User Reviews (161)

Add a Review

  • The first hour or so of this movie is great. It is interesting, good-viewing and imaginative.

    It's a pity that after the hour mark the film looses so much effectiveness as it becomes ordinary and predictable. It's a shame that a little of the imagination shown in the first part of the film was not evident towards the end.

    The film is 8/10 for the first hour, 5/10 for the rest. I feel it deserves 6/10 in total.
  • The housewife Claire Cooper (Annette Bening) is married with the pilot Paul Cooper (Aidan Quinn) and their little daughter Rebecca (Katie Sagona) is their pride and joy. When a stranger kidnaps a girl, Claire dreams about the man but Detective Jack Kay (Paul Guilfoyle) ignores her concerns. But when Rebecca disappears during a school play, Claire learns that her visions were actually premonitions and she is connected to the killer through her dreams. She has a nervous breakdown and tries to commit suicide. Her psychologist Dr. Silverman (Stephen Rea) sends her to a mental institution and soon she finds that her husband will be the next victim of the serial-killer. Further, the serial-killer was interned in the same cell in the hospital where she is. Will Claire be able to save Paul?

    "In Dreams" is a deceptive Neil Jordan's movie. The messy story is boring and Annette Bening is hysterical most of the time. There is no explanation for the connection between Claire Cooper and Vivian Thompson and the conclusion is terrible. My vote is four.

    Title (Brazil): "A Premonição" ("The Premonition")
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • A-Ron-22 May 2000
    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.
  • dan-47628 July 2000
    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.
  • 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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The visuals in the film are really quite beautiful, nothing that hasn't been mentioned before. I love the cinematography in this film. I give it a 7, but I really think it could have been better. But some of the hospital scenes really drag on, and there is a little too much melodrama for me to handle. And the apple scene is rather hokey. Some of the dialogue is laughable as well. If the editor could have just "trimmed the fat" off of some of the unnecessary scenes, this movie would be pretty darn good. I also feel the inciting incident comes a little late. I mean we get it, she's nuts and she has crazy dreams. On the contrary, by developing the characters so well, you get more of an emotional impact for later in the film when she finds out about her daughter's death, and the mother reuniting with her daughter at the end.
  • ahab-510 April 1999
    Wow, this movie just totally stank. It´s hard to know where to start placing the blame. The acting was lousy (Robert Downey Jr. was abysmal, and Stephen Rea´s ridiculous Boston accent was a hoot). The story was ludicrous, without even a hint of plausibility or anything that would make me want to suspend my disbelief. The pace was tedious and meandering, with so many strands that never lead anywhere. And, as mentioned elsewhere here, the microphone kept popping up in scene after scene. This is truly one of the worst films I´ve ever sat through. At no time does it move the viewer in any way: it doesn´t frighten, it doesn´t amuse, it doesn´t make you sad, it doesn´t make you reflect, it doesn´t even gross you out or transport you to some fantasy world. No, it just makes you ask yourself: My God, how many thought-provoking and entertaining films could have been made with the budget they blew on this turkey?

    And can SOMEONE please tell me why the husband, only a short time after his daughter has been abducted and murdered, is so STUPID as to respond to a mystery telephone call about his DOG´s whereabouts by visiting an abandoned hotel all ALONE without even notifying the police or anyone that perhaps something a WEE BIT SUSPICIOUS is going on?

    Yuk, yuk and more yuk. Save your money, save your time: AVOID this one like the plague.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Based on the novel Doll's Eyes by Bari Wood, In Dreams centers on beleaguered suburban housewife Annette Bening who develops a strange psychic connection with a kidnapper/murderer stalking the area. She does not understand why this has happened and cannot initially get the investigating detective Paul Guilfoyle to take her seriously. While saying goodbye to her pilot husband Aidan Quinn at their daughter's school play, their daughter is kidnapped and murdered. The bereft, grief-stricken Bening tries to take her own life, but lives to be bandied back and forth between one unsympathetic psychiatrist after another, while the killer uses the psychic link to mentally torture her, until the whole thing comes to a climactic confrontation.

