Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by cafink, Dec 11, 2001.
I just returned from seeing it. I'll admit, I wasn't too thrilled about the idea of this remake at first, but Vanilla Sky was absolutely wonderful! In my opinion,it is almost as good as the original, and that's saying something! The cast all did a great job, and the film captures all of the story's bizarre aspects perfectly. It even worked in some small humorous moments that I enjoyed, especially some of the parts with the dog. I highly recommend this superb remake! It is a terrific film, and a wonderful companion to the original!
I too am a fan of Open Your Eyes and saw Vanilla Sky today.. I think they did a great job of remaking the original (though I always think.. why must we remake good movies?). The increased budget naturally brought some things even more to life and all of the changes were tolerable to excellent.
One note for people who have seen both movies:
There's a shot in the Vanilla Sky trailer of the gun battle that occurs at the Life Extension headquarters but it seems it was cut out of the finished film. It's in Open Your Eyes, naturally. Curious to see if it will be in a dvd either as a deleted scene or as a director's cut. Also, the amazing shot of David in the club with the laser/lights behind his head (also in the first film) wasn't there either.. but in the trailer.
Having seen "Open Your Eyes"(Abres Los Ojos), I can safely say that it is so much better than Vanilla Sky.
I know what I'm mainly doing is comparing the two films, but I'm also trying to think of Vanilla on its own.
Where "OYE" is dark, psychological and mysterious. Cameron Crowe directs this too bright and hip(and that's not a compliment) and looses alot of the complexity of the film, and even dulls it down.
He adds an annoying soudtrack that subtracts the mystery to the film, and ends up being some music video(but thats Crowe I guess)
MOst of the time it seems like Crowe and the actors are making fun of the older version. Especially Diaz/Cruise's characters. They are formulated wrong and even seems like complete opposites of what they should be.
One last thing about Crowe's version is that, it seems like he's revelaing "a little to much" to part of the secret early on in the film. Further more, at the end, he explains it as if the movie is called "Vanilla Sky for Dummies"
This is by far the worst Cameron Crowe film I've seen, and I really think he needs to go back what he knows how to do.
There's a line that Jason Lee says in the movie, "I miss the old you, because the new guy is shit!" That pretty much sums up my view on "Vanilla Sky"
BUT I do give a big plus to John Tolls brillant cinematography.
I'm letting this one stew a bit.
I haven't seen Abre Los Ojos so I may not have a complete grasp on what this movie is trying to attempt. If anything, what really detracted from this movie was that it seemed disjointed. Where Memento and Mulholland Drive utilized this overall feel (both of which I enjoyed), Vanilla Sky didn't execute it well.
I'd like to say that I'm probably a "Joe Six Pack" to some, but the movie really disappointed in general effect. I don't have a problem with the twist - just the way the movie got there. Perhaps I'll need to read and think about the movie before I hastily judge it - which by itself gets the movie an above average rating.
Hmmm....I'm surprised with the overall negative reaction to this film. I went with a group of about 11 people, and all but 1 of us loved this film. I for one loved the soundtrack to the film, everything from Radiohead to Bob Dylan, all the selections were great and really added another dimension to the scenes they were used in. All the actors did a great job, especially Penelope Cruz who played the object of Cruise's desires perfectly. Vanilla Sky was definately not what I expected it to be, and that really delighted me. Maybe if people walk in to the movie expecting a "sci-fi" film, instead of a drama, they might enjoy it more. I'd give it an A rating for sure, and to compare it to another "twist-ending" movie that everyone seems to love (but I only liked), Memento: I would rate Vanilla Sky WAY above Memento.
One more problem I forgot to mention. Why, in the begining of the film, do we hear Soffia's voice say "open your eyes" when Tom Cruise's character hasn't met her yet. The voice then changes to Cameron Diaz's voice.
If you've seen "open Your Eyes" and have fully understood Vanilla Sky, you would know this does not make sense at all.
I think if anything that it is Crowe's nod to the original film; however, Roger Ebert's review posits an interesting question. It is possible that the "splice" occurred before the movie opens, so the entire film is his dream.
Not sure that I agree with that view, but it's something I hadn't considered.
This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "Vanilla Sky". Please, post all comments, links to outside reviews, film and box office discussion items to this thread.
All HTF member film reviews of "Vanilla Sky" should be posted to this thread.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
I guess I'm one of the few who really enjoyed this movie. I agree with the point Mark brings up, the impression I got after watching the movie was:
The whole movie was part of his dream, because even in the beginning he's talking to Kurt Doulgas, and I was under the impression that Tom Cruise was explaining all the parts of the movie that really happened in his life to Kurt Douglas, along with the things he dreamed afterwards.
I was enjoying this movie, but my enjoyment peaked a little more than halfway through and started to fall , slightly at first,and then took a nosedive in the final act. I am not sure why, not because it was weird or anything like that. It was detached and forced. I have not seen the original OYE, so I cannot comment on how it is compared to that. The last 20-30 just seemd to be done so clumsily. It just seemed cold and expository and drawn out.
And I also agree that the soundtrack is meddlesome. I like the music by itself, but in this movie it seemed too obvious and distracting.
help.....this movie is tearing my mind up.....
It is so simple, yet so much intricate if you make it out to be,,,
The beginning...with the ansering machine voice being Sophia's and changing to Julie's is ripping my heap apart.
Please help answer questions.
1.If the beginning of the movie, up until the night of the club scene is considered "canon", then why is there that dream sequence at the beginning? Where does that fit in. He obviously told Kurt Russell that he is having dreams which is why Kurt is analyzing it for him.
