In Dreams

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.

Time will tell how 'In Dreams' will be viewed in the context of Jordan's overall work and whether it will be a cult movie.

I think the biggest surprise of all is that it got through the Hollywood studio system. Full marks to Dreamworks for doing so.

Chey from Texas brought out all the best criticisms to which I would like to add:

where was grief for this child? Quinn cared more about the dog! How did Downey survive twenty years while being totally psychotic? which, by the way, was a totally unbelievable portrayal. I have worked at Norristown State Hospital, and they are not like this.

Please give me the preservative for the apples which survived 20 years without rotting or attracting legions of insects and other vermin. I like and admire fantasy / horror as much as the next guy but even a neophyte screenwriter knows that you must be true to your screen universe. Since the couple lived in the real world, that part of the movie fell completely apart due to its inconsistencies and breaches of continuity.

How did the connection between Downey and Bening start? From her illustrations in the book? I dont think she drew them as a child which is when she said her dreams began, the ending was great just as the premise was but it failed on many levels. definite thumbs down.

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...

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.

This film was indeed a nightmare - a solid cast with a very poor script and a lot of pretty pictures and great sets. An art director's dream come true.

So here's this cool opening premise of an underwater ghost-town that just kind of gets lost somewhere along the way. I was intrigued at the beginning, and by the end (with the Carrie-esque sequence) I was howling at what a mess this film had become. Can't quite figure out how this obviously upper middle class woman gets put in an asylum that makes Cuckoo's Nest's digs look like the Ritz. Guess Mr. Jordan decided that would look better.

I enjoyed the previous comments about how the apple factory happened to have such fresh product since the only occupant was a crazed Anthony Perkins wanna-be. I too had questions about that little stretch. Of course you must suspend some disbelief for any horror film - but this one just asked a little too much of the audience. Rent it if you want to see Annette Benning embarrass herself but look good doing it.