MovieChat Forums > Dreamcatcher (2003) Discussion > i dont get it whas with all the haate?

i dont get it whas with all the haate?


this movie is good im not sure why people HATE it please explain

reply

I don't understand it either, I thought it was awesome

Saving People. Hunting Things. The Family Business

reply

ppl hate it becouse they dont understand it. Simple as that.

reply

So bad directing rather than bad writing?

reply

This is an overlooked masterpiece. In another 10 years or so, people will discover this movie and they will worship it as a cult movie. Too campy, too crazy and too hip for audience today. More I watch, more I love this movie.

reply

lol, you guys can't be serious...this movie was awful

reply

[deleted]

I don't get it as well, I like this film.

reply

This movie is definitely flawed, but I was entertained while watching it. It's way out there.

reply

i don't get the hate either. this is one of this stories that i think regardless who made it, is really hard to tell well.in the book which yes is better, no surprise there really certain stuff in the film wasn't explained very well or not at all in some scenes. i'm nearly done reading it for the 1st time and i'm loving it so far. and i still love the film as well. also in case anyone doesn't know Kurtz. or Curtis as he's for some reason called in the film, in the book he's described as having bushy eyebrows so he has them for the film.

reply

I was about to come here to discuss the same thing, wasn't expecting to see it as the first topic AND be a recent posting. When it came out I watched Ebert & Roeper review it and from the impression I got you'd think it was one of the worst movies of the year. To the point that when I'd talk with people who liked movies/paid attention to film reviews, I was afraid to even bring the movie up! Then I watched it and didn't understand why it was disliked. In fact maybe that helped me appreciate it. The same thing happened with Smokin' Aces, I heard someone complain about it and when I watched I didn't see what made it stand out as any worse than something else. Now when I look back on it I think it was pretty stylish and if you're a director that has to be something to be proud of, that your project had long-term effects and is more appreciated months later than it was the moment the person saw it. Many times the immediately exhilarating stuff leaves you within a week because there's nowhere else for your mind to wander.

reply

according to the trivia on here it hurt i forget the name of the guy who wrote well co-wrote and directed the film, well it hurt his career i dunno why? it wasn't that bad of a film. the movie isn't an Ishtar for example.

nor is it a Z Grade film either. i love both the book and the film. yes they did change some things, such as Duddits being an Alien in the film and he's human in the book. if i'm repeating myself i apologize but i just don't know why people hate the film so much. weather it's by people like me who have read the book or people who haven't and have no desire to read it.

they like to say where he wrote it when he was on drugs in the hospital after he had his accident. yes he did that's true but nobody ever brings up that the wrote Cujo and a couple other novels drunk off his ass. Cujo is one book of a couple that he drank so much back than he doesn't even remember even writing yet those books are loved. this is one of his i think Underrated films and Underrated books.

the problem we have here and i'm guilty of it too, is for people who have read the book we expect it to be the book. and we hope it at least follows it and sometimes it does and it's pure utter crap. and when it doesn't and the film is still crap we complain. this film follows the book i think pretty well,

it does leave stuff out. certain stuff i can live with, Pete's Death in the book is much more gruesome than in the film. he gets infected by the byrus which is what the real name of the ripley is called.

there's 2 kinds of that the one that will give ya sh*t weasel and that one can of course kill you. than there's the other kind of bryrus that grows crap on you. in the scene in the film in the barn they show you it.

in the book Pete Gets infected with it, and you get infected with it if you cut your hand open or have an open wound. Pete Gets it and it kills him in the book but that's only cause Mr. Gray makes it worse with his powers and it cracks his skull open. the bryus hates the cold and it can't handle the cold weather.

Henry gets it at some point and so does Owen Underhill and it never gets as bad as Pete got it in a book. mainly cause nobody was making it worse. and at some point due to the cold weather it dies at some point. a side effect is Telepathy

that for awhile Henry spoke to Owen like that. and Kurtz that's what he's called in the book chases after them and he grabs Freddy, and a couple of infected one who is infected with the sh*t weasel and the other just the bryus

a big black dude i forget his name. he gets killed by Kurtz cause he got pissed at him. anyways they track Owen & Henry from Main to Mass. and they have the infected follow them through telepathy. but once Henry and Owen Pick up Duddits in Derry. they are blocked. this should have been in the film but it's not.

not even having henry and owen get infected is in the film. this is a rare time where i enjoyed both the film and the book. they didn't change so much like say a Harry Potter film where they leave out extremely important stuff. but my take on it is no matter who makes it, cause of it's story it would be a hard film to make cause it's not one of his better known novels.

and as for reviews i could care less about those. they have been plenty of times and i decide to watch a film if i like the cast or the trailer looks good. or if it's a book i've read where i'm curious how good or bad it turns out.

in short it's my own decision and not no reviewer like Roger Egbert for example.
oh and sorry about my ramblings on here i didn't mean to make to this long a read

reply

Personally I think people hate this film because like someone else said, they can't get understand it. They can't get their minds to understand it. Insulting as this may sound, some films are too intelligent for people to understand. The same thing happened with the film Gattaca. When Gattaca first came out, people couldn't stand the film, because they couldn't understand it. The film was too smart for them to understand then, but now today, those same people have matured mentally and they now like/love the film. So in time, over time, the same thing will happen with this film. There's nothing wrong with this film at all but people who dislike/hate this film just doesn't "get it" yet. As a majority of the ones who hate this film now mature mentally in some years, they'll re-watch this film and "get it" and then love it.

reply

I think some may have expected a super natural thriller, what they got was a semi super natural, but mostly heavy sci fi thriller.

I think the marketing back when it came out completely avoided any spoilers about it having a scfi slant.maybe taking cue from marketing like the matrix. So i rember watching it for the first time and thinking hey there's no native indain spirits in this.

But then when i realized what it was, and then read then book, i fucking enjoy the hell out of both

i agree with you i love this film

reply