Un ricco e vanitoso editore di New York scopre che la sua vita è cambiata drasticamente dopo essere stato coinvolto in un incidente automobilistico causato da una ex-amante.Un ricco e vanitoso editore di New York scopre che la sua vita è cambiata drasticamente dopo essere stato coinvolto in un incidente automobilistico causato da una ex-amante.Un ricco e vanitoso editore di New York scopre che la sua vita è cambiata drasticamente dopo essere stato coinvolto in un incidente automobilistico causato da una ex-amante.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Candidato a 1 Oscar
- 5 vittorie e 34 candidature totali
Delaina Hlavin
- David's Assistant
- (as Delaina Mitchell)
Recensioni in evidenza
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.'
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.'
It is too underrated and that is unfortunate; it has suspense, drama, and Tom Cruise's performance is excellent; it is highly recommended.
Its score of 4.5 on Filmaffinity is completely RIDICULOUS.
Its score of 4.5 on Filmaffinity is completely RIDICULOUS.
I remember liking it when I saw it way back then and I enjoyed it again upon recent viewing. I never knew it was a remake and still haven't seen the original so I can't compare but Vanilla Sky on its own is a pretty solid movie. It is very strange in its pacing and cinematography but it didn't bother me or felt boring as these exercises in style often do. Great thriller with very good acting performances overall, and unhinged Tom Cruise was the perfect guy for this crazy role in this crazy movie.
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.
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.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizSteven Spielberg: A guest at David's birthday party (wearing a Pre-Crime cap from Minority Report (2002)). Spielberg and Tom Cruise were preparing to begin filming "Minority Report" at that time. In a returned favor, Cameron Crowe cameos in that film.
- BlooperWhen David and Brian are in the car in the beginning you can clearly see that they are about one or two feet higher compared to the other cars, even though they are in the relatively low Mustang, revealing that the car is probably on a trailer rather than on the road.
- Curiosità sui creditiThere are no opening credits for the film.
- Versioni alternativeThe 2015 Blu-Ray release includes an alternate ending version with a vastly expanded ending. While the events lead to the same conclusion, there are alternate takes and additional scenes (including the scene of David shooting the police officer).
- ConnessioniEdited into Scrubs: Medici ai primi ferri: My Friend the Doctor (2003)
- Colonne sonoreEverything In Its Right Place
Written by Thom Yorke (as Thomas Yorke), Ed O'Brien (as Edward O'Brien), Colin Greenwood, Jonny Greenwood (as Jonathan Greenwood) and Phil Selway (as Philip Selway)
Performed by Radiohead
Courtesy of Capitol Records
under license from EMI-Capitol Music Special Markets
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Vanilla Sky?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paesi di origine
- Lingue
- Celebre anche come
- Khung Trời Ảo Mộng
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 68.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 100.618.344 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 25.015.518 USD
- 16 dic 2001
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 203.388.341 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 2h 16min(136 min)
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti