'In Dreams' is one of those movies that feels spooky from the word go. I would have given this movie a miss if not for Downey's presence in it. I am currently reading his biography and this movie came at a time when he was at the lowest patch of his career. His screen time is far less but tries to make the most of it. 'In Dreams' is a story of interwoven minds of Vivian & Claire. Downey's best scene in the movie is the one right at the end of the movie. I wish there was more emphasis on building and leading the story than showing Annette's antics and psychotic behavior. I can't find fault with the premise but the story is sort of vague. It never answers Why Claire? Why after so long? How come she is in the same town? Answers to these is left to your imagination.

I was watching a previous programme, left the recorder hard drive on.. started watching near the start without realising it was.... SO..OK.. I fell in love with the lead character. Gorgeous..but.. I'm not sure the write up of the film in the TV guide was right.... I got the wrong impression.. NOW I know.. ah!! If you start at the beginning, and I watched it again after it finished thinking.. eh? Did I miss something. Actually no.. the film leads you into the story nicely, interesting obviously flooded town for a reservoir.. OK.. it IS a film you have to see from the start. You'll get confused as heck if you don't. Shes brilliant.. the daughter, cute of course.. hubby, OK.. one is reminded of Medium the TV series but this hubby isn't used to coping. Thats part of what makes it sad.. she really gets a 'bum deal'. One feels for her, even if one doesn't fancy her..(ahem).. but what is real? I didn't like the end but having seen it twice, it makes sense.. its NOT spelled out. I did get drawn in and it kept me up much later than intended.. that to me is good. WHAT the hells going to happen. The stunts..very well done and if one is going to do a major..stunt.. for me, not enough was shown of it happening.. a recent Steve McQueen TV/film stunt was shown from many angles to MAKE you realise they did it for real.. and how well it was done.. this time.. I'm not sure. I didn't like the end, but where this film is concerned.. I suppose it couldn't end any other way. Yes it could.. no it couldn't, excuse me.. pantomime time soon. Anyone who wants the story spelled out, no.. it doesn't, and thats what makes it intriguing, if you haven't patience to stay with it to find out.. like some said they almost did.. in the cinema? What a shame, such a bril film wasn't appreciated. We do get so many of these on Brit late night TV in the UK..BBC, uninterrupted, and that helps. WISH they were on EARLIER!!!

Claire Cooper (Annette Bening) is having nightmares that haunt her. When her daughter (Katie Sagona) is murdered by a mysterious serial killer (Robert Downey Jr.), Claire finds herself predicting the future, and discovers she shares her dreams with the serial killer. Unable to convince the lead detective (Paul Guilfoyle), her doctor (Stephen Rea) and even her husband (Aidan Quinn), Claire has to confront the killer alone before her terrifying dreams become real.This film is a mess. I don't want to knock Neil Jordan, the director, because I know that he has had other successes, such as "Interview With the Vampire". But this just isn't one of them. This film is poorly conceived and poorly executed... I have few good things to say about it.Why was Claire being fed this stuff? How? Her psychic connection is never explained. And I believe she says she had dreams all her life? Were they always connected to the killer? Why were they never this vivid? Did the connection go both ways -- and if the dreams came from the killer, how did he know what was going to happen in the future? How did Vivian hide out so well? Why were we treated to such over-acting by Bening? Another review says she put on a "terrific performance" and that "the film is saved" by her acting. That person has their head up their bottom -- Bening was too much. I don't mind her sometimes, but not here.Why did Downey appear so late in the film? (The box itself gives away he's the killer, so it's not much of a surprise.) And from what I understand, it has nothing to do with the original book. So... why even use it? The same reviewer I quote says this one is "truly underrated", "features a Cult Following" and "could have been a masterpiece". What film did they see? All I saw was a movie that dragged on and on, and had some odd obsession with apples, which is never really explained. Yes, I get that there's a run down apple orchard -- but why? There were so many apples, it seems like it had to be symbolic, but wasn't. Why did the kidnapped girl (Ruby) not even try to run away? Plot holes, plot holes, plot holes.You don't need to see this movie. You really don't. You can probably find it in the five dollar bin somewhere, but you'd truly be wasting your money and time. Use your five dollars, go to a cheap theater and catch some nearly new release. There's no point in renting or owning "In Dreams" unless you want to bore yourself to sleep.

This is a movie to be watched more than listened to. Let the visuals have their way with you and you are going to have an exciting, nail-biting two hours capped with a perfect-fit ending.If you look for meaning, logical connections and perfect continuity, don't bother. It's not going to work for you. It's not that kind of movie. This is not "Silence of the Lambs" or "Se7en." It's more like Nicholas Roeg's twisted little masterpiece, "Don't Look Now." In fact, I recommend that movie to anyone (the few, the proud, the brave) who can see what a terrific movie In Dreams is.Annette Bening, who is in 90 percent of In Dreams, turns in a bravura performance (if you're reading this, Annette, give us a kiss, you ravishing hunk of woman. Speaking of dreams ... well, uh, let's not go there. Let's just say I've about worn out my copy of The Grifters). The story is simple. Bening plays a mom being driven mad by dreams put in her head by the sicko who killed her daughter. These dreams are of events in the past, things happening now and things that haven't happened yet. A lot of the movie is Bening having nervous breakdowns, each one worse than the one before. The apple-throwing sequence is brilliantly acted and shot. Incredible tension. Major props, also, to the big car and truck crash scene. Jordan puts you right there.Aidan Quinn, as her husband, doesn't have much to do but act baffled, but he's good at that. Stephen Rea, as the psychiatrist, performs the same role as the psychiatrist at the end of Psycho, tying together events from years past to what's going on now. Robert Downey Jr. plays the nutcase very well.This movie looks gorgeous — small town Massachusetts in the fall. Vivid colors you could eat with a spoon. The scene with the little boy atop the church steeple poking out of the lake is really eerie.Again, the visuals in this movie are extraordinary. In Dreams is not about something that could actually happen to real people. It's a wonderfully made adult horror movie that, compared to other horror movies, is actually restrained. Check it out.BTW, the trailer of this movie, which I watched on the DVD, is just awful. It looks like a completely different movie, and a bad one, at that.