The Worst Film Ever

Simply A Masterpiece

Don't listen to the negative reviews

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

After her young daughter is abducted & later found murdered, small town children's writer Claire Cooper is driven insane by the knowledge that she predicted her murder but didn't realise it at the time. Placed into a mental hospital, Claire begins having severe nightmares & visions where she can see into the mind of the killer who has been haunting her since childhood. Her husband doesn't believe her, only for himself to turn up as a victim of the killer. Convinced that only she has the power to stop the killer, Claire breaks out of the asylum & makes her way to the killer's hideout in order to save a young girl from becoming his latest victim.Neil Jordan is one of the world's finest directors, having done the acclaimed likes of The Crying Game & the exceptional romantic werewolf fairy tale THE COMPANY OF WOLVES. In Dreams was one of the director's borderline genre films, a blend of psychodrama & slasher flick.In Dreams might not be one of Neil Jordan's best films – in fact it is pretty weak in terms of storyline, with a complicated plot that needs several viewings to fully comprehend – but even with this problem, Jordan still impresses, mainly by way of making evocative visuals. The flooding of the old town, which has divers swimming through a submerged cemetery (that scene alone made me feel uneasy), the dreams that Annette Bening has, which are actually visions of the future, even the haunting rhyme that the killer writes on the walls ("My father was a dollar / I wrote it on a fence / my father was a dollar / not worth a hundred cents") all add up to an interestingly creepy atmosphere. Jordan is also an expert in atmosphere, giving an eerie feeling of dread throughout the film, although this is slightly hamstrung somewhat by the frenzied editing. There are several weak points in the film as well – the story needed a few clarifications on how long Bening has had the visions for; the exact nature of the mind-link with the killer; as well as some needless scenes of destruction that seem to be inserted purely to justify the film's 'thriller' tag. The climax is also pretty weak but is redeemed somewhat by a darkly ironic ending where Bening, now a ghost, haunts Downey Jr's waking moments for karmic payback.The acting is top-notch, although Annette Bening has some trouble getting into the disturbed headspace without doing some glass-munching (the act of doing extreme emotions in an over-the-top manner). As for glass-munching, Robert Downey Jr is perfect as the killer, doing an excellent job of playing a disturbed killer who was traumatised by being left chained up by his mother in the flooding town.

This is a collection of nice looking scenes with high quality visual design and some fairly good acting. Hooray. And yet the story is ridiculous, and it just doesn't hang together. By the time you get to the clichés that serve as an ending, you'll want to slap something. The garish color and playful effects really do work as individual moments, but the story line is more a serious of dots that start to connect up and then veer into some kind of weird scribble. The waste of acting talent here is particularly odd. Annette Benning is rocking it for much of the film, until she morphs into Laurie Anderson. Downey is only in part of the third reel, and he's fairly restrained but effective. Rea has it dialed way down, to the point where there's almost nothing to it.

The splendid performances and the interesting plot of In Dreams make it one of those horror movies that could give you nightmares for the days to come. (I myself am the living proof of the movie's strong impact) The serial killer's motives and intentions are unravelled through Claire's eyes and it is this point of view that makes In Dreams a very exciting and gripping film. However, the focus remains solely on Claire and, as a result, we are none the less enlightened about the killer's personality by the end of the film. It is this focus on Claire until the end rather than the killer that leaves the audience with a huge question mark as to who this man really is and what has led him to his actions. However promising and interesting a serial killer we are prepared to come across, the film leaves us without a climax. Robert Downey Jr gives a remarkable performance as the villain, with nothing exceptional and exaggerating in his acting. His admirable performance makes up for the lack of depth the plot leaves us with, but only partially; not only because of the point of view, but because of the direction, as well. A few more close-ups would have made him a villain to remember.

Overacting along with a weak convoluted story make for one shitty movie. So glad I didn't pay to see this film in the theaters. Don't waste your time with this trash. Everyone who acted in this film should be embarrassed to say so. I would question the taste of anyone who claimed that this film is worth watching. I wish I could get back the 90 minutes of my life that I wasted watching this movie. Perhaps DreamWorks can setup a fund to repay all the people who wasted their hard-earned money to see this crappy piece. Please take my advice and don't watch this movie. I don't care how bored you are, you shouldn't watch this movie.