    The film opens with a disturbingly eerie segment documenting the "drowning" of a small town to make way for a reservoir and then moves to the future where body recovery divers make their way through the submerged ghost town to search for one of the victims. The sequence is chilling and amped up more by Elliot Goldenthal's creepy soundtrack. The connection with the town will become clearer as the film progresses. Director Neil Jordan provides an atmosphere of creeping dread that enshrouds everything and there is a distinct uncertainty as to where the film will go next or how everything will turn out.

    Despite the first-rate cast and production team, almost no one saw or remembers this film, which is quite a shame considering how original and disturbing it is. It is quite the underrated gem.

    While Robert Downey Jr.'s is memorable as the killer, making a late entry in the film as he previously remains in shadow or seen in quick bits, the film belongs to Bening. I find Bening an often overrated actress. She gets accolades for broad uneven performances in Oscar fodder films like American Beauty, but then gets overlooked for more nuanced work here. She takes you on a manic ride from the character's initial stability through her unbearable grief into her teetering on the edge of madness before unearthing a hidden strength that even she failed to imagine she possesses. Bening makes the grief of a mother losing her child and the subsequent mental breakdown palpable. There were times where I truly believed that the actress was losing her mind on camera, so pitch perfect is she here. She is also incredibly sympathetic.

    Between Bening's astounding lead performance, the surreal eerie visuals, the unpredictable storyline and Jordan's able direction, which turns everything topsy turvy and rarely gives us breathing room, this is a thriller that is more than ripe for rediscovery.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    If I could give this movie a 0, I would. This movie is undoubtedly the worst movie I have ever seen. It is laughably hilarious. The movie is about a woman who can see the future through her dreams because she is connected to a killer named Vivan (it's a man) and she sees her husband being killed by him and her daughter being kidnapped and killed. The killer plants a bunch of apples in her house! WTF? We never find out why the killer was left chained to a bed in his house when the town was being flooded with water for a reservoir. The plot is stupid, convoluted, and downright terrible. This movie is so bad, and I don't understand why it doesn't have a lower rating. 5.2? Come on! It should have a 2.8 and be on the Bottom 100 list.
  • 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!
  • jdbaker2128 August 2002
    This movie is a great example of what most other horror films should strive to be. It was well acted, well scrpited, and the overall appearence and mood of the film was great. The setting and music really added to the excellence of this movie. 2 THUMBS UP!
  • This is one of the most boring and poorly written films that I've ever seen. I would have enjoyed it being shown on television with Elvira: Mistress of the Dark hostessing the film. I know that she would definitely pick this one apart to make it watchable! The kitchen sink scene with all of the apples would have been a hoot on television but only with Elvira! Since we don't have the privilege of Elvira anymore, stay away from this one.....doesn't go anywhere interesting! The song, "In Dreams" recorded by Roy Orbison that is played at the beginning of the credits after the film concludes is the high point of the whole film!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    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)
  • gbheron8 April 2000
    Neil Jordan's previous work is usually excellent; Butcher Boy, Crying Game, Interview with the Vampire. Not this time, his current outing, In Dreams, is a disaster. It's a preposterous, depressing story about a woman whose dreams are invaded by psychotic serial killer intent on murdering her family, starting with her young daughter. The acting is either somnambulant like Aidan Quinn as the husband, or "chewing the scenery" like Annette Benning as the mother, and Robert Downey Jr as the child-murdering psychotic.

    If any movie in 1999 deserved to be nominated for a Razzie (pick your category), this is it. What happened?
  • 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...
  • Warning: Spoilers
    In Dreams has airline pilot Paul Cooper (Aidan Quinn) returning home to his wife Claire (Annette Bening) & young daughter Rebecca (Katie Sagona), his wife Claire has had strange terrifying dreams that seem real for her entire life but lately she has been having visions of a young girl being abducted & abused in an apple orchard & believes it to have actually happened. Paul decides to take her fears to the police & talks to Detective Jack Jay (Paul Guilfoyle) but is largely ignored. Shortly after at a school play Rebecca goes missing, the police are alerted & start to search for her & eventually find her dead body in a reservoir near her house. Claire is obviously devastated & realises that the dream she had was a prediction of things to come rather than recollection of things past. Claire has a car accident & is hospitalised, her neurosurgeon Dr. Stevens (Dennis Boutsikaris) is worried by what she says & calls his friend & psychiatrist Dr. Silverman (Stephen Rea) in to see if he can help her make sense of her dreams. It's not long before Silverman starts to believe Claire as her dreams become worse, Claire believes she has a psychic link with a serial killer named Vivian Thompson (Robert Downey Jr.) who is taunting by sending her these terrifying dreams...

