Rating: 
Summary: Stars on Ice
Review: Not as bad as everyone says! Briefly, Cruise, playboy and 24-hour party person, falls for beautiful stranger (Penelope Cruz), then loses it all after nasty car crash caused by Cruise's crazy-jealous sleepover pal (Cameron Diaz). Finding himself trapped in a series of increasingly bizzare and nightmarish delusions, Cruise struggles to piece together what's left of his life with the aid of a sympathetic shrink (Kurt Russell). Cam Crowe's unabashed music-philia threatens to overwhelm the film at times. The long running length seems intended to accomodate the soundtrack (which is admittedly very good, including the Macca title track). Also, there are some pretty clunky lines, like the "cats" one and the laff-out-loud stuff Diaz says just before the crash. While it ultimately falls back on one of the oldest--and least satisfying--plot devices in storytelling history, "Vanilla" still struck me as a rather poignant flick. I think the disappointed people were the ones who wanted a neato whatisthematrix.com plot that goes beep and pow and zoom. This one's not plot; it's a mood piece! Maybe it was the DVD menus with their gorgeous stark white backgrounds, chirpy new-agey music and Monets; this one struck a chord with me. For the "Where's Waldo" types, look for quotes and homages to your favorite album covers and films. There are quite a few.
Rating: 
Summary: The unhappy consumer
Review: I'm having difficulty deciding whether to beat my head against the wall or bother to criticize yet another piece of soulless Hollywood entertainment/distraction. As more of the world sinks into poverty, starvation and despair, and this country rapidly transforms itself into a hyper militarized Rome, what more could we expect from that great engine of propaganda (that Hollywood unwittingly is) than one more slick lifestyles of the rich and famous in search of relief from the tedium of the idle rich. Oh but the world needs entertainment, or is it that the world needs distraction from the evil sheet that's going down. Bread and circuses didn't hold a candle to video. Oh well on a more specific note this was a mediocrely crafted psychedelic version of The Game (another waste of time) with a sort of Crowlian twist, and you either see what a sad soulless mess Crowley was or you idolize him as he idolized himself . Crowley, like Freud, in attempting to kill the mean-spirited Judeo-Christian God only wound up letting his own angry unexamined little psyche take his/her place. Ah but I diverge from the divergence that my subject of deriding this movie, or was it "civilization" is; well, either way they both suffer from the same preoccupation with uber wealth, high-tech toys and the fantasy that science will save us from our own mortality and/or our or society's unethical choices. So, "Turning and turning in the widening gyre...." Its not the sheep that deserve condemnation, for they are for the most part only sheep/victims. It's the shepherds I would damn to the eternal pit of hell, and Hollywood as the shepherd of the psyche of man should take up about as much space down there as it does here. Happy trails the unhappy consumer
Rating:
Summary: A Mind Altering Trip
Review: I wanted to see this movie for a long time and finally saw it on Pay per View last week. When it came out in the movie theaters last year, the commercials made it look really cool and it was, but it could have been done better I think. The only stars in this movie worth mentioning is Tom Cruise, who plays the vain, millionaire playboy publisher David Ames, Penelope Cruz, who plays the girl of his dreams, Sophia, and finally Cameron Diaz who plays the love-lorn, twisted Julie Gianni. If you ask me, the only star who was really great in this movie was Cameron Diaz. Vanilla Sky is the American remake of the movie "Abre Los Ojos". I never saw it but I do know that Penelope Cruz is in the original too and a lot of people say that the Spanish version is a helluva lot better. Anyway the movie is about how David Ames (Cruise) meets the girl of his dreams at his birthday party (Cruz) however his jealous "girlfriend" Julie (Diaz) becomes mad with jealousy (she has good reasons to be!)After going over to Sophia's (Cruz)house, Julie invites David into her car to have a chat about their relationship and the one that's beginning between him and Sophia. In rage, Julie runs the car over a bridge. David becomes permanently disfigured and his life gets turned upside down. Throughtout the movie David loses grips between reality and fantasy (heck even I got confused along the way)but by the end everything will make sense. Trust me. Vanilla Sky is a fun movie. It starts off slow but by midway, you begin to go on a trip through the psyche that kinda leaves wondering but it all makes sense in the end if you tie the beginning and the end of the movie together, that's the only way it will make sense. Cruise is good in this movie, maybe beacuse he plays himself, a vain, millionaire playboy. Cruz is the charmingly, witty character that adds a light, teenage girlish appeal to "Sophia". Diaz is GREAT as the jealous, " I am going to kill you for dissing me"-"girlfriend". See it and remember anything is possible with this movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Oh please
Review: I disliked this film for the same reason I disliked 'Artificial Intelligence.' The ending dragged out and goes off the deep end. I'm a big fan of psychological thrillers and Tom Cruise did a great performance but it was as if the writers were strung out on something when writing doing this script. Of all the scenarious then could have used...con artist...mental illness...I guess the plan was to surprise the audience, but I think it annoyed most. Too drawn out and contrived. Not what I expected.
