Vanilla Sky

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.

I don't mind saying, I had to watch this film a couple of times before I could really understand it. Like peeling away the layers of an onion to reveal another layer of meaning deeper down, it's breathtaking. Very few films achieve this complexity and depth. Sad, tragic and ultimately hopeful and liberating, so many emotions on this rollercoaster of a film, one of my best. Outstanding casting and acting, what a story.!!! Enjoy watching this one a few times over., and each time as if it's a brand new film.

Recently the BBC in UK held a poll for worst film ever, and while Titanic *won*, this came 4th. I just don't understand how anyone can dislike this movie...

Vanilla Sky is a dark psychological drama about dreams, reality and 'what might have been'.

Tom Cruise is Dave, a yuppie who has it all. He has a 51% stake in his father's company, therefore the majority shareholder, and constantly finds himself in a battle to main his control over the '7 dwarves' who make up the rest of the board. His personal life is a mess, with a shallow relationship with Julie (Cameron Diaz) the closest he gets to love, while his best friend Brian (Jason Lee) who adores Julie sticks by him regardless.

However, on holding a birthday party he's introduced to Sofia (The perfect Penelope Cruz) and falls instantly for her.

This is all very well but the plot is parallel to a side story of Dave wearing a white mask in a cell with Dr McCabe (Kurt Russell) who's accusing him of murder and wants to understand why it happened.

Dave begins on a journey to make sense of his life.

I admit there is a 'Hollywoody' feel to this film, and given it's a remake of a Mexican/Spanish original also featuring Penelope Cruz it's probably disappointing to purists. But only viewing this on its own terms I absolutely love this movie. It keeps you guessing, and the ending is very conclusive.

It may not be to everyone's taste, but I loved 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...

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.'