El cazador de sueños

El cazador de sueños es una de esas películas en las que no te crees que los cineastas lo pensaban en serio. Es una burla de ti y de tu monedero. Un fiasco hollywoodiense del más duro calibre que, más que una película acabada, se parece a una versión de trabajo de un cruce entre un thriller psicológico y Estallido. Una estrella sólo por la prometedora primera media hora. (28.04.2003)

No he leído la obra literaria original, por lo que no puedo comparar, pero no me sorprende que aquellos que la disfrutaron quedaran decepcionados con la adaptación cinematográfica. Por lo general, Stephen King es difícil de trasladar a la pantalla, aunque podríamos contar con muchas adaptaciones. Después de Homeland, cada vez me gusta más Damian Lewis, quien lleva admirablemente el papel en Sueño de Fuga, mientras que los otros actores famosos también cumplen con un estándar decente. Creo que el libro era más elaborado y comprensible en términos de contenido, a veces me perdía en la trama de la película y me resultaba confuso, especialmente en la segunda mitad. La atmósfera de los primeros treinta minutos está muy bien establecida, pero los últimos treinta minutos son bastante peculiares. La impresión general es un tanto indecisa, por lo tanto, una calificación promedio. (28.04.2013)

Judging by the promise of the book and the resulting script, Kasdan fucked up King's novel pretty bad. Despite its two-hour length, the film remains incredibly short, in many moments without logical connections, and the overall impression is that Kasdan is not much of a director. Instead of giving more meaningful connections between flashbacks from childhood (and thus the personal history of the characters), and the events at the cottage and at the military headquarters, he lets the actors prattle on in such poorly written dialogue that it sometimes degrades into self-parody. Still, the two hours go by fairly quickly, mainly thanks to the actors and the uneasy atmosphere, which is more than enough in the frosty forests. And, despite the negatives I mentioned, I still find the film (ironically) likable, some moments of which will tend to stay in your head. 3 ½ [rounded up for no logical reason :)] (29.02.2008)

Very good atmosphere, the winter landscape really works wonders and favours the camera. The feeling of isolation in the middle of deep forests was also impressive. Plot-wise, however, it was a bit muddled, the flashbacks didn't hold together with the present plot and the slimy stick with teeth, or rather the alien invader, was rather laughable. Still, I can say that I survived the two hours quite unscathed, not least because I didn’t read the book. Otherwise, my opinion would be different, very different perhaps. (31.08.2004)

The main problem with Dreamcatcher is undoubtedly the screenwriter who cut and shortened King's original. And not only that. As they tend to, of course, he changed the ending. Basically, the first hour and a quarter are pretty solid but the rest of the film has to be confusing for anyone unfamiliar with the original, and for the connoisseurs, the ending is ruined. As for Kasdan, he did relatively well in the director's chair, except for the childhood moments which didn't have the right atmosphere. The actors also did a decent job - I think I was most captivated by the drunkard Pete (Timothy Olyphant). The special effects are on a very decent level and the whole story is accompanied by James Newton Howard’s amazing music. Too bad it didn't work out. Next time, make it three hours long and include all the action instead of two hours with only half. (01.11.2006)