Rating: 
Summary: Ignore the hype
Review: If this film had lesser stars, and less hype, it would be more appreciated by the critics and viewers. Hollywood, as usual, would rather have more disappointed viewers who have bought the preview, only to be unsatisfied with a film which turns out to be too odd, too much of a challenge or just too much.Leaving the theater after this slightly too long film, I was ready to see it again, if only to put the pieces back together. I'm not sure I'm ready to rate the film as highly as many others, but I am certainly willing to rate it higher than most of the viewers who are so critical of it. It is well worth seeing. This would be better as a smaller, and shorter film. I will certainly seek out the original to see what inspired the remake, and what differences the US budget and stars made. If you are a fan of 'quirky' films, this is a must see.
Rating: 
Summary: Cameron Crowe's Life
Review: There is ususally something satisfying about the working out of complexities. Poet Seaums Heaney says, at the heart of a memorable reading of a poem, there is a sensation of arrival and prospect. The prospect, I think, is not the looking forward from a new vantage point (though that interpretation is defensible), rather the looking back over what you've struggled with and decoded. The same can be said of movies. Movies that we have to struggle with and that, as they unfold, hold themselves up offer Heaney's sense of arrival and prospect and, resultantly, are pleasureable. Bryan Singer's "The Usual Suspects" provides this kind of sensation, as does, many would argue (though I disagree), David Fincher's "Fight Club." Cameron Crowe's newest film "Vanilla Sky" is rife with the kind of complexities that beg to be decoded and bound together. However, instead of these disjointed pieces clicking into place for the viewer in a moment of enlightenment, Crowe relies on a deus ex machina of sorts, giving him lisence to let anything happen without connection or consequence.
Cameron Crowe's career is a tricky one, I think. Crowe is, to my mind, very much like Tom Wolfe. His movies, like Wolfe's books, are well recieved by audiences and critics alike, but are they works of art? Of course, definitions of art are subjective, but, I think, that Crowe's movies do not do enough to be taken seriously. Even movies like "Jerry Maguire," Crowe's best, I think, seem more intersted in introducing catch-phrases to the American lexicon (how many people do you know that used to spout of "show me the money" all the time), than getting at topical themes. "Almost Famous," a project closer to Crowe's heart, was interesting insofar as the protagonist's relationship with him mother, Stillwater, Penny Lane, and Lester Bangs, however, there wasn't much else going on.
"Vanilla Sky" is Crowe's most serious picture to date. The movie opens with the song "Everything in its Right Place" (does anyone else smell irony?) that begins Radiohead's album "Kid A," an album either hailed and mocked for how seriously it took itself. "Vanilla Sky" does much the same thing, containing moments of sentimentality and seriousness in which the movie almost seems self-conscious, as if Crowe is wondering, "should I make a joke out of this?" But, he ususally doesn't, and that's too bad. If one had to pick a theme out of this film, I suppose it would be live life "in the real world" or take risks or something else to that effect.
What is interesting about this film is that there is no any linear narrative, things just happen and we're never sure why. The disappointment comes when we realize, neither does Crowe. "Vanilla Sky" begins seeming like something Thomas Pynchon might write, full of psychological confusion and conspiracy, but ends up being closer to Thomas Clancy (or Tom Wolfe): showy, self-important and, in the end, you wonder why you spent what seems like a lot of time (thought this movie is only 2 hours long I thought I was in the theatre for three) slogging though this muck.
The positive parts of this movie are the performances, espeically by Tom Cruise. Cruise has to get by without his face to rely on, another irony of wich Crowe and Cruise are certainly aware, and he does a good job. He plays a character very much like Jerry Maguire and, as in "Jerry Maguire" he does a good job. Cameron Diaz, too, is impressive as Cruise's beautiful "buddy" (a term with particular resonance in this movie). Diaz, since her dumpy roll in "Being John Malkovich" has been more and more impressive and she continues her good work here: we understand her character is domineering because she's vulnerable. Jason Lee, who is always fun, is still fun in this movie, doing what he always does well: playing the second man. Penelope Cruz is beautiful, too, and that's really what she's there for, right?