Rating: 
Summary: It's Only What You Want It To Be
Review: Now, personally I thought this to be one of the top 3 films I've ever seen. But that's just me, and why anyone would want to argue with me about my own opinions and therefore has nothing better to do than complain about a 2 hour movie for 2 hours might as well just watch the movie instead and appreciate it. That's the beauty of this film: appreciating the small nuances you just pick up the more you watch it. I think the small lines thrown here and there, a few sound affects, and just the whole pretense of it just seems to be a bit different each time around. You can watch the movie once, try to determine what you thought its purpose was, and go back and build on your hypothesis, which is probably right, because the movie works on so many levels. I think the problem most people have with the movie is it actually works on their subconsicous, which is a very powerful thing. It has lots of small etudes of life for you to pick up, such as a mask, which could be a tool or a detriment, 'is only what you make it.' It has a very surreal taste, and maybe some just don't like it. Some may downplay its maudlin sentimentality that you can aright yourself no matter how off track you are. If you don't want to buy the movie, then don't. But it's still worth 2 hours of your life to rent.
Rating:
Summary: Probably the worst movie ever made
Review: I disliked this movie. I couldn't wait for it to end. It seemed four hours long. I've been a long time Tom Cruise fan, but I'll not be in a hurry to buy his next. I feel as if the reviewers who gave this a 5-star rating owe me the price of the DVD. I can't think of a worse movie.
Rating:
Summary: What Were They Thinking
Review: Ok, so Tom Cruise is looking for new ways to spread his wings. He wants us to know he's an ACTOR. I like his work, but here he's so busy ACTING, he constantly upstages himself. As for Penelpe Cruz, she was better in the original foreign film version of this film
Rating: 
Summary: So much different than I expected - a pleasant surprise
Review: I was intrigued by the previews for this film, but was afraid it would be similar to the whole "Eyes Wide Shut" debacle - a pseudo-psychological "thriller" that didn't thrill in the slightest. I'm also not a huge Tom Cruise fan, although with his more recent films, he's winning me over with his talent. Thus, I went in with my skepticism turned to 11. Thankfully, I was very surprised - this is an entertaining film with unpredictable twists and turns, some of which are in the same style of "Jacob's Ladder" and Phillip K. Dick stories. Personally, I was kept guessing until the big reveal, which came as a total surprise to me; I truly hadn't expected that kind of element to this film - I won't say what sort of element I'm talking about, as that might ruin some of the surprise. The story revolves around David Aames (Tom Cruise,) a charismatic, rich, and witty executive living a charmed life, but only skimming over the surface, never plumbing the depths available to him. He quite unexpectedly meets the woman of his dreams, and from there, things begin a completely unpredictable course of events that rapidly spiral out of his control - or do they? Is Cameron Diaz's character alive, or is he simply losing his mind? The plot is engaging, and I was wondering what would happen next. It's also an aesthetic treat, with well-crafted scenes and beautiful colors (and even the sky scenes have a story behind them.) The special features are entertaining, giving behind-the-scenes glimpses with the cast and filmmakers, as well as some insight into how the film came to be. An enjoyable experience, start to finish.
Rating:
Summary: The reason so many have strong opinions on this . . .
Review: This film has engendered a great deal of hostile reaction, and I think that about 90% of that is a result of frustrated expectations. Given that the film was directed by Cameron Crowe, who had previous directed JERRY MCGUIRE and ALMOST FAMOUS, and starred Tom Cruise, who had previously been in JERRY MCGUIRE and the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE films, I think many expected this film to run along those tracks. In other words, the presence of Tom Cruise (especially coupled with Cameron Crowe), created very specific expectations, expectations that were unquestionably violated. Now, Tom Cruise did a very good job in this film, but the fact it that because of the expectations surrounding him, he was probably miscast in this film. The film would probably have received a better reception with someone like John Cusack or Johnny Depp in the lead role, actors who have an established quirky side. I think the other reason that this film has received some negative reactions is the fact that it really, at its heart, is not a happy film. Things don't work out the way that any of the characters in the film would have liked. There is no fairy tale ending. Instead, there is an acknowledgement that life does contain tragedies. Although this is not a perfect film, it nonetheless is a stimulating, thought provoking fantasy. I loved the way that it continually challenged my sense of reality, and surprised my sensibilities. I loved the look of the film, and I find that many days after having seen it I have a host of extremely vivid images that I continually recall. So, I strongly recommend this film. But before seeing it, try to imagine that it doesn't star Tom Cruise. You'll have fewer expectations that way.
Rating:
Summary: Hollow explanations and praise
Review: It seems as though all of the positive reviews of this film defend it without explaining their justification for giving it praise. The entire concept is rediculous. To explore human frailties through a film culminating in cryogenic half awake, half dreaming reanimation is quite a bit to swallow. Symbollism, idealism, ontology, metaphysics, whatever fancy word you would like to use to describe what this movie brings forward to the table to question can much better be portrayed through a work by Edvard Munch than some hollywood production. Every possible explanation for the movie's genius is merely an ad hoc rescue attempt to give this film substance. The movie is chaotic and confused not the viewer. This is no Momento--a movie that was pretty well developed except for one crucial hole in it, the tatoo on the man's chest at the end ("I did it")while he is laying next to his still living wife. I in fact watched this movie twice and the "open your eyes" statement has been poorly addressed by reviewers. The movie is circular and unending, the movie ends with the same calling out that it begins with therefore leaving one to suspect that the movie's beginning is a continuation from its ending. This I find to be the most logical explantation of what occurs in the film. I challenge any reviewer to give me a better understanding.
And if you would like to harp on the deeper understanding that this film contains by explaining how materialism, avarice, and cupidity confront the lofty virtues of men then by all means give me another ad hoc rescue!
| 
