But then again, OTT is nothing new to this genre.
And then, there's Robert Downey Junior - so over the top you're waiting for him to crash land with one hell of a thump. Paul Guilfoyle is also effective as the cop. Stephen Rea turns in another subtle performance as the psychiatrist. Aidan Quinn is suitably solid in the role of her troubled, if flawed husband. Bening, in probably her most neurotic role ever, is as compelling as always. Visually, Jordan's movie is sumptuous - the rich reds and greens, the autumnal colours, the ghostly underwater sequences. Is Claire genuinely going through these horrific experiences or is she going mad? There is also a terrible cruel streak running through the film - especially in its treatment of its heroine and her family - which is so unusual and refreshing for a Hollywood film (perhaps this is the main reason why audiences and critics were so alienated by it, they're just not used to it). Jordan and fellow scriptwriter, Bruce Robinson cleverly play with their audience's perceptions of their main character. Also, it has the advantage of not having Bruce Willis in it, turning in the sort of wooden performance he trotted out in The Sixth Sense. You will see Jordan has turned out a much darker, more disturbing, more meaningful and more interesting multi-layered film.
Compare it with the Sixth Sense which is equally far fetched but much less demanding. Okay, the plot stretches belief but then again, I give you almost every mainstream horror movie made. For a start, it's a psychological horror movie that is genuinely scary and emotionally draining in a way that few films are these days.
So what are we to make of Neil Jordan's 'In Dreams' and the wide and varied responses to it? The film bombed just about everywhere in the world and yet looking through the user's comments on this website there are those who passionately adore it and those who passionately detest it.
0 kommentar(er)
