"In Dreams" is only a semi successful portrait of a tormented woman played by Annette Bening ("Bugsy", "The American President"), who is plagued by dreams of murders committed by a psycho (Robert Downey, Jr.). Neil Jordan ("The Crying Game", "The Butcher Boy", "Interview with the Vampire", "Michael Collins"), the director, has been down this road before, in certain variations and with varying success.

The dilemma posed with this type of film is that it really has to be exceptional, because, like it or not, this type of story has been seized by television's grinding mill and comes out in shows such as "Millennium" (what is it with Friday night television, anyway, the darkest most bizarre shows are on that night), "Profiler", and "X-Files". And some of this competition is quite formidable. "X-Files" is a slick, intelligent show that often turns ideas on their head and uses this plot conceit in a number of shows.

So, then, the challenge for a theatrical film is to make a riveting, arresting story that is overwhelming. "In Dreams" is visually engaging but sometimes it seems that the director is trying too hard. For example, there is a city drowned in a flood, and the scenes here are well done. But rather than being pulled in by the images, I'm thinking: "Wow. What logistics that must have taken. Must be a huge tank!" Indeed, the production crew used the production location for "Titanic". These scenes, while certainly well done, just don't pull the viewer in, but rather, leave one simply marveling at the production feat.

In addition, there are numerous childhood references to fairy tales, which only means that the images will be about as subtle as a Mac truck. Bening is an author of child tales which becomes a theme in the film (much like Jordan's early directorial effort "In the Company of Wolves"). And although this seems fine at first, it only becomes an excuse to use strange imagery that is convenient to the plot. Thus, this becomes a psychologist's little toy - identify the imagery and symbols, all the wonderful Jungian references. Unfortunately, a psychological film has to operate on a less obvious level to be successful. Just take a look at "Rosemary's Baby" or "Revulsion" for examples of films that work in subtle and disturbing ways that get under the skin.

Yet, Neil Jordan's forte is in psychological studies that highlight the tension between individuals and heightens suspense as he accomplished superlatively with "The Crying Game" and "The Butcher Boy". But whenever Jordan chooses stories that are patently bizarre such as "Interview with the Vampire" and "In Dreams", he is less successful. The problem is that Jordan falls into plot conventions in these types of movies. "Interview with the Vampire" was, surprisingly, a boring vampire film despite strong performances. "In Dreams" falls into the same trap. Jordan is, frankly, too intelligent for this type of material and a conventional treatment of an "unconventional" story only highlights the shortcomings. Perhaps part of the problem is in trying to make a mainstream film that will be acceptable to a wide audience. Therefore, blatant statements must be made, painted in neon and splashed across the screen so that everyone understands. Why not take it a tiny step further and print subtitles?

Story aside, the cast in this film is strong. Bening accomplishes a haunted quality that is believable and Robert Downey ("Chaplin", "Heart and Souls", "Restoration") is disturbing in his small role. But the cast is not the problem here, it's the story and execution. Jordan knows how to accomplish more with less, but supernatural stories tend to pull him off his strong capabilities and the result is overdone and uninteresting. If Jordan ever manages to translate the power of "The Crying Game" or "The Butcher Boy" to a supernatural story, however, he will make a classic. Unfortunately, "In Dreams" falls completely short of the mark.