Review of In Dreams (2013) by Harry W — 29 Jun 2014

Any film directed by Neil Jordan is a definite must-see in my opinion, so In Dreams hit the list when I discovered his name as director.

In Dreams has a good atmosphere and a nice visual style to it, but in terms of storytelling, Neil Jordan gets lost along the way. For one thing, the subplots in the story are unnecessary and go nowhere, and the general premise itself ends up becoming overloaded with weak story elements.

The general premise of the films is interesting, but it ends up chartering through too many poor quality subplots and melodramatic territory as well as the fact that it just becomes too farfetched as it progresses. Although the general idea of the story is artificial and weak, it has potential. Unfortunately, Neil Jordan ends up reducing it to a scattered tale burdened with tonal inconsistencies and a surplus of characters who really do not remain as key to the film as they should, and it ends up going in a few too many directions which do nothing to make the story any better. The first example of this is when the story touches upon the concept of Paul Cooper having an extramarital affair, although this does nothing to help the characters nor does it introduce anything new to the story. It just deviates from the main focus of the narrative briefly before it goes back to it and completely forgets about implementing that element in. It is never touched upon again, so why Neil Jordan and Bruce Robinson would actually bother with it seems really strange. The entire screenplay is the problem because it is overloaded with dynamics so much that the film is unable to pick a genre to settle on and so it ends up all over the place and unable to actually settle on somewhere to stay. Watching In Dreams is a shaky experience, and it is more startling than entertaining without being consistent.

In Dreams wants to be a psychological thriller, but in the process of being one it turns into a story about a woman getting locked up in a mental hospital and then escaping it to find a serial killer she keeps seeing visions of. While the scenery of the film helps to make it powerfully convincing, the story itself starts off without belief and then spirals further and further into ridiculous territory. I mean, it loses sight of the original concept as the screenplay begins to fill it more and more until it floods and drowns viewers in a sea of senseless writing. You would expect more from the creator of the British cult classic Withnail and I, particularly when he is teamed up with the talents of Academy Award winning screenwriter Neil Jordan. Unfortunately, that is a pipe dream. In Dreams is a low point for the both of them and there really does not seem to be all that much communication going on between them because the scattered structure of the film suggests that both writers had potential but ended up trying to fit way too much into the single narrative. You can pick out the elements that present the film with constant tonal shifts and an inconsistent pace within the script, but you are likely to be so busy doing so that you end up forgetting to be entertained by the film. I know that was the problem with me, and so it is hard for me to recommend this film to fans of Neil Jordan.

Neil Jordan's direction does have some perks. Although his handling of the story is not that great and the dialogue feels cheap, the visual style that he gives the film is great. The atmosphere of In Dreams is enhanced by the way that Neil Jordan is able to channel viewers into it. By using thematic cinematography techniques and a light touch of visual effects, In Dreams ends up being an intense feature at times. It is certainly a stylish film, and it is both filmed and edited well against the backdrop of a decent soundtrack.

The cast also manage to contribute a decent effort to the story.

Annette Bening's leading performance is terrific. Her character evokes memories of Ellen Burstyn's amazing performance as Sara Goldfarb in the film Requiem for a Dream, and yet she maintains the charm of Susan Sarandon at the same time. She creates a figure which is like a fusion of some of the two actresses natural talents, and turns it into her own interpretation of the character Claire Cooper. Annette Bening's leading performance in In Dreams proves to be the best element of the film, and she channels herself into the tense atmosphere of the film very well. Annette Bening's leading performance is a striking one thanks to the firm dramatic power of her line delivery and the physical emotions she integrates into the role. Her chemistry with the surrounding actors is very powerful as well, and she manages to keep the insanity of the film alive and mostly believable even as it charters into territory that is not that believable. Annette Bening is the real reason to watch In Dreams, and any of her fans should be pleased at the quality of her intense leading performance in In Dreams.

Robert Downey Jr. was interesting to see in the role of a sick and twisted psychopath as well because it is a very against-type figure for him. Usually he is the hero, but this time he is the enemy. He is a little over the top at times, but as a whole he manages to get the psychotic nature of the character pretty well and projects it with a lot of tension. The physicality of his character is a lot more important to his role this time around than the line delivery, but he manages to get them both right in a small but entertaining performance.

Stephen Rea's brief role was also a nice touch.

Yet despite the talents of its cast and Neil Jordan's innovative visual style, In Dreams ends up being too scattered and senseless in its storytelling to really soar or more importantly, entertain.