Mark Pfeiffer
Screenwriter
- Joined
- Jun 27, 1999
- Messages
- 1,339
Personally I don't think anything was really meant by the Spanish uttering of "Abre los ojos" at the beginning. I thought I read a couple months ago that it was Crowe's way of acknowledging the first film. I don't necessarily agree with Ebert's hypothesis that the entire film could be a dream.
I also don't think that David was born deformed and that everything is a dream too. There's nothing in the film that gives one that impression. I suppose it all goes to whether or not you believe the Noah Taylor character's explanation. I do. Otherwise the film really isn't playing fair as it doesn't give any other clues.
Crowe does try to explain too much early in the film, something probably to try to keep audiences with him, but I liked how we get a full explanation at the end. It's one of the few areas where I felt he added something to the original.
As for how the characters are "supposed" to be, this isn't Amenabar's picture, although it's awfully close. There have been some changes in how the characters are, in part because the actors bring different things to the roles. Cruise's persona definitely changes the part, and I don't see that as a bad thing, per se. I think criticizing it based on the original is pointless. Comparing the two isn't, but solely determining the merits on how close it sticks is beside the point. I think Crowe has made an interesting, albeit messy, film that generally works.
I also don't think that David was born deformed and that everything is a dream too. There's nothing in the film that gives one that impression. I suppose it all goes to whether or not you believe the Noah Taylor character's explanation. I do. Otherwise the film really isn't playing fair as it doesn't give any other clues.
Crowe does try to explain too much early in the film, something probably to try to keep audiences with him, but I liked how we get a full explanation at the end. It's one of the few areas where I felt he added something to the original.
As for how the characters are "supposed" to be, this isn't Amenabar's picture, although it's awfully close. There have been some changes in how the characters are, in part because the actors bring different things to the roles. Cruise's persona definitely changes the part, and I don't see that as a bad thing, per se. I think criticizing it based on the original is pointless. Comparing the two isn't, but solely determining the merits on how close it sticks is beside the point. I think Crowe has made an interesting, albeit messy, film that generally works.