In Your Dreams (2025)

A nostalgic dream adventure with strong ideas, softened by convenient storytelling.

I do not usually gravitate toward animated films, as I tend to prefer the physical realism actors bring to a story. Still, it feels important to know some of them when helping children choose what to watch.

I decided to give this film a chance, convinced by Netflix thanks to a trailer with a Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This) soundtrack and a pleasing gold-light colour thumbnail.

The film has a build-up very reminiscent of a 90s child adventure-oriented film, with the characters finding a mystical relic - a book - in the private underground storage of a bookshop. This moment had my nostalgia running, reminding me a bit of Jumanji (1995) or even the first Gremlins (1984).

What works particularly well is that every character has a clear motivation. Even Nightmara, the character introduced as the villain, wants to help and has a credible reason to give nightmares to people. Baloney Tony might be an exception, with an unclear aim. As Elliot’s plush toy, he functions as a de facto ally and his motivation is aligned with Elliot’s. Not having one of his own is also easily forgiven, because he is also at the same time comic relief and guide through the dream world.

The film quickly touches on nightmares often experienced by many people, such as falling teeth, naked dreams and attending an exam without proper preparation. I may not have personally had all of them, but it made the characters - or mainly Stevie - more relatable. As Stevie and Elliott are several years apart in age, they react differently because the target audience is between their ages. Like Elliot, the younger viewers will not understand the issue or will not have had this kind of dream. Teenagers like Stevie will know how they feel and grasp the girl’s uneasiness. I like when a film is implicitly aware of its audience.

I feared the use of lucid dreams would bring a Deus Ex Machina for the characters to resolve the conflict, as lucid dreams imply you can control what happens and what you can do. To some extent, it helps, but fortunately, it is not enough to defeat the Sandman. The family coming together to defeat him affects how they interact in real life, which is a nice parallel.

Still, not everything works as well as it could, and some elements prevent me from considering it as more than simply entertaining.

The writing is clever, with several references to what happened or was said earlier. Yet, some key narrative choices feel too convenient, which I only noticed afterwards.

I spoke earlier about a Jumanji feeling with the beginning. In Jumanji, the boardgame is a major tool and gives clues and rules from the beginning and these rules pave the way for resolution. In Gremlins, the mogwai also comes with rules. In In Your Dreams, the Sandman book is used in a limited way: it opens up for Stevie and Elliot to find a way to keep their family together. Once the first dream sequence is over, none of them seem to take the time to explore the book. It is then just relegated to an easy device to trigger the quest part. And once the family matter is resolved, the Sandman and dream-possibilities are forgotten and it is left aside.

In line with the usual dream customs, characters wake up when they are too scared or are going to be hurt - which cannot happen in a dream. As they have ways to go back to sleep, by reading a line from the book for Stevie and with a white noise machine for Elliott, and reappear at the same place within the dream, waking up is never a hindrance, more of an inconvenience at worst.

One aspect still leaves me uncertain, and it centres on the father. The whole film is triggered by his wish to stay in their current house. This contrasts with the “my home is where my family is” trope usually seen in children’s films. I am conflicted by what I see as egocentricity. But as he is a struggling musician, once famous but now unsuccessful, who refuses to see his difficulties and is naively hopeful that things will just get better, I can fathom he is an immature character. Thus, not having that trope-based reasoning is comprehensible. And this makes him either an easy tool for the story, or the result of brilliant writing and human understanding.

Next Sunday evening, I will be watching The Pink Panther, a 2006 film.

-- from the Evening Notes