As a child who visited his relatives in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley during the 1960's and 70's, I was always fascinated by a lake just outside the small town of Dayton. My interest, however, didn't stem from it being particularly picturesque or large, but instead rested on a rumor both so compelling and disturbing that one couldn't avert their eyes whenever passing by it. What, you may ask, was that rumor? That a cemetery lay at the bottom of the lake, long since flooded and never seen since.
Thus my interest was immediately peaked by the beginning of Neil Jordan's nightmarishly surreal "In Dreams," where a town is purposefully flooded and completely covered -- during the mid 1960's -- to create a new reservoir. With that eerie catalyst in mind and accompanied by the spooky, supernatural elements that followed, I sat back and anxiously awaited what appeared would be a fun, creepy film.
Unfortunately, and despite some unnerving scenes and disturbingly compelling visuals, the film jumps its tracks, derailed by an increasingly preposterous plot, some wooden acting, and stilted dialogue. Wasting its early potential, what seemed to be a strong entry in the supernatural thriller genre simply becomes a hokey variation of the serial killer plot that would even cause the folks at those telephone psychic hotlines to scoff.
This isn't to say that I normally debunk such plots. On the contrary, I've often enjoyed such paranormal stories -- no matter how campy they may occasionally get. This film's plot -- as written by Jordan and Bruce Robinson ("Return to Paradise," "Jennifer 8") and based on the novel "Doll's Eyes" by Bari Wood -- initially seems like it has a decent premise.
However, and not withstanding the "Atlantis" elements, it's simply an uninspired variation that blatantly pilfers the "I can psychically see the killer and/or his plans" elements from films such as "Eyes of Laura Mars," "The Dead Zone," and even "Dreamscape" and "Fear" (as well as many other similarly based novels).
As such, the "killer is controlling your dreams for later to be disclosed and definitely warped domestic reasons" plot comes off as too goofy to be either scary or believable (in a genre that already necessitates a big dose of suspension of disbelief from the get-go). Simply put, the story idea has been run into the ground and without a sufficient subplot to support the proceedings (think of the dual stories in "The Silence of the Lambs"), the film quickly sinks as the story plummets into further -- and progressively less frightening -- silliness.
With a nod to my screenwriting aspirations, I believe that an outright ghost story where Claire would discover some decades old wrong-doing that was covered up by the flood would have worked much better than what transpires here as a trite retreading of the serial killer flick.
Jordan, who delivers yet another highly stylized film as he's done in the past with "The Crying Game" and last year's "The Butcher Boy" is further hampered by the script's weak and often quite stilted dialogue (especially in a scene where Claire announces her plan to stop the killer), as well as some downright stiff acting from an otherwise decent and talented cast.
While Annette Bening ("The Siege," "The American President") eventually, but only temporarily, feels right inhabiting her character, for most of the film she seems horribly miscast and her performance never gels nor feels natural. Instead, she comes off more like an actress playing a part than a believable, real-life character facing such circumstances.
Robert Downey, Jr. ("U.S. Marshals," "Two Girls and a Guy") gives an appropriately wacked out performance as the standard-issue, looney serial killer, but appears too late in the film to save it even from a camp standpoint. At one time such a performance may have been highly acclaimed, but we've seen so many similar characters of recent that the effect and impact of such performances are significantly diffused.
Meanwhile, the usually reliable Stephen Rea (a Neil Jordan favorite in films such "The Butcher Boy" and "The Crying Game") is completely flat and uninspired in his psychiatrist role where he continuously gives the impression that he'd rather be somewhere else than making this film. Aidan Quinn ("Practical Magic," "Michael Collins") similarly can't do much with character whose development mainly consists of him continually and conveniently leaving to fly his planes.
All of which is a surprise since Jordan's past movies have mostly contained well-written and performed characters. Here it seems, however, that he's more interested in visual flair than deep characterizations. As such, he does deliver some creepy visual moments, from divers making their way through the long-flooded town to the effectively staged nightmare visions that trouble his protagonist.
Easily the most impressive is an extended sequence where Claire's escape from a psychiatric ward follows and mirrors that of her tormentor from several decades past, with both scenes inter-cut with the other. It's quite effective and appropriately spooky. Yet, where many of the visuals are fun and spooky, others get in the way, such as a futuristic padded cell that seems more in tune with "2001" than this film.
The problems don't end there, however, as all sorts of gaping plot holes doom this picture to sink to its own watery grave. One of the biggest involves the issue that if Claire was having dreams of little kids in trouble, and that bodies of such victims were being found in her town -- and were obviously the work of a serial killer -- she'd never let her daughter out of her sight. Alas, that isn't the case.
After that unfortunate incident, and notwithstanding a several week coma that follows, her and Paul's grief and guilt never seem real nor intense enough to be believable (compared say, to George C. Scott's character in the similarly spooky "The Changeling"). After all, their daughter has just been murdered and Claire saw the whole thing before it happened.
Beyond that, one is never sure why Claire isn't committed to a psychiatric ward much earlier in the film, nor is it ever certain whether the killer is taunting her in person (one would expect this with a radio positioned to play an appropriately topical song) or that she's simply hallucinating (the typing that appears -- and echoes her words -- on her computer screen).
Likewise, a character would never continue going ever deeper into an obviously long vacated and dilapidated hotel -- on the whim of a caller who said they had the family dog there -- other than as a cinematic device to put viewers on the edge of their seats. Finally, if the filmmakers had to include the increasingly preposterous mental mind-link between Claire and Vivian, why didn't they use any of the fun "Village of the Damned"-like scenes where our protagonist must mentally outwit her nemesis who can apparently read her every thought?
Better than the recent onslaught of teenage slasher films, but nowhere near as good as it could and should have been, the film may feature some creepy and effective visuals, but its many problems insure that it won't stay afloat for long. Disappointing due to the wasted cast and story potential, we give "In Dreams" just a 4 out of 10.
![[Screen It]](https://www.screenit.com/images/screenit_subscriber_logo.jpg){kind=logo}
![[Around the World in 80 Days]](https://www.screenit.com/images/posters/movies/around_the_world_in_80_days_2022_small.jpg)
![[Family Camp]](https://www.screenit.com/images/posters/movies/family_camp_small.jpg)
![[Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness]](https://www.screenit.com/images/posters/movies/doctor_strange_in_the_multiverse_of_madness_small.jpg)