In Dreams (1999)

Neal Jordan has a most peculiar ability; he can make films which allow us to realize that he is a good director, without actually being good films. For some reason, he cannot film an ending to a movie and I don't understand why. He tends to deal with stories that have interesting premises, but don't actually go anywhere. I am not really sure why he does this, but he does. Look back at his filmography you will see what I mean. The only two films he made with good endings were The Butcher Boy and The Crying Game (you really can't screw up that ending), but even his best films (like Michael Collins) seem to fall apart as they are getting ready to wrap up. Build up and then disappointment.

Luckily, this is not a problem for In Dreams, which falls apart almost immediately. This film never comes close to generating a truly engrossing story or to establishing characters or situations that are even remotely plausible. I am normally able to suspend a tremendous amount of disbelief, but I just couldn't follow what was going on, or perhaps I was and it just wasn't interesting so I was trying to make up stuff to amuse myself.

I actually did not realize how bad the film actually is until I watched it a second time (being somewhat of a fan of Jordan's I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt). The movie is so scattered (and the end is sooooo lame) that it is impossible to even comment effectively on what the problems of the plot were. This reminded me of another of Jordan's films, A Company of Wolves, which had similar problems, but somehow managed to extricate itself from them at least partially (or perhaps I was more forgiving because of the incredibly low budget of the earlier film). A Company of Wolves was interesting and adult retelling of Little Red RidingHood, which despite its weirdness, managed to hold my interest through most of it.

This was not the case with In Dreams, whose weirdness overwhelmed any chance the film had of credulity. I love weird cinema, but weirdness needs to be used well in order to be effective. In Dreams is too wierd for no good reason and this sinks the plot and made me continue to view it as a movie rather than allow me to become engrossed in its story. Oh well, all that said, I have seen worse films.

Fmovies: I almost walked out several times. The story is very convoluted, and makes no sense. And although I like Annette Bening, far too much emphasis is placed on her character - I mean do we really want to spend half the movie watching her overact because the script is so weak? Robert Downey Jr. is great as usual, although I have to agree with a previous reviewer - he did look like he was on drugs the entire time...;) Unfortunately, it looks like the Director was on drugs too - parts of the movie are outstanding, and wonderful to watch, but mostly it drags and never really comes together as a whole - worth renting on video, but not seeing in the theater.

effects. While many critics had not appreciated this film, I actually found it unique, beautifully photographed, and well acted, especially on the part of Annette Bening, Stephen Rea and especially Robert Downey, Jr.

It is set in Western Massachusetts, where a town was once flooded to rebuild the area. One of the residents from the local asylum; Robert Downey Jr., is a serial killer. Bening has psychic visions about his victims.

The symbol of apples and the color red, are a recurring nightmare for Bening, whose husband (well portrayed by Aidan Quinn) is beyond despair. She needs some sort of psychiatric help for her seeming obsessions. The visuals as she is having nightmares, are quite vivid and ethereal. Particularly noteworthy is the beginning sequence, wherein Bening's daughter is kidnapped. The daughter was just in a school play- the angel wing costume, crystallized and glistening on a tree- is found by the police. No daughter in sight.

Claire begins to have nightmares about a child named "Ruby" - her dog "Dobie" runs away, and is eventually killed by Downey Jr. There is also a cinematic scene where Bening is at an abandoned hotel, in a flowing red gown- the symbolism is very haunting.

Stephen Rea is the psychiatrist who attempts to help Claire with her obsessions/delusions. He is very believable, and the imagery at the state asylum is stark and foreboding.

This film has several haunting, subconscious images. Do not be surprised if you find yourself dreaming, or having similar nightmares. Sometimes, REM sleep looks similar to the filmed underwater sequences here. The photography was superior to anything I have seen in quite some time, with the possible exception of Fellini's "La Strada".

In Dreams fmovies. So what are we to make of Neil Jordan's 'In Dreams' and the wide and varied responses to it?

The film bombed just about everywhere in the world and yet looking through the user's comments on this website there are those who passionately adore it and those who passionately detest it.

I fall into the first camp.

For a start, it's a psychological horror movie that is genuinely scary and emotionally draining in a way that few films are these days.

Okay, the plot stretches belief but then again, I give you almost every mainstream horror movie made.

