In Dreams

Rating:
Summary: Annette did great!
Review: I thought the movie was great. The plot was a little weird but the movie itself was great. I think it was one of Annette Benings best performances! The only thing I didn't like is when Annette's character died.

Rating:
Summary: In Dreams ( I would compare it to Candyman )!
Review: In Dreams, I seen it when it was short lived in the theater back in it's January release, and i was very impressed! Although some parts could have been a little stronger, the movie as a whole was really enjoyable. Annette Benning did great, and Aiden Quinn was also a good one. If you liked Candyman w/ Virginia Madsen, then see this. Annette is close behind Virginia's footsteps in the horror genre world! Enjoy..........

Rating:
Summary: Awesome complicated Thriller
Review: This movie, starring Annette Benning and the derranged Robert Downey Jr., is a treasure. It grabs hold of your throat and shakes you until the credits start rolling. You have to look around the room to realize that you're okay and not part of this twisted sadistic thriller. This movie is good to watch alone or in a group, but keep the lights OFF!

Rating:
Summary: Superb!
Review: This movie is fantastic! If you want a good chill, I suggest you rent this one. The only things I didn't like was that it's not something you want to see again and again, and the beginning is a bit TITANICy. (underwater, the drawing, etc.)

Rating:
Summary: I have never been so freaked out
Review: I've never been so freaked out over a movie. It wasn't really scary, it was eerie and freakish. I've never had that feeling about a movie before.

Rating:
Summary: terrifying
Review: now, this movie is a big mess. First mistake, the murder of little girls is no subject of entertainment and i don't think anyone can oppose a reply to this. But it's more than that; Annette bening is her usual self and therefore nothing great. Then you get downey jr who either is an excellent actor and should get the oscar or either needs a good therapy. Then you got an ending kind of "scream" thing, with a little bit of "seven" and a touch of "kiss the girls". The whole thing makes you feel very uncomfortable. if you didn't see this, you didn't miss something absolutely necessary.

Rating:
Summary: Wonderfully Scary!
Review: I loved this movie. I know it didn't do well but I don't care. If you don't know, it is about a woman (Annette Benning) who has dreams about a serial killer before he kills. She is trying to convince everyone that what she is dreaming is true. Of course no one believes her until it is too late. The movie is so eerie. I saw it in the theaters and to me it wasn't like a regular movie, it is just so spooky and eerie. I was SO scared. I would recommend it to people who like thrills and suspense and psychological movies. I know the plot may sound a little far fetched, but hey, I've been having a dream of a killer for ten years now...

Rating:
Summary: The Nadir of Many A Career
Review: Movie: *1/2 DVD Quality: **** DVD Extras: ***

Don't be fooled by the pedigrees of the distinguished cast and crew members; "In Dreams" is without doubt THE career low for director/screenwriter Neil Jordan as well as actors Annette Bening, Aidan Quinn, Stephen Rea, and even Robert Downey, Jr. (who's made a handful of turkeys throughout his rollercoaster career). The film aspires to be a psychological mystery-suspense-thriller in the vein of "Psycho" and "The Silence of the Lambs", but is completely undone by a cut-and-paste script filled with unlikeable and unbelievable characters; uninspired direction; shallow performances; choppy editing; and a grossly ineffective musical score. Only one scene in the movie is played convincingly, and that's the one in which Annette Bening finally begins to go over the edge mentally; pitching her voice in a lower tone and undergoing swift changes of emotion, Bening gives a brief and tantalizing glimpse of what she might have been able to achieve with a similar character in a better movie. Unfortunately, that one scene does not make the chore of sitting through the other 97 minutes of pretention and tedium worthwhile.

In terms of technical quality, the DVD presentation of this bomb is more than acceptable. Picture quality is clear and sharp; the sound is a bit fuzzy in one or two spots, but that may have been the intent of the filmmakers - I was so bored and so eager for the movie to be over that I didn't stop to replay the bits of dialogue in question. The DVD extras are so-so: thumbnail cast and crew Biographies that mention much better movies; several lackluster screens filled with "Production Notes"; and finally, the Theatrical Trailer, which is probably the best thing on the disc because it's short and features quick flashes of the film's visual highlights. "In Dreams" is not recommended viewing, even for those viewers who enjoy bad movies for their camp value.