"Vanilla Sky" while it certainly has high expectations for itself and it falls awfully short. What we take away from this film is little except the feeling that isn't it time all these people tried something else? Tom Cruise is, perhaps, Hollywood's leading man, but couldn't he challenge himself more than this? Couldn't Jason Lee, too, while wonderful in Kevin Smith's movies, be wonderful elsewhere? Diaz alone seems interested in being expansive; she alone is ready to fight to make herself better. This movie is the most troublesome for Crowe, I think. If he's to be one of the foremost writers and directors in Hollywood, he ought to do more than adivse us to "live in the real world."
Rating:
Summary: A Rough Draft of a great movie... 2.5 stars
Review: In the last 3-4 years, many of the movies made have began with great plots, only to sacrifice it by using the theme of the reckless advancement of technology and and its dangers in playing with the protagonist's psyche. Ai and the Thirteenth Floor tried to do this earlier and both failed miserably. Gattaca and Fight Club, on the other hand did this well. Vanilla Sky should not have taken this route. It begins with a twisted murder case only to have the audience hoping for an ingenious end, but instead cops out to a sci-fi ending. Still, regardless of my discontent with the ending, the acting is credible. Tom Cruise plays a careless, well-to-do, play boy inheriting his father's business and struggling to prove himself as his dad's equal, then later struggling to figure out his identity. Some of his best acting is hidden behind a mask and his character is felt through his voice and body language. Cameron Diaz does well as the neurotic jealous girlfriend type and Penelope Cruz is endearing as "the one" for Tom's character. Furthermore, the themes carried through the film were strong. I love that the movie twists around one small wrong decision much like the cleverly plotted Bonfire of the Vanities by Thomas Wolfe. The guilt and regret over this one decision ultimately lead Cruise to his "rebirth" to the world. Also it deals with love and sex, and the dire consequences that come out of a "carpe diem" attitude vs a delayed gratification one. All in all, I left the theatre feeling indifferent, and somewhat hopeful that what I had just viewed was only a rough draft of the blockbuster soon to come. Maybe the next rendition will be better?
Rating: 
Summary: Another stinker, Mr. Cruise
Review: If you want to see a movie with a "what-the-hell-is-going-on?" plot that actually has a payoff, go see THE OTHERS or MULHOLLAND DRIVE. If you want a totally convoluted mess with no rules to its own game and an ending that the filmmakers take 20 minutes to explain to you, go see VANILLA SKY. Tom Cruise yet again plays the shallow narcissist who has to try and get deep, but this movie is really only about how horrible it is to not be beautiful. Poor Tom! More like poor us. This may be Cruise's worst film (and I'm including COCKTAIL), but that doesn't stop him from inhaling the scenery, making that smile and going shirtless every time the action slows down. A word of advice, Mr. Cruise: Quit acting opposite the women in your life because they will invariably act rings around you and make us wonder why you're straining so hard. Penelope does more with a glance here than Tom does with all his huffing and puffing. VANILLA SKY is a total waste of time.
Rating:
Summary: See it twice.
Review: Don't be fooled by the reviews below. This is a good movie. Is it
a bit confusing? Yes. But that's what makes it interesting.
Although not as confusing as Mulholland Drive, it is similar, in that you really need to catch it a 2nd time to figure out exactly what happened.
Rating:
Summary: makes you go hmmm...
Review: I usually like to know what is going on in a movie. Usually. This was one of those movies where I didn't really mind being taken for a crazy ride. It makes you think that the end could be around the corner at any minute, yet takes another turn. This is a movie that will keep you up that night speculating about what actually happened. Cruise and Cruz are truely amazing together onscreen and Jason Lee has an excellent parformance.
Rating:
Summary: The "Sky" is falling! The "Sky" is falling!
