In dreams (Dentro de mis sueños)

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")

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.

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.

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.

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.