Wow. Dismissed by most critics as simply a bad movie, Dreamcatcher deserves a second chance on DVD. Not because it's actually a good movie; in fact, it's utterly terrible. But this kind of awfulness, this kind of bone-headed wrongness should be seen by anyone who loves movies.
It starts out promisingly. We learn that four buddies share some kind of ESP, and in an interesting, quirky scene, one of the buddies, a car salesman, helps a woman find her missing car keys. During the course of the scene, the woman goes from intrigued, to mystified, to totally weirded-out. It's a close parallel to my reaction to the film.
About ten minutes in, the buddies go to a snowy cabin in Maine, and it's here where it all goes to hell. I don't want to reveal too much and spoil the pleasures to be found. And by pleasures, I mean the jaw-dropping, slap-your-forehead choices made in this movie.
I've never read the Stephen King book it's based on, but there are several concepts and scenes that simply cannot work in a film. It may work on the page, since words force the reader to be a partcipant in creating the scene. But film is too literal. Yes, a director and a crew can create an image that is suggestive and ambiguous in meaning, but some things, like farts, are just that -- farts.
That was a bit of a spoiler, I'm afraid, but it's really only the tip of the iceberg. The next two hours is filled with silly, unworkable ideas, stuff that might've made Ed Wood pause. But please understand: this is why I like this movie. It brings some truly out-there ideas to the table, and the filmmakers try to meld them with a serious SF thriller; they don't try to be funny with it. (If they did, it would be very, very Python.) In fact, a Dreamcatcher played for laughs would've been a better movie, but it would never be as interesting as this one.
I want to single out Damian Lewis, who plays Jonesy, who gives a fantastic performance. Seriously. The role of Jonesy is unplayable. (To explain why would be spoiler country.) Yet, a more established actor, I think, would've recognized the futility of trying to make the part work, and would've given a performance that undermined the serious tone of the movie, one that winked at the audience. Mr. Lewis never winks; he takes a deep breath, rubs his hands together, and grabs the role, desperately trying to make it work the best he can. As a result, Dreamcatcher transcends mere badness, into something enjoyable.
Where we saw it: dvd | We deign to rate it: outta 100I think part of the problem is King himself. He's demonstrated, whenever he gets directly involved in the movies being made from his books, that he just doesn't get the medium. He may have mastered a good yarn on the pages--but the reason his novels work is because you can sympathize and completely understand the thoughts of the characters from inside their heads. That's really impossible to translate directly to a visual medium.
As if to prove this theory of mine (which I've had for several years) he decided to re-do the Shining because he just didn't like that original version by that so-so director with mediocre acting.... This is arguably a direct demonstration of his blind spot in understanding that he just doesn't understand!
I'm reminded of stories told by Michael Chabon in his attempts to convert Kavalier & Clay to a screenplay, and how much of a learning process it was.
Ok--now I have to temper my rant by saying I have no idea how much King was actually involved with Dreamatcher, and I haven't seen it yet.
Posted by: Martin at January 8, 2004 03:21 PMI don't think King had a whole helluva lot to do with this production; otherwise, your comments are spot on.
Although I did like the remake of The Shining; it was fun watching the "funny" brother (as opposed to the "serious" brother) from "Wings" go crazy.
Anyway, can't wait for you to see this. You're in for a treat.
Oh, one last thing: where can I find these stories told by Michael Chabon you spoke of?
Posted by: Kza at January 10, 2004 12:37 AMDamn straight. "Dreamcatcher" is probably the most hilarious film I saw last year. I nearly hurt myself laughing at the "gun" scene. "Jonesy... Jonesy, is that you?"
And I've read part of King's novel... I think you've nailed the problem (at least partly), in that, no matter how unearthly and weird it is, it's damn near impossible to make a fart frightening on screen, but it can be done in print.
Posted by: Steve at January 21, 2004 11:58 AMOne thing they DID do right was the interior scenes in Jonesy's head. His category of orginization very much like Matteo Ricci (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0140080988/) combined with a touch of Borges.
The only problem with such a memory device, of course, is that it's intended to help you remember things, but in order to utilize it you have to have a tremendous memory to begin with.
Posted by: Martin McClellan at January 21, 2004 01:34 PMNah, see, this looks like another thing that probably worked in the book but didn't work in the movie. The visualization of it was nice, no doubt about that. BUT:
Why would he have a limp in his head?
And (I've brought this up before), this conceit relies on the assumption that knowledge can be forgotten, in the way a hard drive can be erased. In fact, if there was a monster invading my body and consciousness, and I knew it wanted a specific piece of information, I know ALL I COULD POSSIBLY THINK ABOUT would be that information (shades of Ghostbusters and the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man).
Now, maybe in the book, Jonesy has some kind of Elven eidetic memory that allows him to do this, but I don't recall it being mentioned in the movie. (I recall a discussion of memory, but not that Jonesy's is in any way special, like a mutant power.)
Posted by: Kza at January 21, 2004 03:45 PMOh, but it WAS very Borges; I thought that too when I watched it.
Posted by: Kza at January 21, 2004 03:52 PM