    Co-written & directed by Neil Jordan I personally didn't find much to like in In Dreams. The script by Jordan & Bruce Robinson is based on a novel called 'Doll's Eyes' by Bari Wood & is a bit of a muddled mess. I found the film far too slow, the story never gripped me as for most of it we don't see Vivian kill anyone as it focuses on Claire & her breakdown, boring. The dreams make no sense & don't really act as clues from which they can find Vivian, I would have preferred more of a straight thriller with more of an emphasis on Vivian & Claire trying to stop him because in the end he finds her & most of the film seems to concentrate on Claire screaming or crying, boring. The character's were dull & uninteresting, I really couldn't have cared less about any of them & when the inevitable climactic showdown between Claire & Vivian happened I was distinctly unexcited & unmoved, in fact I was more bored than anything else (do you see a pattern developing here?). In Dreams is also hard to follow as it skips between bizarre visions or flashbacks or whatever their supposed to be & reality with little regard for the viewer, as a whole the film just about makes sense but I still think it's a bit of a mess, oh & a boring mess too. Finally I saw that so-called 'shock' ending coming a mile off, it was so obvious I was almost embarrassed & the fact that the unpleasant subject of child murder arises it made uncomfortable viewing for me, all I want when I watch a film is to be entertained & have fun & this isn't my idea of entertainment or fun.

    The thing that saves In Dreams from being a complete bomb is director Jordan's visual style & flair as he gives the film a really nice look & feel with some cool imagery. There seems to be plenty of fairytale references & the dreams themselves look very fairytale like & Claire's latest job was to adapt & illustrate a book of fairy tales by the Grimm Brother's. The blurring of Claire's car crash with the death of her daughter is a nicely put together sequence while the film overall has a dark undercurrent running through it. The violence & gore is restrained, someone has a knife stuck in their eye, a nurse is stabbed in the neck & there is a brief shot of a dog eating someone's face but that is just about it, I would have liked the horror quotient bumped up a little.

    With a budget of about $30,000,000 I am aghast that In Dreams cost as much money as it did, where did all the money go? There are no major A-list stars, no major action or special effect scenes, takes place in very few locations & nothing in my mind that would justify spending 30 big ones. It's well made (for that sort of money that's the least I would expect) but apart from some nice visual touches nothing stands out as being particularly outstanding. The acting is also another strong element but this hardly makes up for In Dreams other deficiencies.

    I didn't find anything in In Dreams that I particularly enjoyed, I thought it was boring, dull, uneventful, muddled & I just couldn't get into it. There are so many better horror & thrillers out there that films like In Dreams shouldn't really get made. Disappointing & probably one to avoid as far as I'm concerned.
  • Psychic powers have always facinated me, so my like of In Dreams might be clouded by my interest in the paranormal. Although slow at times (the movie seems to take a long time to get going), In Dreams is exciting and interesting, with enough twists and turns to keep the audience entertained.
  • kane-1923 February 1999
    Neil Jordan has proven himself a good director in the past (Michael Collins, Mona Lisa, Butcher Boy, etc) which is why it was surprising to me that In Dreams was such a horrible movie. Everything about the movie is terrible: the acting, the script, the music...the cinematography was probably the only decent thing. The film tried to be "suspenseful" and "scary" but ended up being retarded.

    I noticed that some people voted for this movie and gave it high scores. Don't listen to them - they must have been idiots.

