zahno

Vanilla Sky is disappointing on so many levels.

I like Cameron Crowe. I've liked every one of his movies so I was really looking forward to this one. But ultimately I feel like this material was better served by a different director and a different cast. At times it feels like a music video and at other times feels like a terribly miscast David Lynch movie.

The dreamy quality of the story and the lack of answers up front beg comparisons to Lynch. But unlike Mr. Lynch who, in his recent movies, has provided some pretty dense and meaning-laden (or meaningless? - up to you) stories, utterly and totally lacking in overt explanation, Mr. Crowe feels the need to justify all of the weirdness of all we've been watching with (what feels like) a tidy 15 minute monologue near the close of the film. You can argue that Lynch's films suffer from the weirdness and lack of explanation, but you can't deny the conviction with which the movie is made - Lynch doesn't seem to CARE whether or not you get it. Crowe, it seems, WANTS you to get it and as a result, Vanilla Sky's explanation feels like a second, borderline-unrelated movie that only serves to hedge on the movie's buildup and make the movie that much more frustrating.

I was honestly bored throughout the film, not caring much about the characters or their relationships. Most of the characters had only as much dimension as was required to tell the story - never fully busting out into rounded people. The film's explanation may explain this lack of character depth, but not in a way that serves the story while you're actually watching it. So in spite of these problems, what kept me in the theater was the anticipation of the mind-blowing ending that was promised - an ending that could potentially make me reexamine and appreciate everything that had thus far bored me. That ending was never delivered. Instead of being thrilled or invigorated or inspired by the ending, I was simply relieved it was over.

In all fairness, this movie is remade from a Spanish film that I have not seen. I don't know if it's a truly faithful adaptation and the problems I have with the story were inherent with the original, or if perhaps Crowe made choices that bogged down the original's intent.

I will say without hesitation that with original material, Crowe still has a solid batting average, but this movie is a slow-rolling infield groundout. Disappointing.

The fact that "Hannibal" has a Best Picture-winning predecessor only serves to make this unimaginative gore-fest look that much more pathetic when held up to the original. Wooden acting, characters and situations, a disjointed plot that never gains any momentum, topped off with gratuitous, stomach-wrenching gore make "Hannibal" one of the most disappointing films to come around in some time. Its hollow recreation of the cat-and-mouse banter of the first film (which benefited greatly from the chemistry between Hopkins and Jodie Foster) rings false, presenting the audience with no new wrinkles in their relationship. Julianne Moore as Clarice Starling seems painfully aware that she has big shoes to fill after Jodie Foster wisely passed on the script. She never seems comfortable in the role, while Anthony Hopkins, reprising his classic role, seems like a guy doing an extended imitation of Anthony Hopkins playing Hannibal Lecter. I wish I could say something more positive about this film, given that I've really enjoyed the work of everyone involved previous to this film, but man, this movie sucked.

What's unfortunate is that people might look at this film as a 'gory romp' or a 'bloody thrillride' while a film like, "I Spit on Your Grave" or "Friday the 13th Part IV" would be held in the lowest contempt by the same people. For all intents and purposes, "Hannibal" is nothing more than a low-end slasher flick with a whiff of window-dressing intellectualism and higher production values. Truly awful.