The color red is very significant in In Dreams, in everything from the apples that seem to represent Claire's (Annette Bening) fears to the red dress that she is dressed in the numerous times that she 'dies' to the weird red color of Vivian's (Robert Downey Jr.) hair towards the end of the film. The color red is used to constantly remind the audience of the tenseness and fear in the film.

Ironically enough, the first thing that went through my mind when I saw Robert Downey Jr. as the psychopath as he approached Claire toward the end of the film was that he was horribly miscast in this film, and that his presence would inevitably lead to the ultimate disappointment that I expected to feel after the movie ended. However, aside from the goofy contact lenses that he wore and the obviously dyed hair, I was surprisingly impressed with his contribution to the film. In the film's closing scene, in particular, he was able to deliver one final performance that left jaws dropped as the credits began.

In Dreams is definitely not for everyone. I think that for this particular film, there will be people who loved it, people who hated it, and people who just didn't understand it, with probably not much in between. Unfortunately, it was much more effective on the big screen than on video, but with a healthy twist of the volume knob, it can be made to have virtually the same effect. Just don't watch it alone if you live out in the woods!

I've liked pretty much all of Annette Bening's movies, although I did think that Neil Jordan's "In Dreams" should have come out as a little bit more given what all seems to have gone into it. As it is, I've seen lots of movies that portray people's dreams being more than just dreams and possibly showing something evil. This one isn't terrible, but I've seen this sort of thing so many times that there's nothing really new here. The movie's main strength is it's dreary, nearly Gothic setting.

So, it's worth seeing maybe once. The movie just might give you a different impression of Annette Bening, plus co-stars Aidan Quinn and Robert Downey Jr.

So just remember what Roy Orbison sang...

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.