    I read the bad reviews for the film before I saw it but thought "hey, it's Neil Jordan - give it a chance." I felt so bad that I gave up $4.50 and 2 hours of my life to sit through it. Save yourself and heed my warnings.
  • This film gave me a strange feeling I only had with Twin Peaks. The background music made me think of Twin Peaks too. Still this film is a lot more violent and "the bad guy" is a bit familiar to Bob (Twin Peaks) but is as violent as Hannibal Lector from Silence Of The Lambs. I think you should see the film twice, because there are a lot of things you don't mention the first time....
  • Overacting along with a weak convoluted story make for one shitty movie. So glad I didn't pay to see this film in the theaters. Don't waste your time with this trash. Everyone who acted in this film should be embarrassed to say so. I would question the taste of anyone who claimed that this film is worth watching. I wish I could get back the 90 minutes of my life that I wasted watching this movie. Perhaps DreamWorks can setup a fund to repay all the people who wasted their hard-earned money to see this crappy piece. Please take my advice and don't watch this movie. I don't care how bored you are, you shouldn't watch this movie.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Claire Cooper (Annette Bening) is been having nightmares that haunts her. When Claire's Daughter (Katie Sagona) is been murdered by a mysterious Serial Killer (Robert Downey Jr.). Then Claire finds herself predicting the future, when she shares her dreams with the Serial Killer. Unable to convince the lead detective (Paul Guilfoyle), her doctor (Stephen Rea) and even her husband (Aidan Quinn). Claire has to confront the killer alone before her another terrifying dreams becomes real.

    Directed by Neil Jordan (The Crying Game, In the Company of Wolves, Interview with the Vampire) made a fascinating adult horror thriller. The film was a Box Office disappointment back in 1999. The film receive mixed reviews but what makes the film works is Bening's terrific performance. The Production Values are strong, especially music score by Elliot Goldenthal (Alien 3) and Cinematography by Darius Khondji, A.F.C. (Se7en). The film has a few problems like Robert Downey Jr. as the Serial Killer is oddly cast and he brings laughs to the film, when the film is supposed to be scary. The film also has a weak third act. But the film is saved by Bening's role, film's music, cinematography and Jordan's direction.

    DVD has an sharp anamorphic Widescreen (1.85:1) transfer and an superb-Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD doesn't have much features, it only has the basic like Production Notes, Cast & Filmmakers Bios and the Theatrical Trailer. This is a truly underrated film with some genuine moments. While the film is unpleasant but that what makes a good horror film. The film features a Cult Following. This is worth a look, this could have been a masterpiece for Jordan's film-making. If it wasn't for the third act, this film really could hit a bull's eye. Based upon a Novel, titled "Doll's Eyes" by Bari Wood. Which Wood also wrote the novel "Twins" that become a film titled "David Cronenberg's Dead Ringers". Screenplay by Bruce Robinson (The Killing Fields, Jennifer 8, Return to Paradise). (****/*****).
  • Possibly the most disturbing picture I've seen since "Seven". Also, the most aptly named film ever, for as a powerful dream or nightmare tends to appear fragmented and senseless after one wakes, "In Dreams" provides a gut-wrenching story with hellish imagery that falls apart once the lights come up and logic is applied.

    Annette Bening does a fine job as a woman being driven slowly insane (although whether this is due to the dreams of a psychotic killer or her own hellish reality, which involves the murder of her daughter and being comitted to one of the worst mental hospitals depicted on film since "The Snake Pit"), And Robert Downey Jr. is perfectly creepy as psycho serial killer Vivian, but the story doesn't stand up to further examination.

    Examples: Does Vivian also have the capability of mind control that extends to pets, or is the family dog just the most intelligent mutt since Rin Tin Tin? And how does this mental power also extend to computers and portable radios? Since Vivian's psychosis seems to stem from his abusive mother, what is the significance of of the oft-quoted verse, "My Daddy is A Dollar..."? The whole relationship between Vivian and his mother is also not very well presented, being told in quick, disjointed flashbacks. Why, for instance, did she leave her son to die when their hometown was flooded to make room for a resevoir? Yes, I know the easy answer is "because she was crazier than an outhouse rat" but I would have liked something with a little more substance.

    The high point of this film is its ability to instill a true sense of dread and uneasiness in the viewer. There is not one minute of relief from the disturbing imagery, right up to the somewhat disappointing "twist" ending, which seems to be inspired by countless stories in the old EC Comics.

    "In Dreams" packs a pretty good punch for a serious horror film. Just don't analyse it too much on your way home from the theater.
  • The commercials were creepy enough to make a horror movie fan want to see this movie. Don't. It is disturbing, but not disturbing in a Silence of the Lambs kind of way. While Silence of the Lambs was a great movie, this, my friend, was not. This had to be one of (if not the) worst movie I have ever seen because it is absurd and boring, to say the least. I had the displeasure of having to see this at the movie theatre and I regret not getting up and leaving because it was a waste of time.
An error has occured. Please try again.