Vanilla Sky

Rating:
Summary: Another faint-praise-defying performance from Tom Cruise.
Review: Although a remake of a Spanish film, 'Vanilla Sky' is very much part of a certain strand of contemporary Hollywood, cinema dealing with crises of post-modernity (authenticity, identity, reproduction, reality); and in particular, of masculine anxieties within it, such as 'Face/Off', 'The Matrix', 'The Game' or 'Fight Club'. My point is, the source's 'foreignness' need not have prevented 'Sky' from being a very American film. The fact that it is not remotely an American film points to its failure. It reminded me very much of a 'cult' film from the 1960s, John Frankenheimer's 'Seconds', which used Rock Hudson as an audience-friendly centre of interest to spin a pretentious story involving aging, identity, facial surgery, new lives, vague bureaucratic conspiracies, fantasies and dreams. Like 'Sky', 'Seconds' took a plethora of narrative procedures and stylistic tics from Euroepan cinema, and plonked them wholesale into an American context, without a thought of adapting them (like film noir did) or explaining why something native to France, say, should somehow be exactly relevant to the US. As a result, these procedures and tics seemed superficial, phoney, tacked on; a half-digested pose of 'culture'. 'Sky' is like all those films from the late 60s/early 70s, when studios spent fortunes trying to corner the hippified 'youth' market with drearily psychedelic anti-narratives: the profusion of late-60s music icons and their imitators on the soundtrack suggest Crowe's aspirations to match these works. Just as Monet's so-called 'Vanilla Sky' painting, with its links here to personal, artisan craft, the maternal and memory is a buoy of authenticity in a sea of post-modern bogusness, so the late-60s is seen as the last period of Hollywood adventurousness before mindless big-budget spectaculars became the be-all-and-end-all. This might be true, but even these grotesque late-60s photocopies had the guts to take it all the way - 'Sky''s 'mind-trip' is safely neutered by explanations.

Like 'Seconds', 'Sky' is made compulsive viewing for one reason: its lead performance. For this to work, the lead role had to be played by a major star, someone, Crowe might say, complicit in the system he wants to critique. Therefore there is a stifling moralism in what he does with Tom Cruise, punishing him for his beauty, wealth, success and sexual potency. But Cruise, surely the finest actor working in Hollywood today, transcends this, and like Hudson before him, turns 'Sky''s inanities into a bleak meditation on what it is to be a star. His isn't an Everyman performance, we can't 'identify' with his character(s); we are peeking into the private crises of an actual human being whose persona - based on changeless, Dorian Gray good looks - is mediated, and used, and transmitted, and transformed by and for people all over the world. Cruise shows us what this might be like to live with. It is the picture in the attic. The scene in the nightclub, where he dances Janus-like with a mask behind his Munch-melted face, has an astonishing, Franju-frisson, a genuine surrealism that makes a mockery of the piffling 'dream/fantasy vs. reality' scenario that structures the rest. From the very first scene, we are watching a study in masks, and as Wilde said, the truth of masks is the truth of metaphysics. A remarkable performance.

Rating:
Summary: The Egos have landed
Review: As Cameron Crowe and Tom Cruise will tell you, this is not a typical Hollywood formulae film but an intelligent one, designed to make you think and lets face it this is what people want now isn't it.

The premise of this film is a great idea being as it worked so well in the Spanish original and other films made in the early nineties. And an episode of Red Dwarf too. Also, Cruise has said that the film is funny, especially on second viewing. I think what he means is that if you can't take the film seriously then you're not meant to and that sounds like a handy get out clause for the director to have. I'm lucky because I laughed at the film the first time, especially Penelope Cruz who was just a scream. I couldn't understand much of what she said but she was in the original so she must be right for the part.

Of course, the downside of making a film where the audience is supposed to use their brain is that the director has to put a lot of slow, plodding, talky scenes in it. And to counteract this he is forced to liven up things now and again in whatever way he can. I mean emptying Times Square had nothing to do with the rest of the film but it allowed us to see Times Square empty and I just love gimmicks in films. All you pop-video directors out there take note of Crowe's ingenuity (mind you I thought they could do that with CGI now). Crowe's genius even stretches to showing scenes where the visuals and soundtrack don't match. Wish I'd thought of that.

But the real masterstroke has to be THAT ending. How can people not understand Vanilla Sky when the whole thing is explained to you in the last fifteen minutes? Crowe should be praised for his originality because so many films nowadays have dramatic, exciting endings when what you really need is 2 characters standing in a lift and on a rooftop and one explains the whole film to the other. Riveting stuff.

By the way if you liked this film I also recommend "Plan Nine from Outer Space"

Rating:
Summary: A Once in a Lifetime Mind Opener
Review: This is probably one of the greatest films and concepts ever created. The movie tells us a story about the mysteries and powers of our own mind. The drama of the movie is incredible. The idea that our dreams are as powerful and usually even more powerful than reality is incredible. The movie itself portrays what some directors and filmmakers would find impossible; a dream. Our dreams are some of the most mysterious things that we posess and this movie shows us a much more indepth look at what the dream is. I mean, the average Joe Shmoe cant exactly express his dreams in a movie, let alone say his dreams out loud. To be able to show a dream on the screen is an incredible feat and I congratulate Crowe for his sucess at achieving that. Most people misunderstood the nature of the film and that is something that almost always happens when a great film is realeased, it is misunderstood. I believe that another reason for the misunderstanding of the film is that the film went extremely far from what we percieve as reality. The typical redneck wants these three things in his movie, violence, money, and sex. And that is just one reason that the movie was so disliked. Some people just didn't get what they wanted. The movie went far as to explain something that the average idiot doesn't understand for his convenience. I say that this movie is one of greatest movies ever created. The reason being is that the movie goes inside of the human mind further than ever before. I got a lot out of this movie and I hope that more people will finally realize what this movie wants to say.

Rating:
Summary: Non-Traditional Story Told in a traditional way perfectly
Review: If you look at the story, it is just the opposite of lots of cliche stories Hollywood sold us so far. These movies like Sixth Sense or The Others or now Vanilla Sky are surprises for me and this one was really great. I always liked Crowe's movies. The only thing I don't like about his moviemaking is that he doesn't use film score, instead he puts lots of songs in the movie. But somehow he does it in a funny way so I'm not so much disturbed. But I give 5 stars to this movie anyway. I watched it twice, I'll watch it couple of times more to discover everything about it since it's too complex to be understood in one shot. Not the storyline but the storytelling. The story is not that confusing as some guys say, it's really 100% clear when you get it, there are no points remaining not-understood, moreover I was going angry that Crowe explains everything in that elevator to us. Personally I would give some hints to the audience and let them put everything together themselves like Zemeckis did in Contact.
...

Rating:
Summary: One of Cruise's Greatest Performances
Review: Vanilla Sky is not an erotic thriller. It is indeed a psychological thriller that will rattle your brain for a while.

If you're looking for a romantic movie, this isn't it. If you are looking for a movie that will make you think and has a great message behind it.

Cruise gives an incredible performance with wonderful directing from Cameron Crowe (Who also directed Jerry Maguire w/Cruise). Cruise plays a rich playboy who is living life carelessly, until he meets a woman who could be the one. After spending one night with her, she inspires him to change his life around to the better, but does he have a chance to change it around? After spending the night with Cruz's character, Diaz's character Julie is waiting outside for him, and she gets him to get into the car with him for a nice "quickie." Well...that was a mistake by Cruise, because she drives the car off a bridge, killing herself and damaging Cruise's face. From here...it's a roller coaster ride that won't stop until the end. At the end, you will feel for Cruise's character...it is indeed sad at moments.

The message is a really good message, that Crowe did a great job on telling.

