IN DREAMS
A movie review by Joe Barlow
(c) Copyright 1999
STARRING: Annette Bening, Aidan Quinn, Katie Sagona
DIRECTOR: Neil Jordan
WRITERS: Neil Jordan and Bruce Robinson (based on the
book "Doll's Eyes" by Barry Wood)
RATED: R
RELEASED: 1999
RATING: ** 1/2 (out of a possible ****)
"In Dreams" is such a strikingly original film that one is somewhat tempted to forgive its excesses. A psychological thriller comprised of equal parts intrigue and phantasmagoria, the story effectively drenches the audience in shadowy insanity, even if the characters themselves never really involve us. It's a textbook example of style over substance.
The plot involves Claire Cooper (Annette Bening), a New England housewife who finds herself mentally linked to a serial killer, sensing his every thought. (The name Claire was chosen, I suspect, as a pun on the word "clairvoyant.") Slowly going insane from the experience, Claire attempts to find and confront the killer, with whom she has a personal score to settle.
It sounds great on paper, but the film is ultimately not as satisfying as one might expect. Despite its promising start, "In Dreams" loses sight of its surprisingly effective macabre tone just past its halfway point, eventually collapsing into a tangled mess of contradictions and confusion.
Much of the story is standard issue: Claire's husband Paul (a thankless performance by Aidan Quinn) tries to convince the police that his wife's psychic abilities are genuine and can assist them in the search for the killer; they scoff, but eventually come around. Claire, meanwhile, is locked up in a mental institution, but manages to escape with a little help from that old movie standby, the ventilation ducts. Soon she's on the trail of the killer, a deeply disturbed fellow by the name of Vivian (actor's identity withheld; see below), and things are wrapped up by not one but *two* tried-and-true staples of American cinema: the chase scene and the gunfight. Yawn. Did someone forget that the film was supposed to be a psychological thriller? Did they think they were making "Die Hard part 19?"
Since the movie goes to great pains to hide the identity of the actor playing Vivian until the last possible moment, I won't reveal the surprise, except to mention that it's a satisfactory performance, though perhaps a bit too over-the-top to be truly "great." On the other hand, Annette Bening's work here gets steadily better as the film progresses; surprisingly, she's far more convincing as a lunatic than the smiling housewife she portrays in the story's opening scenes. Aidan Quinn's performance as Paul, however, is given too little screen time to really become anything more than a fleeting face in the shadows.
As is so often the case, there's a bit too much story contained in the movie. Particularly puzzling is a subplot involving an affair Paul may or may not have been having with an Australian woman-- after a brief mention in the story's opening scenes, the whole issue is completely abandoned. I question its inclusion in the film's final cut; it adds nothing but confusion to the story. Since the movie clearly thinks Paul is a good guy, why question it?
Nonetheless, "In Dreams" has flashes of remarkable originality, marred primarily by its reliance on a conventional resolution for a plot that is *anything* but ordinary; director Neil Jordan deserves credit for even attempting a project of this nature. Boldly photographed and directed, the movie comes frustratingly close to greatness, though in the end its efforts are undermined by a generic finale and logic gaps that could probably have been fixed if another draft of the screenplay had been written. (Question: if Claire and Vivian are psychically connected, why can't he find her when she's hiding in the woods? And why did the hospital put Claire in the *exact same room* that Vivian had occupied 25 years before? That blows beyond mere "suspension of disbelief" and enters into the boring realm of "plot contrivance.") And Neil Jordan's bizzare symbolism fills the frame: what's the significance of the apples? Are we supposed to be this perplexed while watching? Sometimes the director is so determined to prove that he's clever that coherency and plot are sacrified in favor of technique.
But there's still the potential for entertainment here, especially if you like film noir, a genre that doesn't get much attention these days. The movie definitely has some great moments; the "Titanic"-like underwater scenes at the local reservoir are haunting, as are many of Claire's hallucinations. Through them, we can feel (and share) her madness.
I screened "In Dreams" with my brother, himself a fine amateur critic, and his summary of the film says it all: it's like "Nightmare on Elm Street" meets "What Dreams May Come." That should tell you all you need to know. Thanks, Adam; I couldn't have said it better myself.
E-Mail: jbarlow@earthling.net Joe Barlow on Film: http://www.ipass.net/~jbarlow/film.htm
If you'd like to receive new film reviews by e-mail, please write to the above address and ask to be put on my mailing list. Or, you can subscribe directly from my web page. Thanks.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
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