! Why the fuck did he speak in a British accent??? The writing in this was so bad, I can't understand why anybody signed on for it. It had some good stuff going for it, like FX and a few cool scenes, but overall it was juvinile to the point of me rolling my eyes or shouting at the screen every 5 minutes (and I was alone at the time). D-

God, nearly EVERYTHING in this movie was retarded and pissed me off. Ick.
Wow! Even more juvenile than repeatedly using gay and retard(ed) to insult a movie? Impressive indeed!!
Reply
post #17 of 41
11/18/03 at 1:32pm
Quote:
Originally posted by bunnymud wants tacos
=YUMMY!!
I fixed it for you darlin'.
Reply
post #18 of 41
11/18/03 at 2:31pm
NO!!!! YOU RUINED IT!!!!!
Reply
post #19 of 41
11/18/03 at 2:36pm
My eyes hurt...
Reply
post #20 of 41
11/18/03 at 2:40pm
Quote:
Originally posted by shootitinthehead

Shit Weasels? C'mon, thats a sad sad attempt at intentional B-movie style "greatness".
The didn't even call em that in the movie. A sad sad attempt at putting King to film.

And FYI, they left out a whole lot of back story that explains the guys' ties with each other and the Beav's weird toothpick habbits and swearing capabilities.
Reply
post #21 of 41
11/18/03 at 2:41pm
Quote:
Originally posted by bunnymud wants tacos
=NO!!
No one refuses the Phantom!
Reply
post #22 of 41
11/18/03 at 2:46pm
The Inspector nailed my biggest complaint with the film in his review - why the hell would a Special Forces soldier dressed in black stand in the middle of a barren field and take on an attack helicopter!?!?!? Tacked on to the forced pacing and ludicrous moments (I really want Thomas Jane to be an awesome Punisher but his Adam West act got old, fast) and this was an absolute mess.
Reply
post #23 of 41
11/18/03 at 2:55pm
Having neither read the book nor seen the movie, I have to ask:

What are the chances that King named the character "Adam West" and was NOT thinking of the legendary 60s Batman?

Slim, I'd say.

EDITED TO ASK : Uh-oh...was the character named Adam West, or were you just saying that's the way he was acting? Damn, my reading comprehension has gone downhill since I took the SATs...14 years ago...
Reply
post #24 of 41
11/18/03 at 4:09pm
Quote:
Originally posted by The Inspector
If anyone would like to re-live the visual-aid filled review I submitted to the corner back in March, you may do so by clicking here.

If it weren't for Gigli, this would've been on the top of everyone's list for worst film of the year. Hands down.
Thanks for the link Inspector. I skipped your review when the movie came out because I didn't want any spoilers for the novel. It sounds like a laugh riot! I agree with your comment about Castle Rock optioning the novel without reading it. Jesus Christ bananas. How did anyone think that book would make a good movie?
Reply
post #25 of 41
11/18/03 at 4:23pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott Standridge
What are the chances that King named the character "Adam West" and was NOT thinking of the legendary 60s Batman?

Slim, I'd say.

EDITED TO ASK : Uh-oh...was the character named Adam West, or were you just saying that's the way he was acting?
The character's name wasn't Adam West, but about halfway through the movie Thomas Jane began acting (for no reason) as though he were Adam West performing as Batman.
Reply
post #26 of 41
11/18/03 at 4:31pm
Originally posted by David Toy
Quote:
Was it hilarious B-movie fun?
YES!

And that's all it was. Anyone who expected something meaningful, logical, intelligent or Oscar-worthy is still bitter about having watched it at all.

Prediction:
In ten years, when AFI makes their list of "The 100 Most Enjoyed Crapfests in History," Dreamcatcher will feature prominently on that list. It'll be up there with Ishtar and The Phantom. Wait and see.
Reply
post #27 of 41
11/18/03 at 5:22pm
I think Phantoms would beat it out


Why can't there be anymore GOOD King movies???


I just hope The Kingdom (I know..I know)doesn't totally suck Diane Sawyer ass
Reply
post #28 of 41
11/18/03 at 10:31pm
Dreamcatcher wasn't even a very good book. Desperation would have been a much better choice.

From the book Everythings Eventual they are making "Riding the Bullet" and "1408" into movies. To be quite frank, that was a terrible book and those stories were terrible. I really don't have more hope for King adaptations
Reply
post #29 of 41
11/20/03 at 7:41pm
Addix, I was just trying to sum up how bad the movie was quickly. I don't have the time or attention span to wirte a whole review, so....what was I saying? Oh, look Navy SEALs!

Inspector, your review is pretty good, only I disagree that any part of this movie (once the shit weasels are revealed at least) is the least bit scary. In the trailers, the animals running away looked super creepy, nearly sent chills up my spine. But the moment in the film was ruined by Beaver's stupid dialogue (another thing that makes me hate this--and many other--Steven King adaptations). I can't beleive good actors like Damien Lewis, Tom Sizemore and Morgan Freeman had anything to do with this. I think this might be the biggest practical joke in a long time. When did it come out again, April?
Reply
post #30 of 41
11/20/03 at 7:44pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Altar
From the book Everythings Eventual they are making "Riding the Bullet" and "1408" into movies. To be quite frank, that was a terrible book and those stories were terrible.
WHAT!!! The devil you say. That was a great book and those stories, while not the best in the collection, were very good.
Reply
post #31 of 41
11/20/03 at 7:48pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Capt. Eucalyptus
WHAT!!! The devil you say. That was a great book and those stories, while not the best in the collection, were very good.
I remember when you reviewed EE for the Corner...I also remember that my favorite story in the collection was the one you singled out as being crap. What can I say? The literary gangster story just surprised the hell out of me and knocked me out.

Just as long as they don't movie-fy "The Road Virus Heads North." Now THAT story was a steaming pile mailed in by his assistant. We get it Steve--cars scare you. Move along.
Reply
post #32 of 41
11/20/03 at 8:11pm
I was partial to the crazy waiter story in Everything's Eventual. That entry was brilliantly gory, I would love to make it a short film.
Reply
post #33 of 41
11/20/03 at 8:37pm
This car scares the crap right outta me...


Reply
post #34 of 41
11/20/03 at 9:52pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott Standridge
I remember when you reviewed EE for the Corner...I also remember that my favorite story in the collection was the one you singled out as being crap. What can I say? The literary gangster story just surprised the hell out of me and knocked me out.
Not crap, just the worst of a good bunch. It didn't work for me but neither did Tom Gordon so hey.

[qoute]Just as long as they don't movie-fy "The Road Virus Heads North." Now THAT story was a steaming pile mailed in by his assistant. We get it Steve--cars scare you. Move along. [/QUOTE]

Yeah I wasn't too impressed with that either. Now Autopsy Room 4 and In the Deathroom were both good stuff. 1408 would make a decent short film but I don't see it as a feature.
Reply
post #35 of 41
11/20/03 at 9:56pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by mrstiffie
And when did 'gay' become a term to denote something is lame?
I blame Three's Company.
Reply
post #36 of 41
11/21/03 at 1:47pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Capt. Eucalyptus
1408 would make a decent short film but I don't see it as a feature.
Of course, if King has his way, it'll be a 6 hour miniseries starring the cast of Wings...
Reply
post #37 of 41
11/23/03 at 8:59am
When did Gay become a term that means homosexual? When did fuck become a swear word? English is an ever-evolving language, is all.
Reply
post #38 of 41
11/23/03 at 1:44pm

Re: Dreamcatcher. I don't get it.

Quote:
Originally posted by soultaker
I just watched this and I have a couple of questions. Maybe I wasn't paying attention or maybe this movie sucks, I don't know. Anyway, here's my questions:


1. Why was it so goddamn important for Brody to get a fucking toothpick off the bathroom floor? Really, the guy got what he deserved.




2. If the snake things could lay eggs, why did they need to be inside a person? I mean, the snakes lay eggs and the eggs hatch. What did they need a host for?



I won't say anything else about this movie. Just don't get me started.
Since I don't think anyone really answered both questions, I'll give it a try:

1) It was a life long habit, not really something that he did when he was nervous just a habit and they're always hard to break.

2) The red mist/fungus, was what would infect people and THAT would turn into the shit weasels, they would make a messy exit and lay the eggs. I don't think that was ever really addressed in the movie.
Reply
post #39 of 41
11/24/03 at 1:23am
Thread Starter 

Re: Re: Dreamcatcher. I don't get it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Beautiful Nightmare
Since I don't think anyone really answered both questions, I'll give it a try:

1) It was a life long habit, not really something that he did when he was nervous just a habit and they're always hard to break.

2) The red mist/fungus, was what would infect people and THAT would turn into the shit weasels, they would make a messy exit and lay the eggs. I don't think that was ever really addressed in the movie.
I don't know why I let it bother me, because I'm usually willing to throw logic and reason out the window when watching movies. I guess it's because I enjoy King's books and this felt like it left out so much of the book that it wasn't worth making/watching.

The thing with the shit weasels is that they lay eggs. So if the shit weaels are capable of laying eggs and creating more shit weasels, then why would the aliens also use the mist to create more shit weasels. Seems like that's a horribly inefficient way to do it when the little buggers can lay eggs on their own anyway.
Reply
post #40 of 41
11/24/03 at 2:13am

Re: Re: Re: Dreamcatcher. I don't get it.

Quote:
Originally posted by soultaker
I don't know why I let it bother me, because I'm usually willing to throw logic and reason out the window when watching movies. I guess it's because I enjoy King's books and this felt like it left out so much of the book that it wasn't worth making/watching.

The thing with the shit weasels is that they lay eggs. So if the shit weaels are capable of laying eggs and creating more shit weasels, then why would the aliens also use the mist to create more shit weasels. Seems like that's a horribly inefficient way to do it when the little buggers can lay eggs on their own anyway.
I think the mist/fungus was the way that the shit weasels came to Earth, maybe the weasels themselves weren't able to survive the space journey and used the mist/fungus as the way to get here then once they got here, they wanted to revert back to the weasels but couldn't do it without the presence of the human host, nice, warm place for something to grow that doesn't like the cold.

WOW, an actual discussion?!
Reply
post #41 of 41
11/24/03 at 11:13pm
Okay, I should be able to recall this having read the book within this year.

The shit-weasels weren't supposed to be shit-weasels. They were supposed to be a microscopic parasite that would take over the functioning of the human brain while leaving the human bodies intact. Due to the climate, effects of our sun, whatever, this microscopic organism (born on the red mist and breathed into the lungs) mutated grotesquely.

I don't remember this explained very well in the film, but this was the point of the whole chase sequence to Quabbin Resevoir in the last half of the film. Mr. Gray figured out that if one of the mutated parasites (shit-weasels) laid eggs that hatched underwater, humans would ingest the parasites orally, thereby eliminating the mutation. That done, all the humans of the planet would be taken over by these things rather quickly.

At least that's how I remember it, an hour past my bed time and nine months past finishing the book.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Creature Corner Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › CREATURE CORNER › Creature Corner Main › Dreamcatcher. I don't get it.