User Reviews

For 1984, this is a good sci-fi movie. I remember watching its as a kid. I was scared for days of the Snake Man in the movie. Having watched it recently, I noticed that it had naturally lost the terror that it instilled when I was a child. Despite this, it brought back foggy memories and allowed me to analyze and enjoy the film on an adult level.

The story concerns a project that allows telepaths to enter into the dreams of others. Inside these dreams they are able to help/harm the individuals from/with their nightmares. Dennis Quaid plays a young Alex Gardner who possesses the gift of telepathy. Under the study of Max Von Sydow and Kate Capshaw (forgot how attractive she was), Alex enter patient's dreams and tries to help them. But with this ability, there are others that would use it as a weapon. When the President (Eddie Albert) begins having haunting nightmares, can someone help him escape his dreams before its too late?

Dreamscape delivers some of the eighties creativity and originality that we can only hope for in today's movies. Take out the gore and grotesqueness of "The Cell" and you could say this movie was its inspiration.

"Dreamscape" does require a little more suspension of disbelief that most entries in the sci-fi genre, but adds up to well-paced, generally enjoyable, occasionally exciting film. Effects are somewhat dated today, but Quaid's charming, confident performance makes up for that. Definitely a minor picture, but still unjustly neglected.

The idea is fantastic. Can you imagine being able to get into other people's dreams, watch them, interact with them. The problem is, the plot is inconclusive and becomes kind of a TV movie along the way. It would make a fantastic remake with a stronger cast and director. However, movies about dreaming are always scary because they touch on something so close and yet inexplicable to all of us. I saw recently a short movie from Italy entitled "Xchange" which is the closest to this one in terms of innovation insofar as the subject is concerned. Not an easy area to tell a long story about. Dreams are often used as omens or hints of psychological discomfort in movies. Instead, it would be great if they could be regarded as something different: a world of their own, a parallel state of mind no less real than real life itself. Someone should redo Dreamscape!

One of my favs from the 80's. There are certain pictures that grown-ups look to bring them back to the action/suspense/scare/titillation they felt as teen-agers. This fits the bill perfectly. I saw this as original release in the movies in my 30's, allowed myself to let the teenager within to take over, and have seen it at least 3-4 more times on TV. Just love it. Quaid is perfect as the charming/bumbling psychic recruited to (presumably) help people with dream problems. OK, so Kate Capshaw isn't a great actress, but she was quite good enough in the sexy-hot, yet resistant, scientist role she was meant to play. Max Von Sydow was perfect here as the main scientist. At first I was disappointed in Plummer's underplayed role, but I'm more forgiving in the subsequent viewings. The dream sequences were quite entertaining, some fun and some scares, and David Patrick Kelly (as Tommy Ray Glatman) did a FIRST CLASS job as a despicable psychopathic creep. And the ending was top-notch (on several levels, no spoilers). Despite comments that this seemed to copy others, I actually found this to be quite original. It had a plotline, continuity, and finale, and viewers didn't have to scratch their heads trying to figure out what happened or what would happen. I actually appreciate movies which don't rely on TONS of new wave computerized special effects, just enough from the 80's to set the scenery. I always recommend it highly to those who haven't seen it.

It will earn your respect as a film and you will be intrigued, but not a film you'll write home about.

Alex Gardner (Dennis Quaid) is a psychic, he is in tune with his subconscious, once involved with the studies of Dr Paul Novotny (Max von Sydow) he is now an outcast, trying to live off the grid. He survives by gambling, his ability to predict horse race winners, makes this line of work easy pickings, accept there is a gang of thugs on to his abilities and want a cut of the pie.

Whether Alex is rescued or not is up for discussion, but he is whisked off to a campus and persuaded to work once again under his protege Dr Novotny in a project funded by the government. This project is to enter people's dreams, they then have the ability to alter the dream, curing night terrors etc. Something sinister is lurking though, otherwise we wouldn't have a movie.

Despite its obvious flaws, it is quite a solid flick and would be enjoyed by any sci-fi enthusiast. The cast are brilliant including Kate Capshaw as the beautiful Jane DeVries, David Patrick Kelly as the creepy Tommy Ray Glatman and a host of other names you'll recognise, Christopher Plummer, Peter Jason, George Wendt and Eddie Albert.

I might be a bit harsh to say the writing is bad, but there are enough kinks in its armour to say so, the flow is definitely off, whether this is due to writing or editing I don't know. It is a very good story, and it is as if there was a much bigger plan, but maybe money or something else got in the way of executing exactly what was wanted, it felt like it had lost 30 mins in the middle somewhere. All in all, a good watch.