You cannot live your life carelessly, not focus. You must have control of your life. Casual sex is a very big issue here. It might be casual to you, but what about the other person? The other person might be feeling more than just casual. The little things in life is what counts, and we must really think about them, and enjoy life. We cannot make these stupid mistakes or we will have to pay the consequences.
Cruz's character says something that will stick with me forever...She says, "Every passing minute is a chance to turn it all around." She is absolutely correct. We must think about how are life is now and what we're doing with it. What is happiness to us? What is the greatest moment in our life? What little things we can change to make our life more fulfilling...more happy?

If you analyze this film, you will truly love it and appreciate the incredible work everyone in this film as done.

Jason Lee was marvelous, as well as Cruz, and Diaz. I must say Diaz did a great job on being a whacked out woman.

The score is just magnificent. It is indeed my favorite soundtrack ever. It's a Crowe film, of course the score is going to be great!

Rating:
Summary: Bets movie ever made .. read on to find out why
Review: There are so many dull movies out there that lack imagination, that I find it a real pleasure when a movie like Vanilla Sky is released. Previous to this movie's release, I found great respect in masterpieces such as Fight Club, Jacob's Ladder, Brazl and Traffic. These movies aren't meant to be easy going and most people out there don't like them. The reason is that these movies are too thought-provoking and don't give enough 'banana' to your typical dumb movie-going ape.

This movie is incredible. It messes with you, like Jacob's Ladder, but then reveals all at the end in a similar way. A lot has been debated about the 'pseudo intellectuals' who think they get it, but to be frank, this movie has only one conclusion and that is the one offered in the explanation at the end. Everything is wrapped up and accounted for. It explores life and what it 'could be' for a person, it explores death, it explores love, and it explores dreams and what reality is.

99% of the people who watch it will probably hate it - just like Mulholland Drive. Well here's a contraversial statement: that's because they're too dumb to 'open their eyes'

Respect to Tom Cruise for having the guts to make this masterpiece. Truly mind blowing!

Rating:
Summary: See the original, "Abre tus ojos"
Review: As usual, Hollywood takes a fine move and remakes it into a contrived, presumptuous and LONG waste of time.

Vanilla Sky is almost an exact copy of Alejandro Amenabar's "Abre tus ojos", which was original, interesting and well-made. Every change made by director Crowe is definitely for the worse.

Though Tom Cruise turns in a fine performance, and Jason Lee is just great, it's not enough to turn this thing around.

The bad:
* Oh-so-silly dialogue

* It is unnecessarily long (2 1/2 hours)

* What's with the music? The songs intrude on the movie, and the viewer must put up with pointless references throughout.

* Penelope Cruz's dialogue is so stilted, she seems to be speaking in phonetic English (mai neim iz puh-nell-o-pee). Are there no English-speaking actresses who could have played the part?

* As usual with American movies, everything is explained, driven home, endlessly repeated, drilled into your skull, and reiterated ad nauseam a million times in case some halfwit didn't get it. Nothing is left to the viewer's imagination.

* Did I mention it is LONG?

Rating:
Summary: A Waste of Film, Time, and Money
Review: Vanilla Sky, i have to say, is one of the worst movies ever. You sit in the theatre just waiting for it to end. I usually like Tom Cruise, but what was he thinking? Cameron Diaz makes the movie a little more exciting, but she doesn't have as strong a grip on her role. Penelope Cruz has no talent for acting at all. The only thing she has going for her is a pretty face. Vanilla Sky was just a waste. I basically dozed off for 15 minutes of the movie, that's how confused and bored I was. Take my advice: don't see this movie. You'll save 7 bucks and 3 hours.

