[Mark Pfeiffer]

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.

[Jodee]

I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but I was very happy that Crowe left the WTC Towers in the background of the final scene.

To me, I thought that gave the scene some extra poignancy that was unintended, but ended up working very well.

For example, because this is his "lucid dream" he would have those towers there. Since the movie tells us he died on Dec. 26, 2001, he was probably in his coma and recovering from his accident around the time 9/11 would have happened. So it made a lot of sense to me to have them in his "dream" reality.

It also was interesting when Noah Taylor said to him about how "out there" (the real world) having changed a lot since his life. Seeing the WTC after hearing that statement was very profound.

Another unexpected topical moment: when David says George was his favorite Beatle.


As far as the whole Penelope Cruz voice ont he answering machine dilemma-- I really don't see what the problem is here.

If you recall once he awoke from his dream, there was a voice-over where he was telling the psychiatrist about his dreams. So already this part of the movie is being told in flashback. And his Sofia/Julie memories have already started to change in his head.

So even though it is the beginning of the film, it is still a flashback. Although he hadn't "met" Sofia yet in the timeline, his memories are still clouded with her.

[JonZ]

Jodee,
I was going to mention WTC but decided not to. I live in NY and quite a few people in the theater commented on them. A few people sniffled and I think it definitely added a sense of sorrow to the moment.

Also the George Harrison reference got 2 "awwwws".

[Chuck Mayer]

That shot of NY was beautiful.

Nuff said,
Chuck

[Sean Cauley]

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

I really like what Crowe brought to the table in his Americanization of Abre Los Ojos. I think the notion that your dream reality would be influenced by the iconography of pop culture is pretty accurate for most of us in the modern world. The idea that the images on your favorite album cover, a movie poster, or a classic film on TV would be reimagined starring you and your acquaintances is logical in the world set up by this film and ALO. And as it seemed that the three magazines David ran directly were a car mag, a music mag, and a MAXIM-type mag, so it seems realistic that he would be affected by the subject matter of those genres.

I watched ALO again yesterday, and for those who think the elevator scene in Vanilla Sky is too on-the-nose, the exposition at the end of ALO is just as heavy-handed, minus the update about the Cesar/David character's business.
Also, the L.E. program is alluded to much more clearly in Amenabar's film through more repetitions of the infomercial (and the infomercial doctor is the same man who appears as Cesar's tech support), so the ending of the original feels more like it flows with the rest of the movie. In VS, I knew what was coming (having seen ALO), but to most other people I've talked to this weekend, the cryogenics storyline seemed to come out of nowhere.

As for Ebert's suggestion that the splice could have come earlier than explained: well, I'm just not sure. I don't see why, if the ending is so exposition-heavy (in both films), there's really no point in it partially being a lie. Add to this the splicing sound effect upon David's awakening in the street the morning after the nightclub, and I think we have pretty good evidence that Noah Taylor's character is telling the truth. Still, a couple of items made me consider Ebert's theory as a possibility. In the L.E. offices (assuming the visit there is a faithful recreation of the real office visit before David's suicide), the LucidDream promotional video features snowboarding (earlier in the film--not sure if it's before or after the supposed splice--David says he's been "snowboarding through life", and at the party, long before the splice, he has a painted snowboard), Bjork (in the nightclub the night before the splice, Brian points Sofia to the restroom past the "girl who looks like Bjork"), and James Bond (David's life was fairly Bond-ish, and Julie did have a martini at the party). Of course, this may not be the actual video he was shown in real life, and it could be affected by his memories of those pre-splice events.

If the splice was before the FADE IN:, maybe it's possible that his dream of an empty New York was the system's way of rendering an environment prior to populating it with characters. Of course, given the muddled state of his mind at the time of his interviews with Dr. McCabe, it's possible that this rendering was actually done the morning of the official splice, and he's simply ascribing it to the morning before his birthday because the dream events were so similar to that particular day (although, did anyone else notice that he had the Porsche in the dream, but the Mustang on the real morning?). Similarly, the dream of meeting Sofia in the park and feeling the car crash was a dream could be the system's hunt through his subconscious for an ideal from which to build his simulated relationship with Sofia. A convoluted idea, to be sure, but a possibility.

I was a fan of the soundtrack. At times it seemed to be on-the-nose and serve as a kind of narration, but that was undoubtedly intentional, and I really liked it. I really enjoyed the use of REM's "Sweetness Follows" as precursor to the splice, which was intended to be the "sweet" that would now be better since David had tasted the "bitter," as Brian liked to say.

All in all, I was happy with this adaptation of an already-enjoyable film. I liked most of the performances (and was very pleasantly surprised at Kurt Russell's), and really enjoyed the flavorings Crowe brought to the table.

[Brett_B]

The one thing that really bothered me about the movie was:

Spoiler:

Wouldn't Tom Cruise's character actually be dead. I understand that he would technically be dead when he is frozed, but didn't he actually committ suicide before being frozen? Did LE somehow reverse the affect of Cruise's overdose?

[JohnS]

[font=]Brett,
Tom Cruise did kill himself, and got cryoed(frozen) and is living a 'vertual reality life'.
Technically living a life(dream life) but dead. He then reawakens when he jumps off the building.

Open Your Eyes explains this much better

Spoiler:

That the only way to awaken from a dream, is to kill yourself(jumping off a building). Because you cant kill yourself in a dream, you always wake up at the moment of death(of impact, when falling)

I'm upset that Ebert didn't mention(tv review) how much better/worse "Open Your Eyes" is. Has he even seen it?[/font]

[MickeS]

JohnS, in "Vanilla Sky" it was mentioned that Aames himself had chosen this way to wake up (because of his fear of heights). Apparently every customer could choose the way they would prefer to "die" to be reborn.

I wouldn't say the "Open your eyes" explanation as you tell it (I haven't seen it) is better, just different.

/Mike

[Derek Miner]

Quote:

Mainly, the soundtrack was just so damn obtrusive! Perhaps he was trying to make the film more palatable to the people who would be finding out that the movie wasn't what they were expecting?

Actually, I thought the soundtrack worked in a manner similar to the visual montage feel in much of the film. And I thought the music will be a good thing for me to pay attention to in my second viewing to get a better idea what is really going on.

Now that I've had a couple days to digest the film and read some opinions, I like it more. It's not perfect - I particularly felt the film overstayed its welcome once things started getting weird. I think many people who were willing to accept the strangeness were let down that an answer didn't come as soon as it should have.

I see a lot of people hanging on the fact that the movie appears to explain itself fairly conclusively, however, I would point out that there are still unanswered questions. I'm starting to fall into the camp that believes the whole movie might be a dream in some form or another. A second viewing is definitely in order.

[JohnS]

[font=]MikeS,

Didn't the tech support guy tell him that's the way to wake up(jumping off the ledge), becuase the tech support guy gave a head nudge towards the edge. Tom Cruise only choose that route because it was the only way to wake up or he would have to stay in his virtual reality dream life.[/font]