Cheese moment: Not the cheesiest of films, but it has its moments. The scene when he is being chased by the govt agents, they are on foot while he is on a motorbike.

Psychic Alex Gardner (Dennis Quaid) is recruited for a government-funded institute. In it psychics are able to get into peoples' dreams and interact with them. However one subject dies while in this state and Alex realizes something is wrong. And the President (Eddie Albert) is going to visit the institute for some nightmares he is having...

I enjoyed watching this but realized, after it was over, that it didn't make a whole lot of sense and there were plot holes left and right. Still, it moves quickly and the dream sequences themselves were lots of fun. This was also the second PG-13 rating ever released. It was cut to get that (a sex scene between Quaid and Kate Capshaw was almost completely dropped) but there were some complaints about the amount of violence (none of which was cut) that was allowed in. By today's standards though it's not that bad.

Quaid is good--he's young, handsome and not taking any of this seriously. Max von Sydow is very good as the head doctor of the research. Kate Capshaw is pretty terrible as his assistant. Christopher Plummer seems to be proving he can say his lines without moving a muscle in his face. Albert is lots of fun as the President and David Patrick Kelly almost runs away with the movie as Tommy Ray Glatin.

So a quick, fun little movie. Just don't think about it too much.

Alex Gardner (Dennis Quaid) has psychic abilities which he uses to win horse races. Bad guys are after him and he's had it with doctors prodding him. He left doctor Paul Novotny (Max von Sydow) years ago. Along with Dr. Jane DeVries (Kate Capshaw), they are researching entering other people's dreams. Brash Tommy Ray Glatman (David Patrick Kelly) is another psychic in the program. Bob Blair (Christopher Plummer) runs the program. The president (Eddie Albert) is having nightmares and he asks for Bob's help. Charlie Prince (George Wendt) is a horror writer, who is looking to write a book, tells him that Bob is the most powerful man in the US government.

The part that is holding this movie back are the dreams. It has to be considered that this is before CG. I really like the kid's nightmare. It has a Twilight Zone and horror feel. The president's nightmare isn't quite as good. The battle could be more inventive. It is constrained by technology more than the imagination. Dennis Quaid has the cockiness and he's good as the lead.

I agree with most of the posters here. This is lightweight entertainment but it's great fun, especially if you like your SF. Performances are reasonable - there's some action, a love interest and some nice effects. There's also some pretty bad effects - I'm talking about the snake man which was like a rubbish version of Ray Harryhausen (of whom I'm a fan, but this just sucked.)

A special mention goes to the music which will not be on your list of top sound tracks.

Don't expect anything much - just sit back and enjoy this slice of 80's pulp SF.

So the German Blu Ray promoted this as the movie that was there before Inception - and also being way better than the Nolan movie. Let's be clear, you can't deny this existed before Inception. Yet the movies are not the same things for once and Inception is the far superior movie. That being said, this has a few things going for it. The casting is one of them. More than stellar cast overall, with great performances.

The movie worked even when it had some bumps/flaws along the road. The pacing and some inconsistencies along the way may deter some from viewing or make them annoyed. Cliches and more turns than some may expect, this still is as predictable as they come. But remains entertaining if you let yourself immerse into it

A young psychic (Dennis Quaid) on the run from himself is recruited by a government agency experimenting with the use of the dream-sharing technology and is given the inverse task of planting an idea into the mind of the U.S. president.

According to author Roger Zelazny, the film developed from an initial outline that he wrote in 1981, based in part upon his novella "He Who Shapes" and novel The Dream Master. He was not involved in the project after 20th Century Fox bought his outline. Because he did not write the film treatment or the script, his name does not appear in the credits.

This really ought to be a bigger film today (2017), but I don't know that it has a very large cult following. Such a great concept, it would have perfectly called for sequels or perhaps an ongoing television series.

The whole concept of this movie was pretty interesting. The ability to go into someones dream and help them face their nightmares. But the only people who can do it are psychics. At first you are hook to a machine, but if you are strong enough, you can do it without the machine. The cast was pretty good. Dennis Quaid did a decent job. I guess you could say he had an enemy and it was David Patrick Kelly. He was pretty good too. More creepy than anything. The one thing this film lacked was story. It jumped around way too much. Plus it rushed a lot. The whole time you want to see Dennis Quaid in a dream, but when he finally gets into one, the scene doesn't last that long. That is the whole point to the movie; the dreams. The last dream he enters is longer, but still rushed. Maybe they were just afraid to extend the movie, I am not sure. But if done right, it could of been fantastic.

