Vanilla Sky

Vanilla Sky is a 2001 remake of the great 1997 movie, Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes). And in my opinion, a much more human and emotional version. Tom Cruise plays David Aames, a selfish egomaniac who takes other people's emotions for granted, and thinks only of himself. Jason Lee plays Brian Shelby, David's best, and in many ways, only friend. Penelope Cruz plays Sofia Serrano, Brian's girlfriend whom accompanies him to David's birthday party. Cameron Diaz plays Julie Gianni, David's occasional bed buddy. Kurt Russell plays Dr. Curtis McCabe, a psychologist interviewing David. All of their interactions, and the consequences of them, make Vanilla Sky one of the most emotional, and complex thrillers ever made. I won't explain anymore of the plot, because it's far more compelling, the less you know. Ignore all people that call this film too confusing to follow. If you pay attention, you won't be confused. The film is very complex, but not confusing. And in my opinion, one of the best movies ever made.

I had heard some not too good things about this movie and had probably seen the low score here at IMDb and that's why I had avoided it. Today they showed Vanilla Sky on TV and as I had nothing better to do... and as it turned out, I would have had a hard time finding anything better to do. Vanilla Sky is a frightening, sad and touching movie, actually one of the best I've seen in a while. I was surprised by how I was affected watching it. It's hard to explain, but during the movie your feelings towards the characters and your perception of what is going on changes and it's quite an emotional journey. Vanilla Sky really touched me in a way that is very rare for a movie, or any media for that matter.

I really recommend everyone to watch this movie. Regardless of what you have heard about it.

There is not a single movie that blew my mind more than Vanilla Sky, even after watching it for the second or maybe third time. Until half an hour passed, you understand almost everything that is happening, but then you get lost on purpose, the director wants you to get lost, just like Tom gets lost in his life. He drives you left and right, up and down, your starting to lose your patience with the movie and then, pop, your back in the driving seat again, why ?, because wow, you just understood something, you connected a few puzzling scenes and your feeling confident about the movie again. You feel for Tom, you are feeling sad like all of that is happening to you, not in some movie that already lost you a few times, but managed to get you back in the last moment. The ending explains it all, makes everything so perfectly clear, but many things leave you feeling pointless about the movie now, and that is why I don't like the ending. It is to sci-fi, to unreal and to supernatural to be implemented as an ending for this beauty.. but I guess there was not a better option to end the movie then this one...

Cameron Crowe's Vanilla Sky leads you on an incredibly picturesque journey into the life of a wealthy publishing heir, played with impressive emotional heft by Tom Cruise. He once had an idyllic life that gave way to some tragic events, and is now in a way station of existential despair, lamenting his sad tale to a sympathetic psychiatrist (Kurt Russell) and daydreaming of his gleaming past. Crowe's films always have an impossibly bright, strikingly beautiful sheen in their composition, displayed here by a distinct urge to forge the melodrama, and melancholy not with dark, muted tones like some craftsmen might, but to keep a vibrantly lit, dreamy aesthetic that never lets go of beauty, even in dark places. Cruise is forced to contend with a jilted, unstable lover (Cameron Diaz) whilst pursuing his angelic dream girl (Penelope Cruz) into realms of thought, feeling and action that ripple through his life like scintillating reflections in a sunlit meadow pond. I'm purposefully being vague and poetic as not to disturb the veil hanging over plot and resolution, for the surprises which lay in wait for you are a riveting rop-a-dope and should be explored with a blank canvas of expectation and complete lack of any previous knowledge about the story. The supporting cast sees very memorable work from Timothy Spall, Jason Lee, Alicia Witt, Tilda Swinton, Michael Shannon, Ivana Milicivec, Johnny Galecki, W. Earl Brown, Tommy Lee and Noah Taylor. Cruise is compelling, finding the confused soul in his creation, Diaz scares wonderfully as the unpredictable live wire, but Cruz steals the show with her usual sweet disposition. This film is based on a Spanish one called "Abre Los Ojos" which also starred Cruz in the same role she plays here. This, however, is the superior version, for me a masterpiece and a personal favourite. Crowe makes poetry of light and colour, painting visual splendour that flows flawlessly in tandem with the achingly beautiful soundtrack, another aspect of film he always excels in. And as for the deep well of secrets that is the story? I'll tell you in another life, when we are both cats.

From the point of view of pure cinema, it is quite impossible to make any review of this film: `Vanilla sky' is the carbon copy of the Spanish film `Abre los ojos,' translated practically verbatim, and with the only difference of a higher percentage of in-your-face special effects (including the typical never-ending fall from a building) that, if they don't add anything to the film, they certainly add a lot to the budget of Digital Domain, the company responsible for most of the special effects. What is left for us to do is to reflect on the meaning of such an operation. We can't honestly call it a remake because of the temporal closeness of its antecedent (Abre los ojos was released in 1997), and of the consequent lack of the `cultural distance' necessary to any reinterpretation operation. We can't call it an homage to a genre (a la Brain de Palma in `Blow Out,' just to make an example) because the referent is too specific, and the carbon copy quality of `Vanilla Sky' too evident.

So, what is left? The producers, obviously, believed that the story would appeal to the American public, for otherwise they wouldn't have spent a considerable amount of money filming it but, in this case, wouldn't have been simpler to release the original in AMC theaters around the country? The only explanation I can find, one that is rather insulting for the American public, is the following. Hollywood producers believe that the mainstream spectator will not see a film unless it falls completely within the expected (and very restricted, Hollywood canons). So, the setting has to be a familiar American setting (New York instead of Madrid) and there has to be the usual sprinkle of known American actors (Tom Cruise). But, most important, the dialog has an undefinable Hollywood quality: just the mix of witty, sad, and sugary to which Hollywood films have accustomed the American public.

This film, in other words, is an explicit insult: Hollywood is telling us that they got us so use to their style of crap that the only way for us to go see a film is to make it into crap.

What is truly sad is that they might be right: Vanilla Sky was a discrete success. On the other hand (and I quote Barnum paraphrasing Mencken): `Nobody ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the American public.'