*** Official "VANILLA SKY" Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[cafink]

Has anyone een "Vanilla Sky" yet? I recently discovered "Abre Los Ojos" (of which "Sky" is a remake), and loved it to pieces! I have passes to see "Vanilla Sky" tomorrow, and I was just wondering what everyone else thought of it and how it compares to "Ojos."

From the trailer and commercials I've seen, it looks to be a very faithful adaptation. I suppose this is a good thing, as there's not much room for improvement in the orignial. On the other hand, if you're not going to change anything, why even bother to remake a movie that's only four years old?

 

[teapot2001]

Carl, it seems like you'll be the first to see it. From the trailers and TV spots, the main difference I see from Abre Los Ojos are the pop-culture references.
You can find the answer to your question about why the movie was remade here: http://www.calendarlive.com/top/1,1...l-46385,00.html
~T

 

[Seth Paxton]

There is a good review over at Variety.com (IIRC you have to join for free).

McCarthy is luke-warm to the film. He said it's a direct remake with almost no plot changes and several bits of key dialog brought over.

It sounds like to me his biggest problem was with Crowe sticking in TONS of rock references in a film that it didn't fit as well (opposed to Famous for example). He mentions some posters in Cruise's apartment as well that we have no reason to think Cruise's character would actually own. I guess this makes some of the film feel like Crowe is hanging over the picture.

I can see that.

He also says Vanilla isn't as dark and weird as the original. So you aren't going to be surprised and you may or may not like the alterations to what you already enjoyed (tone-wise).

Having never seen the original, I will be going to V.Sky this weekend.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

I saw it. I'd give it 4 out of 5 stars. It's technically dazzling and very well-acted, but I think it lacks real emotion and heart. Plus, the third act is wayyyyy out there, as in it doesn't fit the rest of the movie. But the good outweighs the not-so-good, and if you're excited to see this one, don't let me damper your spirits. I almost wish I could see it again before writing my review!

 

[Craig S]

I love Crowe's work, and will definitely see Vanilla Sky this weekend. However, I have to admit I'm kind of looking at it as "the last film I see before getting to see Fellowship Of The Rings".

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

I may have liked the third act the best of anything. I saw Abre los Ojos when it played here theatrically a couple years ago and watched it again on DVD a couple months back. I don't know how I would have reacted to this with no foreknowledge of all the weirdness. Something tells me I might have enjoyed it a little more.

Vanilla Sky is very true to its Spanish predecessor in many ways. I think Crowe's contributions are most successful in the third act as he provides an interesting way of tying in his references and what they mean to who we are. (I also liked how Crowe underplays many of his cultural references rather than making sure the audience notices them. Yes, the Jules et Jim poster is front and center, but I doubt most of the people at the public advance screening had any idea what that film was. I admire how he snuck in some of his favorite cinematic reference points--which I spotted, especially after listening to the commentary on Untitled--and made them purposeful without making me realize what he was doing.)

No doubt, it's a weird movie, although it tries a little too hard to explain what's happening along the way. At least it seemed like it to me. I liked Vanilla Sky, but I'm not sure how much. FWIW, it took me two cracks at Abre los ojos to get a better idea of how I felt about it.

 

[todd s]

I have 2 kids and going to the movies is rare. Can someone tell me the plot to this movie. You can include spoilers. Thanks!

 

[Rich Malloy]

Your kids won't like it.

But I've only seen Abres los ojos. The early word on Vanilla Sky is that it sucks. Bigtime.

The original is due out on DVD (on the 18th, I think). My guess is you're much better off sticking with the original.

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

My review of Open Your Eyes/Abre los ojos is online. The DVD came out in late August, although it was notoriously hard to find. I tried not to give away much regarding the plot, but read it at your own risk, I suppose.
I liked Vanilla Sky, but I think those who have seen the original may not enjoy it as much.

 

[Russ Lucas]

There's a Region 1 DVD out there now, which my local Border's had for around $15 a few weeks ago.