Years after studying Alex Gardner (Dennis Quaid) for his psychic abilities, Dr. Paul Novotny (Max von Sydow) tracks him down to talk him into experimenting with psychic dream research. However, higher ups in the dream research program may have ulterior, nefarious motives.

Dreamscape may be a good candidate for "most misleading poster art". The theatrical poster, which is also the DVD cover, suggests a kid-oriented, slightly hokey adventure film--perhaps a combination of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984), The Neverending Story (1984) and "The Hardy Boys Mysteries" (1977). Not that the combination sounds like a bad idea to me, but this film is much more adult, much more sci-fi, and more of a thriller. It's not really an adventure, although some of the dream material could be seen that way. The tone, if not content, is closer to something like Coma (1978), and later films like Flatliners (1990) and The Cell (2000), the latter being obviously influenced by Dreamscape. It also has a bit of the bizarre surrealist tone of late-1970s fare such as Phantasm (1979) (and this aspect also influenced films like The Cell).

Part of the reason the films works as well as it does is the cast. Dennis Quaid carries the film, frequently injecting enjoyable comic relief. Max von Sydow is always excellent. Kate Capshaw, as Jane DeVries, is also good as the research assistant and Alex' love interest. Although they're underused, Christopher Plummer, Eddie Albert, George Wendt and David Patrick Kelly all turn in superb performances as well.

Director Joseph Ruben frequently treats us to great dream sequences, with often-subtle touches. Note, for example, the different colors upon entering different persons' dreams. For the relatively benign construction worker, the entry is blue. For the child troubled with nightmares, there is a complex of colors. For Jane, who is giving Alex the cold shoulder, the color is an icy silver-white. Although the film was relatively low budget, and effects relatively primitive at the time, I thought all of the effects worked well. I even loved the part stop-motion, part guy-in-a-costume snake-man. At times the stop motion work briefly resembled Harryhausen. I especially loved the more surreal and more horrific aspects of the dreamworlds, such as we see from Eddie Albert's character, the expressionistic sets for the child's dream, the zombies, and so on.

Surprisingly, perhaps, Dreamscape is also much more effective on the suspense/thriller end than I expected it to be. There are a few great chase scenes, and one brutal (though not graphic) murder on-screen, one off-screen. It was also steamier than I expected in one section.

I saw this during the eighties when it originally came out and thought it was terrific and scary. However, this movie does not hold up at all. It's not just the technological advancements in special effects that makes this movie so dated, after all movies like "The Thing" and "The Exorcist" came out before this. A scary movie is scary no matter when it came out.

This movie is just silly. The president's fear of nuclear war is treated so brazenly that it doesn't hold up now that the Day After decade is over. The story is so brisk in the extreme nothing is giving time to develop. Only the ideas are presented and not explored. Quaid and Sydow are good but even they can't save this movie. The dialog is very stilted at parts. Christopher Plummer is just silly, not menacing. Tommy Ray isn't scary any more. The snake man looks so rubbery and stupid that I can't believe I was ever scared of it in the first place. They did a terrible job with it. The transformation effects are now laughable. They didn't have to be. Kate Capshaw is awful (she always was; maybe that's one of the reasons you don't see her in much anymore now that she is married to Spielberg).

This is just not that strong a movie and time has not been kind to it. I thought it was great when I was 10 but it just isn't scary or fun. Awful music by Maurice Jarre. Not because it is an electronic eighties keyboard soundtrack like Jerry Goldsmith's Runaway. No this is just bad and it sounds bad on this DVD. No themes develop and even the chase music is boring. Very weak. Similar genre movies from the eighties that hold up and you might want to check out instead: Twilight Zone the Movie, Gremlins, Poltergeist, Brainstorm, Fright Night.

DVD-This DVD is also not very good either. The picture quality is very crisp most of the time. There is some wavering in some scenes. The special effects unfortunately don't benefit from all that detail in picture quality. The worst part is the sound. It comes in DTS and Dolby Digital. It is hardly 5.1 like the box advertises. Occasionally you get some weak directional effects. But for I would say 80% of the movie everything is in the center speaker.

The best thing about this DVD is the menus. They were a pleasant surprise. The movie and this DVD were not.

I just saw Dreamscape on television. Despite some flaws, it's not a bad movie at all. It's very well-acted (though George Wendt is wasted in a thankless plot-device role) and features some very impressive, CONVINCING effects. If you want gratuitous computer-cartoon crap, look elsewhere. The "snake man" is impressive, and the actual dreamscapes themselves feature some inventively bizarre set design.

Of course, I must mention the flaws. Though Dennis Quaid and Kate Capshaw have appeal, their characters are only partially developed, and the romantic angle of their relationship is quite standard and seems a bit forced. The motivations of several characters seem muddled, and the film tries to be too many things (horror, political conspiracy drama, Raiders of the Lost Ark-inspired adventure) for too many audiences. Also, despite creepy bits, it does seem to pull some punches. It's too explicit to be purely psychological, yet it stops just short of being a visual nightmare. Basically it lacks a hard edge...of course, as I said, I saw it cut for TV.

Still, despite the problems, it's worth watching if you run across it. It's well-made and effective, with engaging performances and some sufficiently eerie passages.

I first saw this soon after release on TV having not been able to sleep. Probably not a good film choice, but I vaguely remember realising that I shouldn't really be watching it and was scared by it, my heart beating hard the whole time. It had quite a profound effect on me. Watching it again, whilst not "horror" as I'd previously thought, it does have enough to make it gripping and I jumped once or twice, despite it being quite obviously dated. The premise is very clever and good science-fiction and possibly the idea behind films like Inception. Whilst I don't like reboots as a general rule, I would be interested to see how this was tackled with today's CGI and technology. The stop-start model animation sequences let the film down in what is otherwise a not-bad watching for a nearly 30yo film.

The plot is not as basic as it first appears, and unfolds in conspiracy-esque fashion and Dennis Quaid is perfect in the role; both funny and cheeky, flirty and sexy but also physical enough to handle some action and stunts believably. Christopher Plummer plays villainous research facility mastermind superbly well with his quiet calm and authoritative manner, perfect foil for Quaid's animation and brash style. There are shades of InnerSpace (insertion into a biological function inner world) but with more sinister and dark method, and with greater ramifications. Kate Capshaw as researcher Jane DeVries and David Patrick Kelly as obvious twisted bad-guy Tommy Ray are stereotype made-to-measure but suited and add to the film's plausibility.

I'm not going to say it's a brilliant film but for it's time, the psychological potential of it and the fact that it's great science fiction and despite it's age is still gripping, I'm giving it a 6/10.

Apologies for the header, but like most people, and whether he likes it or not, every time I see David Patrick Kelly playing his usual psychotic role in a film, I just can't help myself from blurting out the expected. The guy is a legendary typecast toolbox for the delivery of that one line alone, but I bet he's the salt of the earth in person, as most on-screen psychotics are.

Anyhoo, as for this flick, I was in my early teens when I first saw it, and thought it was a cracker of a film, right up until the mid '90's, at least when I felt I'd moved on, but as time continued forthrightwardness, I still think it's a bloody cracker of a film, despite what any fickle folks say about any ageing or crappy effects.

You just can't deny it's a fundamental premise for the likes of "Inception", and even when it comes to measuring it alongside the first of the "Nightmare On Elm Street" franchise movies which was released in the same year, (but only three months later), it still seems that this movie was ahead of the concept of dream intervention and nut-job infiltration. (No spoiler intended, but watch out for Tommy Ray and his five sharp fingernails.) You see now what I did there now with the header? ...Oh well, never mind...

Thirty years on this year anyway, and I still find this movie thoroughly enjoyable as a decent and compelling sci-fi-ish thriller, and believe you me, that's not just nostalgia orientated, because I could say otherwise about David Lynch's "Dune", but that's just another epic story altogether.

Yes, the effects are dodgy in this day and age, just like ED-209 trying to walk down a flight of stairs, which we've all come to accept and admire for what was and will never be again, but both the story and concept are still fully valid, and very well portrayed without resorting to any tea-kettle-boiling-techno-mumbo-jumbo-filler-crap.

It's compact, gets straight to the point very quickly, no lagging moments, and the momentum keeps going throughout at a steady pace all the way to the end credits, with some brief moments of armchair gripping excitement. (I'd beg to differ with anyone that say they don't flinch when the snake-man receives his 'pipe dream'.)

Not a fantastic film, but a cracker nonetheless that stands the test of time in my books, and after yet another recent viewing, it's gonna stay that way until that snake-man finally gets me in my sleep. Current IMDb rating is 6.3, and I would totally agree with that, but there's no half-measures here, so I'll give it a 7/10, coz 6/10 is just too mean and disrespectful for such a bloody good flick.

