2003, R, 134 minutes

If they didn't come from the same source, I'd almost call Dreamcatcher a rip-off of the terrible, three-hour long, 1990 made-for-tv movie It (the first half wasn't bad, but you couldn't pay me enough to watch the second again). This has better production values, a tighter pace, much better special effects (anyone remember that spider from It? Something Ed Wood would've been proud of), and Morgan Freeman. While Dreamcatcher is far from perfect, it's another one of those simplistic diversions that'll be forgotten soon after it's over. At least it's fun while it lasts.

So why is the film called Dreamcatcher? It's some Indian relic that's supposed to trap nightmares, but it's not mentioned a whole lot during the course of the film. I suppose Stephen King thought it would be a cool title, but lets get back on track. Henry (Thomas Jane), Jonsey (Damian Lewis), Pete (Timothy Olyphant), and Beaver (Jason Lee) are four friends that are hunting in the snowy wilderness somewhere in Maine. These four share a unique gift of reading minds, and talking to each other without moving their lips (yes, that does sound a lot like another one of King's creations, but of course, the average teenage-filled audience won't even notice the similarities to The Shining). Also, aliens have invaded Earth, and the four are in the quarantine zone where they're infecting both humans and animals. Morgan Freeman plays the leader of the "Blue Unit," a government agency sent to stop the aliens from causing the destruction of the human race. Fit in troubled actor Tom Sizemore as another soldier that's less insane than Freeman, and you get Dreamcatcher.

Dreamcatcher's biggest flaw is an overbloated running length. This movie runs far too long at over 130 minutes, and it prevents it from being easier to digest. There's a whole bunch of scenes that could've and should've been cut (especially at the beginning) and would've tightened the pace. There's no character development, except for some brief scenes at the beginning introducing the four, and how they use their gift. But I guess it's unfair to look at character development in a film that's not meant to be Oscar-caliber.

For what the film sets out to do, it does a good job. The aliens (a slug with razor-sharp teeth, and the "basic" alien with big eyes and a small mouth) look cool, even though they're obviously computer-generated (especially during the sequence when the military is shooting the hell out of an infested area). The film generates a fair amount of suspense, especially during an early scene with an alien being trapped in a toilet. And there's enough blood and gore to fill a backyard swimming pool.

As long as you don't expect much, Dreamcatcher is a blast. If the running length was shorter, I'd have no problem giving Dreamcatcher a full recommendation. As it stands, it's still entertaining, and certainly a lot better than It.