IN DREAMS
** 1/2 (out of 4) - an enjoyable movie
Release Date: January 15, 1999 Starring: Annette Bening, Robert Downey Jr., Aidan Quinn, Stephen Rea, Paul Guilfoyle, Katie Sagona Directed by: Neil Jordan Distributed by: DreamWorks Pictures MPAA Rating: R (violence/terror, language) URL: http://www.execpc.com/~kinnopio/reviews/1999/indreams.htm
Psychological thrillers, like Neil (INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE) Jordan's latest film, IN DREAMS, are a scary bunch of movies. They are to cinema what Edgar Allan Poe was to American literature: a dark and haunting introspective of what makes humanity tick. Thrillers which leave an icy cold in your chest hours after you leave the theater are the best kind, for they are the ones that hit the mark and realize their vision. Others, like IN DREAMS, make a marginal push toward such a pinnacle, but never really reach the peak.
Instead, director Jordan goes for shock value. The imagery in IN DREAMS haunting stuff, the kind that nightmares are based on. Unfortunately they're so over the top that they become forced, and instead of being completely immersed the audience is on the outside looking in. Jordan *does* make good use of symbolism, and the recurring power of that cannot be denied. His script, which he co-wrote with Bruce Robinson (RETURN TO PARADISE), revolves around an apple orchard. Apples appear frequently to denote chaos or instability, and to great effect.
Annette Bening is the script's main character, Claire Cooper. Claire is haunted by nightmares which are fragmented and inconclusive at best -- a sort of homage to TWELVE MONKEYS. In her nightmares, a girl is lead through a grove of apple trees by an older man, completely trusting. It's only days later that she realizes her dreams were a supersomatic link to serial killer Vivienne Thompson (Robert Downey Jr., in a wonderfully psychotic role). The dreams become more powerful, the connection more vivid, until finally Claire abandons her husband (Aidan Quinn) to track down Vivienne.
So why doesn't IN DREAMS work where TWELVE MONKEYS did? Perhaps the imaging in TWELVE MONKEYS was more subtle, and perhaps there the plot took longer to play out than it did here. IN DREAMS is highly suspenseful at the movie's open, but two-thirds of the way through, most of the information is already revealed. It disintegrates into a rolling-ball movie, wherein all of the plot points that have been built up are now simply being knocked down by a ball set in motion. There's no more guesswork. Similarly, the movie calls for a lot of character buildup, which the script never really provides -- characters are flat, and scenes are cut too quickly and too often.
Overall, IN DREAMS is a frightening watch, but one that most viewers are likely to be put off by. It most likely will become prime Saturday night rental material.
all contents (c) 1999 Craig Roush
-- Craig Roush kinnopio@execpc.com -- Kinnopio's Movie Reviews http://www.execpc.com/~kinnopio
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews