torrboy

"Vanilla Sky" could have been a great film, but the unnecessary and overly long ending softens the impact and leaves one feeling somewhat disappointed. The first two thirds of the film are very well done, with some excellent shots (eg, the deserted New York city streets), and the viewer is left guessing at every turn: is this a dream, or is this reality? Is this the past, the present, or the future? Was it a setup, or did he really do it? The movie is enthralling and there are many details to keep the viewer's mind focused on the unraveling story, although by the end of the film you realise none of them really mattered.

At the "end" of the film, all the pieces fall into place as the main character (and hopefully the audience) realises what's been going on, and had the film ended at this point, it would have been one of those chilling endings like "The Sixth Sense." The viewer has enough information to make sense of the film, but nothing is really explained in detail; viewers could have a wonderful time exploring the many possible explanations of the film. (For those who have seen the film, this is the scene where Tom spots the television commercial and starts banging on the glass in the cell).

Unfortunately, once Tom has figured it all out, the audience is subjected to a long, drawn-out explanation of what has happened (just in case they hadn't figured it out yet), and the film explains everything in agonising detail, which destroys all the fun! No longer can you ponder whether such-and-such a scene was real or a dream, because it's all laid out in black and white. Ending the movie on an optimistic note also seemed against the grain of the film; it's been dark all the way through, so why change directions now?

Others have compared this movie to Mulholland Drive, which I feel is a much better movie, despite (and because of) the fact that it is totally incomprehensible to me. It seems like "Vanilla Sky" is trying hard to be an artsy, intellectual movie, yet at the same time it tries to cater to the "big dumb action movie" crowds. This backfires as the "artsy" crowd will feel patronised whilst the "popcorn movie" fans won't be seeing this film anyway.

All in all, an interesting film that is worth seeing for the first two thirds, but you can definitely wait for the video / DVD release.

I can't believe this was one of 1998's worst movies, as voted by IMDB voters. I think there are two reasons why this movie may fall below people's expectations:

1) Americans don't get the comedy (especially Steed's manner). Sorry, but to an ex-pom it is funny!

2) It was given a low rating (PG here in Australia) so that younger people would go and see it. So there's no blood, guts, swearing, sex, or other really cool stuff.

All in all, I thought it was a good movie, with some rather funny (if rather cheesy) humour. And that's British humour, with a "u" :-).

As in "The Wedding Singer", Drew Barrymore positively glows in this movie. Her performance is excellent - as are all of the others - and she carries off the role of poor servant / caring noblewoman superbly. Some of the dialog in the movie seems far too refined (especially the eloquent prose we hear from Danielle), but who cares?

Having English accents in a France seems a little weird, but then it's better than the usual American accents we hear. Some very entertaining moments, brilliant settings and costumes (I loved the immaculately kept garden in the castle), and some political moralising from Danielle. If only all politicians would listen to what she has to say to Prince Henry, maybe we'd be in a better state than we are now.

I really loved this movie and recommend it to anyone who (a) loves Drew Barrymore, (b) loves romantic movies, or (c) just wants to see a brilliant film.