Skip to main content

If a Ripley gets out of this pine tree paradise, well, it just can't be allowed to do that.

Dreamcatcher
(2003)

(SPOILER) A puzzler for many. Not so much in terms of how a post-horrific car crash, OxyContin-addicted Stephen King could have written such a rotten story (at one point, before his comedown, he proudly extolled that Dreamcatcher would do for the toilet what Psycho did for the shower”, which, well…) – I think the circumstances speak for themselves – but how such luminaries as William Goldman and Lawrence Kasdan became involved in the movie adaptation, and how Castle Rock, for the most part a bastion of successful translations of the author’s work, could have tripped up so badly. Because Dreamcatcher is an unmistakably bad film.

As an unnamed production assistant told it, in an interesting interview with slashfilm.com, it was likely a way for Kasdan to get something, anything, into production after a project he’d been working on went cold (besides which, he hadn’t had anything do decent business in nearly a decade, and Wyatt Earp had seriously tarnished his resumé, even if less so than Costner’s). Castle Rock had first dibs on any King properties, on account of a string of successes with non-supernatural (Stand By Me, Misery, The Shawshank Redemption) and even supernatural (The Green Mile) fare. Of course, they’d had a few stiffs too (Needful Things, Dolores Claiborne, and most recently Hearts in Atlantis) but their track record was pretty good.

Which might lead one to wonder why they didn’t smell a stinker when they read it; they clearly hadn’t put everything he’d produced into development during this period. Perhaps they felt it was only right, given their special relationship and the significance of the novel, regardless of quality. And it was, after all, a big science fiction affair, with more obvious studio cachet, despite the shit weasels, than the King’s more intimate works.

Whatever the conversations behind Castle Rock doors, William Goldman clearly couldn’t make it work. But then, he’d shown reluctance to make fundamental changes to the Absolute Power novel, until Tony Gilroy set him straight. To salvage Dreamcatcher into a workable movie script, you’d probably have needed to jettison about sixty percent of it. And the forty remaining… Well, as has been pointed out, and obvious even to a non-King acolyte, it’s heavily indebted to It for its protagonists and arc (a quartet with a common bond stretching back to their childhoods discover that bond is particularly essential to an encounter in adult life). But I’d hazard that, if It had featured an alien creature that infects its victims through anal penetration and incubates through making them fart prodigiously, it wouldn’t have become one of his most iconic works.

Dreamcatcher more closely resembles an X-File as “satirised” by South Park. Or possibly, if Kevin Smith had made an SF movie, these would be exactly the aliens he’d come up with (an entirely derivative razor-toothed but anally-invasive worm entity; while the picture’s cinematography is pretty good in a snowy way, the creature effects are pretty awful). The Smith vibe makes it appropriate that Jason Lee (called, wait for it… Beaver) is in here, playing what is, essentially a Kevin Smith character replete with entirely lowbrow tastes and sense of humour (Lee had appeared in Kasdan’s previous film Mumford).

Lee’s also the first of the four to exit, in a particularly messy sequence following their arrival at a cabin in the Maine woods for their annual hunting trip. The entire movie is atypical of anything else Kasdan has done; it’s a bit like Barry Levinson making The Bay, when directors who wouldn’t normally give horror a wide berth decide desperate times are called for… The opening sections are at least intriguing, cluing us in to their shared psychic gift and how it links them to savant Duddits Cavell (played in adult form by Donnie Wahlberg). Thomas Jane is a kind of iffy shrink, Damian Lewis a kind of decent college professor, and Timothy Olyphant kind of sleazy (which is presumably why the alien savages his cock – the material is that subtle). However, by the time Morgan Freeman shows up as Colonel Kurtz (he was Kurtz in the book) Curtis, possessed of a pair of baffling eyebrows, the movie has well and truly gone off the rails, leading to a “special child is an alien is defeating the alien” denouement that doesn’t even stand out for how risible it is.

There are a few scenes of note that are at least interesting; Lewis is infected by the alien (they’re lazily called Ripleys, but for no identifiable similarity to Alien) but is able to retreat mentally within the walls of his “memory warehouse”, visualised as an actual library, while his external, possessed self has turned into Dickie Attenborough on a cocaine binge. At one point, all the animals run past the cabin, many of them infected, but given the CGI involved, it isn’t as peculiar as it probably should be. Yet it does elicit the line “Even the bears are scared”. Tom Sizemore is an army captain somehow persuaded by Jane to help him and manages to appear the soberest character in the movie, which is saying something. By that time, though, the movie has become an out-and-out slog.

Bad movies can be quite watchable despite themselves, but this is a self-serious bad movie, with polished production values and earnest intent, once you get past the potty-minded premise, and it means Kasdan is well and truly sunk. It’s notable that there were a couple of King pictures that did okay – Secret Window, 1408 and just barely The Mist – after Dreamcatcher but then no major adaptations outside of TV until It and The Dark Tower in 2017. One can’t help thinking the ignominy heaped upon Dreamcatcher deterred studios from taking a big chance for so long.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the