Vanilla Sky

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...

This movie was so divisive. People either loved it or despised it. You can either accept the ending or you can't. The movie really makes you think and wonder, "what's going on?" You are not always supposed to know what is going on. A lot of people do not want to have to think too much lol. Great movie, good soundtrack. I love rarely when movies change the way you listen to a song. Good Vibrations by the Beach Boys came across in the moment as so eerie, I still think of that now when i hear it. It is a movie that is definitely worth watching.

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.

Director Cameron Crowe strikes gold with an intelligent, erotic and frustrating romantic drama. This is one of those love or hate movies. I absolutely love it. Tom Cruise plays David Aames, a multi-millionaire that seems to have the whole world by the tail. Inheriting leadership of a multi-faceted publishing business at such a young age has not endeared him with the seven member board of directors. His womanizing is legendary and subject to much speculation. He is stalked by an obsessive lover(Cameron Diaz)and his life soon becomes very scrambled when he meets an attractive Penelope Cruz at his birthday party. The Diaz character gets fed up with competing for lover boy's affection and decides to commit suicide by driving off of a bridge with him in the car. Aames is left disfigured and charged with murder.

Whirlwind flashback sequences accompanied with a tremendous soundtrack pace this mind wrecking, nerve snarling, and confusing, but interesting piece of storytelling. Cruise is totally in control of his talents. This is one of his best performances. Miss Cruz is adequate and highly overrated. The perky, gorgeous Diaz is sexy and haunting. Kurt Russell is compassionate and strong as Dr. McCabe. Jason Lee is underrated and deserves kudos for his part as the best friend of the egotistical lead character that seems to always be there to be s**it on and humiliated.

The star studded soundtrack features music by R.E.M., Peter Gabriel, Jeff Buckley, Nancy Wilson, Bob Dylan and the haunting movie theme song "Vanilla Sky" by Sir Paul McCartney. This project also features the singing debut of Miss Diaz singing "I Fall Apart" written by Cameron Crowe and Nancy Wilson.

Like this one or not; understand this one or not...this movie will give you something to contemplate and more than enough to talk about.

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.'