Review: This is the movie you're going to hate to love, but love to hate. Cameron Crowe's latest since the charming "Almost Famous", "Vanilla Sky" is certainly not the crowd-pleaser that "Harry Potter" is, nor the best movie to come out this Holiday season. More appropriately, we should probably ask 'Where was Cameron Crowe's head?' when viewing "Vanilla Sky. There seems to be a turn in the Hollywood mainstream toward movies like this that ask probing questions about the human mind. "The Matrix" said it was a lie, "A.I." asked about the existence of it, and "A Beautiful Mind" will ask about it's intense genius. In "Vanilla Sky", Crowe seems to be trying to fit characters that have wandered out of the pages of a L.L. Bean or Eddie Bauer magazine into the story of the confusing events that occur to one David Ammes (Tom Cruise) when an experimental, cryogenic life extending program blur the realities of the conscious and subliminal unconscious. Yes, it's a confusing movie. And like "A.I.", which "Vanilla Sky" seems at times strangely crafted after, we finally get the whole point of the movie the last 20 minutes of it, provided we've been paying attention! There's a beautiful synthesis of cohesion and incohesion of the plot and characters in the movie, but then again, we are left to wonder why all that happened by the time the movie ends. Crowe is no doubt a skilled writer and director, but "Vanilla Sky" leaves far too much for the unwary movie-goer to possibly want to comprehend. I thought the movies were suppposed to be entertaining? "Vanilla Sky" (sounds like a scented candle) was billed to be a great movie. Instead, it leaves you puzzled or absolutely unsatisfied, like a deflated helium balloon. And you wonder, where's the fun in that? There is none... Very strong performances by Cruise, Cruz (in an annoying, Hispanic Bjork impish kind of way), Diaz, and Lee with fistful of cameos to boot (Spielberg, O'Brian), along with a killer soundtrack courtesy of Sigur Ros, Radiohead, and R.E.M., it's obvious Crowe has a strong finger on popular culture. He's a wonderful filmmaker, but "Vanilla Sky" is not the token saviour this season. Want to be entertained, without thinking too hard? Try inhaling helium balloons instead.
Rating:
Summary: Beautiful
Review: Thanks Crowe! This was art. It's refreshing to learn that a well known director is willing to break from tradition to create a film in terms of fine art rather than the tired concept of cinema Hollywood-Style.
I think Cruise did a great job. Most people are going to come down on him because they aren't going to be able to remove him from the many other roles that he has played. I tried to see him as David Aames, the character he was portraying, rather than Tom Cruise Mega Movie Star, and it worked for me.
Thanks again Crowe for the wonderful adaptation!
Monet was the man!
PS. This is an opinion. Look it up.
Rating:
Summary: Emotionally Intense Complexity Not for Nonthinkers
Review: As Einstein said, great minds have always been ridiculed by mediocre ones, and Vanilla Sky in a product of great minds. Tom Cruise gives his best performance to date in this mind trip which explores the dream-vs.-reality theme. His first reality is a New Yorker who has it all including a laisson with Cameron Diaz, til he meets Penelope Cruz, the girl of his dreams. After Cruise leaves her apartment we are sucked into a maze in which dream and reality cannot be differentiated.
The car crash which scars Tom's face leads to some paranoia that some stockholders may be setting him up to take over his company. The developments that follow are convoluted, and really should be dismissed in the sense of trying to figure out a logical plot.
What makes this film outstanding is the relation between Cruise and Cruz (very obvious it's as much offscreen as on), as well as the intensity with which the viewer is confronted by Cruise's horror at his confusion of realities. This all leads up to an inconsistent explanation in the form of Criogenics, the only true flaw of the film, but the last scene
as shown in the trailer, with Cruise at the top of a skyscaper with the World Trade Center in the background really strikes an emotionally relevant chord. The decision to leave the scene in shows true courage on the part of Cameron Crowe, the director, and Cruise. Nancy Wilson of Heart (Crowe's wife) selects the music score and rock'n'roll themes pervade the film's background.
A successful film overall.
Rating:
Summary: Too weird!
Review: This movie was just too weird to be enjoyable. It was very hard to follow. You never know what is a dream and what is real. I usually love suspenseful movies. And those that make you second guess are fun. But, this movie went beyond that. It left me wondering why I spent money too see it.
|
