In Dreams

1999 "You don't have to sleep to dream"
5.5| 1h40m| R| en| More Info
Released: 15 January 1999 Released
Producted By: DreamWorks Pictures
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

A suburban housewife learns that she has psychic connections to a serial killer, and can predict this person's motives through her dreams.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

DreamWorks Pictures

Trailers & Images

Reviews

geniealdrich2 This just didn't make sense....I swear I can't believe Annette Bening greenlighted this role!!!!
gintroubad 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.
sohrob76 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.
PHASEDK 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!!!