Rating: 
Summary: Why Hollywood like to remake good foreign films?
Review: ...and with no better results? This movie is not BAD, good and adorable casts (much prettier Penelope, sexy-as-ever Cameron, even Jason Lee, Kurt Russell are good supporting actors), good camera work (which captures much the beauty of the cast). If I haven't watched the Spanish original, I may give a higher rating for this remake. This Hollywood version lacks the suspense, surprise, and intriguing storyline. I highly recommend everyone to watch the original again, if you haven't done so.I give an extra star for the extra behind-the-scene stuff for DVD version only. P.S. the only reason for Tom to remake this is to have a bed scene with Penelope, I am sure.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent! Best Movie Released in Years!!
Review: Excellent! Straight to the top of my Best of List! A remake of the also very good Spanish movie, "Abre los Ojos" ("Open Your Eyes"), this movie is very well done from start to finish. I know many people that saw this movie were confused by it and reviewed that they did not like it, because they did not understand it. I think if the majority of the viewing popluation did not understand the movie, then that in itself is a plus for the movie! This definitely is not one for the masses. There's no Arnold Schwartzenegger killing 100 soldiers with 1 gun and an endless supply of bullets! There is a reason why those types of movies are made and make billions of dollars and a great film like Vanilla Sky goes unappreciated by the masses. A lot of reviewers also poo-pooed the ending, calling it sappy, or a lack of balls on the director's part and giving it that Hollywood-style ending to sum up everything. However, I really don't see what is sappy about choosing to live a "real life" as David Aames puts it. A sappier ending would have been if he had chosen to go back into the Lucid Dream with Sofia. And did the ending of the movie really tie everything up neatly? Was the real plot as it was layed out by the Tech Support character or was the entire movie just all a David Aames's dream? Or maybe Sofia's dream? There are too many unaswered questions to this film for people to complain that the ending wrapped everything up nicely!
Rating: 
Summary: Hold Your Nose When Viewing......It Stinks
Review: Terrible movie. Yuck. Everyones talent is shamelessly wasted. Did I mention it stinks. Everyone says "You did'nt understand it", I say understand I wasted over two hours of my life. It stinks. Get out the nose plugs you will need them.
Rating:
Summary: a Buddhist poem
Review: Many of the reviews of this film simply reflect an appalling ignorance of any other life-perspective than our own linear, rationalistic and materialist Western one. For the Amazon reviewer to fault this film for implying that "youth and beauty = happiness"---that is like saying King Lear is about good parenting.
The whole point of this movie, of which the "Life Extension" device is just a metaphor, is that most people actually live their lives like the Tom Cruise character after his accident: actually in an artificially preserved state of "life," they struggle against their unconscious (which is full of guilt and repression) and try to make a beautiful sunny sunny happy happy MTV kitsch-fest video of their lives---which they are doomed to fail in as their resistance only creates more and more suffering, wastes more and more time and energy. Even before his life-changing accident, Tom Cruise's character was already on this delusional path---as an exceptionally fortunate billionaire heir who is both rich and handsome and has just about what any man could wish for, there is a scene where he tells his buddy that he's "living the dream." He is too shallow to even appreciate his own blessings, too self-absorbed to care about others. When he becomes disfigured, he clings to his illusions---mainly, his youth and physical beauty, which form the core of his narcissistic identity and priorities---which of course time and change (the only constant in life) have suddenly and inextricably stripped away, becoming bitter, self-pitying, and despondent. Like many of us, he makes the mistake of identifying with the illusion, pretending that he will live together and always have what he has---there is no real gratitude towards or appreciation of life. You won't get all of that the first time around; I'd recommend a second or third viewing too. If all the above just goes above your head, watch the film for Penelope Cruz---she is absolutely irresistible, this small but unspeakably gorgeous woman could charm the Devil himself! Cameron Diaz is scarily realistic, and very cute as usual. Cruise actually puts in a pretty competent performance, while Kurt Russell and Jason Lee shine.