Compare it with the Sixth Sense which is equally far fetched but much less demanding.

You will see Jordan has turned out a much darker, more disturbing, more meaningful and more interesting multi-layered film.

Also, it has the advantage of not having Bruce Willis in it, turning in the sort of wooden performance he trotted out in The Sixth Sense.

In Dreams just stretches its audience.

Jordan and fellow scriptwriter, Bruce Robinson cleverly play with their audience's perceptions of their main character.

Is Claire genuinely going through these horrific experiences or is she going mad?

There is also a terrible cruel streak running through the film - especially in its treatment of its heroine and her family - which is so unusual and refreshing for a Hollywood film (perhaps this is the main reason why audiences and critics were so alienated by it, they're just not used to it).

Visually, Jordan's movie is sumptuous - the rich reds and greens, the autumnal colours, the ghostly underwater sequences.

And there are also the performances.

Bening, in probably her most neurotic role ever, is as compelling as always.

Aidan Quinn is suitably solid in the role of her troubled, if flawed husband.

Stephen Rea turns in another subtle performance as the psychiatrist. Paul Guilfoyle is also effective as the cop.

And then, there's Robert Downey Junior - so over the top you're waiting for him to crash land with one hell of a thump.

But then again, OTT is nothing new to this genre. I give you Jack Nicholson in The Shining, Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs, Anthony Perkins in Psycho!

In Dreams is a multilayered film, attacking you visually, mentally and emotionally on a number of levels.

First, there is the nature of dreams and reality, madness and sanity, fairytales and fact.

Secondly, you can read it as a love letter to Hitchcock. There is so much Hitchcock in this film - Rebecca, Psycho, The Birds, Marnie, Notorious, Suspicion (they're all alluded to here and many, many more of the Great Master's movies).

Thirdly, there's many recurrent themes and imagery from Jordan's own work in here.

We have the psychologically disturbed boy from The Butcher Boy, cross dressing, gender bending in The Crying Game, holding captives in a gothic forest from the same film, even the famous run through the forest, the leap from a dam in We're No Angels, the tortured monster a la Interview with the Vampire.

Fourthly, there's the apples, those damned red apples that keep troubling everyone. Shades of Adam and Eve? Fairytales like Snow White?

In Dreams may not be Jordan's finest work but there is plenty in here to enjoy and to discover on repeated viewings.

The movie is uncomfortable viewing at times but gloriously over the top.

Neil Jordan's first-rate direction (many clever camera angles and a few poetic overtones; watch for the shots from the perspective of the surface of the lake) redeems an awfully derivative script, that steals elements from at least two popular horror entries: "Nightmare on Elm Street" and, especially, "The Eyes Of Laura Mars". In some ways, this is a grim, unconventional, often gripping thriller, but the last 20 minutes are weakened by Robert Downey's terrible performance as a psychopathic serial killer; he just keeps mumbling and overacting (maybe he should take some lessons from Anthony Hopkins). On the other hand, Benning is quite convincing, and Aidan Quinn is just perfect is his relatively small part. (**1/2)

Apples, Apples, Apples, that's what everyone keeps saying about this film. Perhaps it was a little overdone, but did anyone ever stop to think that the apples were representative of Clair's fear. The apple, the most innocent of all things, a fruit, as the repository of one's own nightmares and fears is creepy enough in itself. Many regard the scene where Clair is frantically throwing apples from a pile on the cupboard into the garburator of the sink as funny. I didn't I was well enough into the film, that the moment actually felt creepy. Jordan's vicious left/right pans of the camera reinforced her feeling of panic or anxiety around the apples.

To mention a couple of the other good points about "In Dreams", there were a couple of ingenious cross cutting scenes created. The first is a cross cut sequence involving Clair who is now in the mental hospital and her husband who goes to the motel that she dreamed about to find the dog. Another wonderful cross-cut sequence involves the escape from the institution. In her dreams, Clair follows Vivian (who had spent time in the exact same room as Clair) out of the institution, and there is much cross-cutting between the past and the present. Much suspense was built in the production of this scene. I don't want to give away any of the ending, but trust me, it scared me lifeless. This is definitely not Neil Jordan's best work, certainly "The Crying Game" is his masterpiece, but nevertheless, this is an original horror suspense film that delivers a punch!