In Dreams

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!

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.

I've liked pretty much all of Annette Bening's movies, although I did think that Neil Jordan's "In Dreams" should have come out as a little bit more given what all seems to have gone into it. As it is, I've seen lots of movies that portray people's dreams being more than just dreams and possibly showing something evil. This one isn't terrible, but I've seen this sort of thing so many times that there's nothing really new here. The movie's main strength is it's dreary, nearly Gothic setting.

So, it's worth seeing maybe once. The movie just might give you a different impression of Annette Bening, plus co-stars Aidan Quinn and Robert Downey Jr.

So just remember what Roy Orbison sang...

When this movie first came out, it was generally viewed unfavorably by movie critics, and in certain markets it didn't stay long in the theatres.

I've long been a fan of thrillers, but I paid attention to the critics on this one and didn't see it in the theatres. I caught it on HBO and, after seeing it, I wish I had seen it in the theatres. I do not know why movie critics generally snubbed this film - I thought it was a taut, edge-of-my-seat complex thriller, and there were a few times that I jumped out of that ol' seat, yelling, "YIKES!" (or something to that effect). Sure, it may be a bit unrealistic, but as far as storytelling, directing and acting, it's a very good piece.

Both Robert Downey Jr. and Annette Bening were outstanding; I was riveted by their characters and couldn't take my eyes off either of them during the film. Bening shows her great range and depth, playing the heroine/protagonist whose life turns upside down in only moments and spins wildly out from there. Downey also shows great versatility in a role that he is not normally associated in.

If you enjoy the work of either of these two actors, or if you enjoy complex, mind-bending thrillers, ignore the critics and watch this. I only wish I had had the opportunity to see it on the big screen.

In Dreams is fairly intriguing for a good portion of its run time. Annette Bening plays a woman tormented with visions of a serial killer luring a little girl away in an apple orchard. When her little girl becomes the latest victim of the killer, she goes on a mission to stop the killer before they can claim another victim. Of course that's easier said than done when everyone thinks you're insane and they want to lock you away in an asylum.

Neil Jordan fills In Dreams with tons of style and beautiful cinematography, but the story itself falls apart a little after midway through. After such an intriguing set up, the film can't help but disappoint once our leading lady meets up with the killer and they try to explain why they're doing it. It quickly becomes tedious and dull.

The usually excellent Bening is a bit of a histrionic, manic mess here and a lot of her line readings inspire more laughter than anything else. She's playing to the back of the house and it's equal parts deliciously campy and infuriating because it renders her character less a real person and more of a performance.

In Dreams still has a few things going for it. It's rich in dreamlike, fairy tale mood, so if that's something you like, you might find that's enough to keep you interested, but the story itself isn't very memorable.