Rating:
Summary: Impressed enough to admit my hypocrisy
Review: I waged a personal boycott against this movie because I couldn't get beyond Cruise's smarmy smile imposed all over the celluloid. Last week, my husband borrowed the DVD from a friend. I got a certain satisfaction at the prospect of Tom's pretty little face being severely disfigured, thereby losing the girl, and I caved. My first reaction was that this is like "The Matrix" series for girls, an exploration of reality in pink and lavendar instead of green and black. Both raise myriad questions without settling on an Ultimate Answer, and I hesitate to admit that I was entranced. "Vanilla Sky" casually acknowledges that romance is superficial and that sometimes cannot be redeemed. Ever. This relieves the viewer of the exhausting conflict of most films: one true love exists for all deserving Everyman Heroes in the world. The distinctly unlikeable Evil Guy only wrangles whores (especially evil whores) or Hero's woman by force. In "Vanilla Sky" the protagonists are a playboy jerk and girl who only loves him when presented with the draw of his unharmed physicality. We wax and wane between hate and intense pity as we do for our real-life acquaintances. We care (notice I didn't necessarily mean "like"). There's no preordained cheering-for-the-hero. Cruise is quite the convincing playboy jerk. I'm sure Nicole Kidman agrees. But I digress; he pulled off the really deep, sad moments, too. I can't think of another actor better suited. Penelope Cruz as the girl of his (lucid) dreams is otherworldly lovely and vague. Whether or not the vague was a result of acting or just a casting coup, I don't know. It worked in context. Cameron Diaz is a quietly brilliant actress who deserves larger rolls in dramas that what she's allotted. If you don't see her as the jilted lover here, watch "Being John Malcovich". She can be more than a bubbly blonde-in BJM, she isn't even BLONDE! See this movie. Preferably with people. See it for the cinematography, the strange roles, and the controversial ending. You may hate it, may love it, but you will discuss it.
Rating:
Summary: Beautiful, Intriguing, intelligent and a bit plodding
Review: Vanilla Sky stars some beautiful people in beautiful settings. Visually, it is fun to watch--I wanted to find myself in the story. Tom Cruise plays David, a rich heir to a publishing conglomerate--one who lost his parents at an early age. He coped by learning to play well. We find him approaching his mid-thirties, and still playing at life. He has lots of fun, but not much joy. Cameron Diaz plays his girl friend. She loves David, but understands his immaturity, and so pretends to also simply enjoy playing the game. Sofia (Penelope Cruz) enters the story, and steals David's heart. The story offers romantic tension, psychological thrills, and science fiction overtones that make this a complex and sometimes plodding adventure. There are hints of "Eyes Wide Shut" in the dream-like quality of much of the film, as well as a "choose your life" dilemma reminiscent of "Total Recall." The bottom line is that this is a complicated movie. Some patience is required if one is to grasp and enjoy the story. Fans of the actors and actresses, as well as those who enjoy a film that stretches, rather than merely entertaining, will applaud it. The acting, plot, and technical aspects are 5-star, but a rather plodding pace brings to a solid 4.
Rating:
Summary: Two hours of dreck, absolute dreck
Review: This is probably the worst movie, the most boring one I've ever seen. Ever. The ghastly thing repeats and repeats, the dog frozen, "what is your happiness?" Boring. Tommy Cruise just stands around with that ... grin, showing his teeth. This could have been told in a 15 minute episode of The Twilight Zone, and it still would have seemed like 45 minutes. The title is all wrong. "Life is an illusion, a dream" is more fitting. Wanna life forever? Not like this.
Rating: 
Summary: just not my cup of tea
Review: This is a perfect example of a movie you either love or hate. I personally dislike it with a passion. This is probably a movie that gets better and you understand it better the more times you watch. The thing is that it's just not interesting enough for me find out what "really" happend. While Memento was twice as confusing, it was four times better. I gave it two stars only for the fact that Penelope Cruz is gorgeous in this movie.
Rating:
Summary: Deserves ZERO stars actually..
Review: The ending of this movie was one of the worst I could have imagined - written like a very POOR Star Trek TNG episode (I know that's an insult to Star Trek). This movie is in the same vane as 'The Game' but the dialogue stinks, as does the acting and the script. It just doesn't pull anything off well. One of the very few movies I should have just walked out on.
Rating:
Summary: Lacking Interest
Review: I am a big Tom Cruise fan, especially of his early work, but i am not a fan of this movie. I will admit though, that empty Times Square scene was pretty cool. Throughout the movie i found myself struggling to stay interested. And i thought i would get a ending to atleast explain alot of the film, but i felt i didn't, im not a fan of Cameron Crowe's films, and this is why. This movie did get over a 100 million, barley, i think mainly because it's a Tom Cruise flick. I truely recommend you rent this, before buying it.
| 