Rating:
Summary: New ager something
Review: Love the poster to this. Are they hinting that Tom is an airhead? He seems to be distracted by something displeasing to the side of him. Is it a drunken Scotsman berating him with: "Get tae acting school, ya nae can act, mon!"? He used to live in England so he's probably used to that.
Crowe and Cruise are an excrutiating combination. Couldn't get through 'Jerry Maguire' and towards the end of this my body was screaming. I think it's one of those films that's more fun for the A-list making it than us far, far below. "Tom, how about a film where I'm a bad director and you wake up to find you're ugly? We can play around with stuff." - "You're making me nervous, Cam. Do I still get to wake up with Sophia after we've made the film?" - "Of course, Tom. This is reality, after all."
As I sat there I found no poetry and everything was s-p-e-l-l-e-d out to me. The simple things must be s-p-e-l-l-e-d out or they might, like, not be so simple. Also the importance of being rich and having bought lots of stuff or having a rich daddy. Stranger thoughts came to me. I was aware of the dead simultaneously, how they were no longer aware of reality, even as I was experiencing it. I felt dead and alive at the same time and how sleep must be like death and how if you're unaware of anything then, how can there be an afterlife because death is like, total unconciousness. Then I thought, like, wow, what if you had never been born at all, what does reality mean to you then? Just one long sleep? Then I smelt the Kafka...I mean, decaff. I woke up next day to find I had been transformed into a giant American.

Rating:
Summary: DUMBED DOWN FOR AMERICAN AUDIENCES
Review: I give Tom Cruise and Cameron Crowe credit for tackling such an intellectually challenging film for a mainstream American audience, however I was disappointed in the manner that the film was interpreted. The impact and intensity of the orginal film is lost in the translation. Some scenes from the original, Open Your Eyes, are recaptured exactly i.e. the birthday party scene and the niteclub scene; other scenes were reworked and dumbed down with added dialogue that overall lessens the instensity of the movie i.e. the car accident scene and the murder scene; and some essential scenes from the original were not even included in this, an inferior remake i.e a huge chunk of the end when David is committed to a mental institution, goes on a shooting spree and manages to bring the doctor into his weird dream of the city being completely empty; also the intense confrontation David has with Sophia in the park right after his accident.

Without giving away much of the storyline, here are my beefs with the American version:

1) In the original, David , the Tom Cruise character, is so incredibly deformed that it was painfully uncomfortable to view the scenes with him thus allowing you to feel the same discomfort that the other characters felt. This helped to heighten the intensity of David's isolation and his obsession with Sophia, which ultimately turns him into the very thing that destroyed him (the Cameron Diaz character). Unfortunately this character aspect is glossed over in Vanilla Sky.

2) Within 45 minutes of Vanilla Sky, blatantly obvious hints and clues are thrown in your face as to what is occurring. If you're an aware moviegoer you could figure out the plot line before it is even halfway through. The clues are more subtle in Open Your Eyes and David comes across as a man who is slowly going mad. You come to a slow realization of what is happening around the same time David does.

3) Cameron Diaz's character is given more lines in Vanilla Sky and the added lines are so insultingly stupid that it lessens the intensity of her character's despair. She comes off as comic relief, especially during the murder scene as she giggles giddily and spouts wisecracks at Tom Cruise. Not the case in the original, this is one of the most intense, uncomfortable and disturbing scenes of Open Your Eyes.

4) In the end, all the events in Vanilla Sky are over explained and wrapped up in a simple package that I found hard to digest i.e. the unnecessary flashbacks (not a part of the original), the service tech (not a part of the original) and how the company director tells David exactly what is happening (not a part of the original). The creepiness of Open Your Eyes lies in how everything slowly unfolds and is hardly explained, leaving lots of things to your interpretation. Did he really wake up or did it start all over again?

Other beefs: The David character was not afraid of heights. He jumped not to tackle his fear but, as the director tells him, "How else do you wake up from a nightmare? Jump and you'll wake up before you hit the ground." His father and the "seven dwarfs" were not touched upon in the original and a lot of what I
felt was essential interaction between David and the doctor was not included in Vanilla Sky (I also found Kurt Russell a bit unbelievable as the doc).

Fortunately, I had the opportunity to view Open Your Eyes beforehand and am grateful that I did. I can't help comparing the two as the original is an incredibly intense and gritty mind blowing ride which is what I was expecting from Vanilla Sky. Vanilla Sky, by far, isn't a bad movie. It's very stylish and flashy and I'm glad that it was made exposing mainstream audiences to a complex film that actually makes you think. But if you're not adverse to foriegn films I would highly reccommend renting Open Your Eyes first, before exposing yourself to this inferior Hollywoodized version of an incredible film.