2. If he is explaining the beginning to Kurt Russell, then it considered to be a memory--but how does Tom discern between what is actual memory and what is fabricated?
Oh dear Lord....forget it. I know what I think. But I just can't explain it.
WARNING a few possible spoilers below:
Just got back from seeing it.I think it tries to tackle alot of the same themes as Eyes Wide Shut-Sex,Love,Karma,Conscequences of your actions.
My one gripe is how in the elevator scene the movie is explained to us.I was able to figure it out at a certain point-when they went to LE Corp.I would have preferred a bit more ambiguous ending.
Not above Memento (which I loved) but very decent and it gives you something to think about(especially with current events in my life )
Jeff,I think the dream sequence in the beginning goes back to what Russels character said about "can you tell the difference between dreams and reality" I believe everything after tha car crash to be a dream. It was explained at the end what happened in "real life":the fight to keep the company,his OD,etc which he seems to have forgotten or blocked out.
I havent seen Open Your Eyes,but I give it a
I've posted my review for Vanilla Sky in the appropriate thread, and I'd love to know what you all think of my take on the film.
Although I only gave it out of , I am looking forward to seeing it a second time...eventually.
James, I believe you mean Kurt Russell
I saw the film last night. I felt it would be irresponsible of me to give my opiniion right away as this is a film which needs to be thought over again and again in your mind. I feel I am now ready.
I live in Manhatten and left the theater (E-walk in times square) to a foggy evening and overly crowded sidewalks due to increased holiday traffic. Everything seemed very confusing and my mind couldn't hold an image for more than a few seconds. It was only later while discussing it with my girlfriend that I realized this was due to the film's effect on me. It isn't often a film will have my mind doing loop-d-loops, but I am quite fond of such experiences, the last of which was when I left the theater after Memento.
This is a very good film, which I feel will go down only as a GOOD film. There were flaws as far as I'm concerned. It's a movie which could never be for the mainstream and therefore no exposition was neccessary at the end. I feel it took away from the film. I would love to have seen how Gilliam would present this idea.
As for my take on the story, I seem to have a slightly different view than most.
I believe David was actually born deformed. Stay with me here. The first scene is a "dream" sequence in times square, which the psychologist believes represents David's loneliness. I think in his real life, David was a very lonely man - not rich, handsome, or powerful, as we see him. He constructs this fantasy life for himself, perhaps it is only a dream. This is where the movie begins - the beginning of his dream or fantasy. Keep in mind I am talking about an actual dream - not the dreamlike state
induced by Life Extension.
The movie follows him through his own journey of mind. In this dream, he explores his fantasies of what the perfect life can be - rich pwerful, handsome. However, as in many dreams, reality forces its way in. This is known in psychology as "Day Residue". I believe the crash is his subconsicous' way to introducing his actual deformity into his "dream" existence. This forces him to deal with the deformity - something he cannot do in his real life.
The murder could represent many things if you look at it from the dream perspective, as could many of the events and characters.
In the end, he realizes that his dream or fantasy is only that. It is not reality. He chooses to deal with his misfortune and return to his life.
Personally, I was hoping for more of a philosophical journey. When Julie asks, "Do you believe in god?" I wondered if perhaps we may actually deal with the subject. But it was not to be. I would like to see this movie again and also abre los ojos. If I get the chance, maybe I will post new thoughts on the film.
The thing about this movie, and I can't say this enough, is there are many possibilities to what the true story is. That is what I find so fascinating about films such as this - films like Brazil and Memento. They are very rich and demand repeat viewings to fully disect. I applaud films which challenge the audience to take an active role. It would be wonderful to see more like this.
If people are saying the splice happens at the begining then why does the tec support guy say the splice happens at the moment he is drunk and passed out after the night club scene. PLUS we hear a tape rewinding/splice type of noise at the moment he is passed out.
Plus, its ok to have your own interpitation of the movie, but how can you when Crowes version so blatenly explains it to you.
I think you would have a better chance of coming up with your own interpitation of "Open Your Eyes"
Please everybody, buy "Open Your Eyes" it out now, and is also being re-released on the 18th. So, you should be able to find a copy(hopefully)
P.S. the thing about Cruise's and Diaz's characters.
Cruise's character is suppose to be upset and very mad about his deformed face, especially while in the psycho ward. It seemed to be Cruise played the character a little to happily.
Plus, he is suppose to be a playboy type of character, who doesn't sleep with the same woman twice(usually), and here he is still be attached to Cameron Diaz at the begining. It seemed that he really didn't want to get rid of her.(works so much better in OYE)
Diaz's charcter is suppose to be somewhat Sexual psychotic(obsessed way) and she really wasn't either.(again better in OYE)
And why with the murder, does it show and say Diaz was hit and bruised up, when only she was suffocated with a pillow?
This movie was not much fun to watch. All you do is keep wondering if he is dreaming, crazy or dead, knowing that the answer has to be one of those. Any of those alternative would have been cheap already. When the answer turn out to be all three...
I lost interest at the 13508th shot of one of the girls turning into the other...
I guess I was hoping for some kind of insightful movie about "life love hate etc..." and all I got was some farce about reality vs dreams blah blah...
I am not the most eloquent writter in the world, so I will simply say this movie was very tedious.
The only good thing was both gorgeous women and the shots of manhattan at the end. I watched this movie at Times Square (42nd St Ewalk), so it was kinda funny to see those streets empty in the movie...