Rating:
Summary: Discount-Rack Thriller
Review: Note the going used price for this movie: 14 cents. According to imdb.com IN DREAMS cost $30M to make, and so far has reaped $11.9M. What does this mean? This film will appeal to lovers of the psychics-who-predict-murders genre.

Personally, I love movies that involve precognition. But, where this film goes wrong, is in the assumption that we don't already know this genre. So many of the situations here are cliche. Example (warning, partial spoilers here) no one takes Claire's visions seriously, until someone dies, and even then, she's locked up and can't communicate appropriately or in time to prevent the next tragedy. While you may argue that this formula fits the genre, the characters I just don't buy.

There's a dream interpreter, who doesn't interpret dreams. He just sits and listens, nodding his head without comment. This is very disturbing stuff that Claire is telling, and all the doctor can offer is thorazine!

And this serial killer Claire has a psychic connection to. Are we supposed to empathize with him or not. She's more concerned about him, at times, than her own family. And then, she hates him, and then feels apathetic towards him, and then sympathizes with him and then- (the over-the-top end sequence they should've cut from the film.) How am I supposed to feel about this freak - this kidnapper of children. The movie shows what a tough life he had - and then you're supposed to hate him. What?

Good things about this movie: The film starts off with a great premise - an idea (involving the making of a dam) which could have been the subject of a movie in and of itself. The photography is excellent. Sound design and editing is good - the pacing is such that - it smooths out any rough spots in the story.

Bad things: the acting, and the script (or should i say, the lack of believability in any of these characters). The overall story is decent. Fun. But standard thriller. But I get no sense, whatsoever, that Annette Bening is the mother of Katie Sagona. Nor do I get the feeling that Aidan Quinn is Bening's husband. Why? All the dialogue is too cleanly spoken. All too perfect. And not real.

These are NOT candid moments here, of a family slowly being torn apart - due to Claire's nightmare visions. No.

There is a scene designed to make you feel the strong love between mother and daughter. (shot beautifully against the afternoon sun by a lake) Claire [Annette Bening] and Rebecca [Katie Sagona] recite lines from SNOW WHITE to each other. How poignant. It was intended to be. But, it plays like two strangers hired to be nice to each other in front of a camera.

Sagona notes in one scene that her goldfish died, and it now resides in the freezer. The line is delivered with no emotion. You get the feeling there never was a goldfish, nor did she ever care about it - whether it was in the bowl or in the freezer.

Granted, I'm being harsh on a child actor here, and that's not fair. However, ALL the scenes play as if they were well-photographed footage of actors reciting words. Words with no meaning behind them. The only scenes that play tolerably well are the ones without talking.

I like Bening as an actress - but in this film, she's forced to act hysterical, again, and again, and again - and so much of it seems unmotivated, or covers up the lack of a character. It's as if director Neil Jordan gave Bening little or nothing to work with - (like: 'you are grieving during this scene') and she had to do the best she could - concocting something from obvious voids in the script.

The movie is too clean. Too expensive. One feels it came out of a glossy magazine. There's no grit to it. The actors involved in this production looks too well-fed, and too well-paid to have any appreciation of the horrors a clairvoyant person could experience in such a devastating situation. There's no empathy. And as a result, it's very difficult to empathize with any of the characters in this pulp story.

Rating:
Summary: Watching Nightmares
Review: What a wonderfully bizarre thriller this is! Annette Benning's performance alone makes it worth watching - but there is still so much more. The story is so unsettling you never quiet get your grip once the film starts moving. From the opening credits - where a ghost town becomes submerged as a reservoir to the jump-out-of-your-seat ending, this one is a real keeper. The photography and set pieces are absolutely beautiful and do much put the viewer in Benning's head. A wild, frightening trip.