Dennis Quaid plays Alex Gardner, a young man with psychic abilities who is on the run from gangsters who want him to work for them.(He can pick the winners from horse races). Alex is saved by the timely intervention by his former teacher(Max Von Sydow) who wants his help with the secret government project he had once been involved with, in order to help both a young boy traumatized by nightmares, and also the U.S. president(played by Eddie Albert) who is having horrible nightmares about WWIII, and so wants a treaty with the Russians, which forces in the government(led by Christopher Plummer) want to prevent...

Exciting and highly entertaining film is well acted by its stars, and has imaginative and scary visuals(including the Snake man) that work quite well. Villains may be one-dimensional, but film still works, and has a good score and satisfying ending.

For as long as humans have had language we've told stories about our dreams; since the inception of the medium cinema has boasted films about dreams. Some play with dreams more meaningfully than others; the trope ending of "it was only a dream" is one of my greatest pet peeves, for it is rarely used as anything more than a cop-out. 'Dreamscape,' thankfully, does not fall into the latter category - though at the same time, broadly well made and enjoyable as it is, it also doesn't meet its full potential. There's a lot to like here, but not all of it comes off well, and beyond some core strengths and despite the premise it's not necessarily all that remarkable.

The detractions all somewhat blend together into a slurry with a few discrete points of concern sticking out. Foremost among these is that the dream space doesn't get as much use as you would think based on the name. One of the chief draws of movies about dreams is that the realm of fantasy allows all involved to let their imaginations run wild and create weird, wonderful, sometimes gnarly visions; consider 'A nightmare on Elm Street,' or even 'Little Nemo.' We do get touches of that whimsy here, but they are restricted almost entirely to the climax. For the most part dreams are sadly not the setting in 'Dreamscape,' but only the topic, and a slight flavoring; by and large the picture is simply a thriller. It's a thriller that's solidly made and written, yes, but frankly the dream element could have been left out from the storytelling and with minimal tinkering the result would not have been significantly altered from a form that we've seen countless times. Further taking away from the totality of what this could have been, I feel that protagonist Alex's personal life is emphasized too much, including the tiresome, obligatory romance (if a man and a woman share the screen they obviously must fall in love). To that same end, it feels wrong to say that the feature "toys" with sexual assault, but that's exactly what it does, and however one feels about the scene in question the subject is not subsequently addressed in a meaningful way. Something is amiss here, and it raises my hackles.

By all means, more than not the title is well done. I don't mind that the digital effects are less than seamless, because given the nature of the material I think that transparency works in their favor here. The practical effects, special makeup, and stunts are outstanding, even as they are employed predominantly at the climax, and the same definitely goes for the sets and lighting. The cast is excellent, with some very recognizable and reliable folks involved; I know Kate Capshaw gets a lot of shade for 'Temple of Doom,' but she gives a commendable performance in these 100 minutes. From direction and cinematography to the music and editing, everyone behind the scenes turned in fine work, and there are superb ideas in the screenplay. Be all that as it may, part of me wonders if I'm not being overly generous; its best and most original thoughts are put into a small corner, for the most part it's nothing all that special, and it's not all it might have been. I like 'Dreamscape,' and I'm glad I took the time to watch; I'm glad for those who appreciate it even more than I do. I just feel a tad disappointed that when all is said and done the flick is a fairly common thriller, like innumerable others that have been made in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s, and the premise seems a tad misleading. Do watch, and have a great time with it - just don't go out of your way for this, and save as something to watch on a lazy day.

This film starts out quite well. There is a strong cast, & an interesting story to work with. However, it goes downhill from the first moments Christopher Plummer & David Patrick Kelly appear. I blame the director. It is so woefully predictable, I guessed the entire plot within 15 minutes. Sure enough, it played out exactly as I thought it would. The FX are mediocre to poor. You have 2 actors with the gravitas of Christopher Plummer and Max von Sydow, plus Dennis Quaid when he was only 29 years old. Also, strong suppor from David Kelly & Kate Capshaw (Steven Spielberg's wife; they have 5 kids together), there is no excuse for the pablum this film turned into. I saw it at the theater when it was released. I thought it was bad then and worse now (in 2019); 35 years later. What a joke.

Excellent cast heading up this Fantasy/Horror film with excellent early F/X (seems amateurish to today's standards). The reason I love this film so much is that it spotlights the subconscious and its hidden agendas. It's a classic war between good and evil. The plot is solid, and it's a real headgame when you think about the dream world as another realm completely. Great chemistry between Quaid and Capshaw, and Sydow delivers his usual solid performance. Excellent conclusion!