Todd, I hope I can do it some justice. It's about a handsome young heir to a company who has his pick of women. His latest conquest doesn't accept his declaration that their relationship is over, so at a party he pretends to be involved with the girlfriend of his best friend to ward the old girlfriend off. He falls in love with the girl, alienating his friend. He accepts a ride from the ex-girlfriend, and she tries to kill them both by driving her car into a barrier. The man awakes and discovers that he's been disfigured in the accident. He tries to pick up with the girl, but finds that his perception of her, and himself, is not what he expected. His confusion in separating illusion from reality draws him into a crime, and he's put in an institution, where a psychiatrist attempts to help him unravel the mystery. I can't bring myself to give the whole thing away, but suffice it to say that there's a few big twists at the end.


You and I are in the same boat; we don't get out to the movies much either. With that in mind, taking into account the negative buzz I've also heard, you should rent the original version first.

This may end up being The Vanishing Redux.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Early reviews have not been very kind to this one. Certainly not a must-see. I might wait for this one on DVD instead.

~Edwin

 

[L. Anton Dencklau]

..

 

[Russ Lucas]

Anton, have you seen Abre los Ojos? If so, I'm curious to see whether the remake adds anything to the original in your estimation, or even whether it does an adequate job of telling the original's story.

I think that it might fail for another reason apart from being a so-called "heavy" movie. Some of the critics who are panning it may be doing so as a result of either consciously or unconsciously comparing it to the earlier film and finding that it doesn't measure up.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

I don't believe joe moviegoer is going to be happy with almost an hour of disfigured Tom Cruise.

Oh, boy. Was this just spoiled for me? Did Anton just gave away a major plot point in the film here?

~Edwin

 

[Allen Hirsch]

Edwin-

I think if you read anything about this film before seeing it, you'd probably already have that plot point known.

At least that's my sense, from what little I've read, and I've not seen VS, or the original.

Which is always the danger, wandering in here to get a feel for whether something is worth seeing or not.

 

[Craig S]

I think if you read anything about this film before seeing it, you'd probably already have that plot point known.

I've read a bit about this film, but that was definitely news to me. Not completely a shocker considering it would follow naturally from an incident in the trailer, but still...

I wish folks would be a little more careful in these threads, at least until the film in question has been in general release a few days.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

I do not know anything about this film, read any full reviews nor have I seen the original or any trailers for it. For someone to spoil it just like that is totally inexcusable. &8#@!

~Edwin

 

[Dave Barth]

On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being nothing and 10 being a shocking twist or ending, that's about a spoiler of 3 or so. I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[Sean Cauley]

Yeah, Edwin, (and I'm just going from Abre los Ojos here), that little spoiler is nothing compared to some of the weirdness this story holds. Well, you'll see (I can't wait, myself, to see how all of this is handled in Crowe's version).

I can't wait to come back to this thread on Monday, when more of us have seen Vanilla Sky (I myself am going tonight). There should be some fists flying by then! I get the feeling this is going to be one of those love-it-or-hate-it movies, like a Fight Club, Eyes Wide Shut or Mulholland Drive. I think you're going to see a lot of people come out of the theater confused more because the movie isn't what it was marketed to be, not necessarily because the movie's story is confusing (although some critics have levelled that accusation, I was able to get most of Abre los Ojos in one sitting).

An article on Crowe and Cruise that ran in my local paper (I think it was from the LA Times) mentioned that Paramount isn't really aiming for this movie to have legs; they're just shooting for a fat debut weekend as a money-grab before The Fellowship of the Ring hits next week. I could get worked into a tizzy over that being exactly what's wrong with Hollywood today, but I don't have the energy just now.

See you guys on Monday, when they've made this the "Official Vanilla Sky discussion thread.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Interestingly, I've been seeing some good reviews--mostly in the alternative press. Now, I have a thing about films with Tom Cruise playing an uppercrust character who sojourns into a dream world situation where the distinction between reality and fantasy become blurry. I love a film like that. So, I'm intrigued with what Mr. Crowe hath wrought here.
I was also looking forward to dialoging with Carl about a subject we can agree on!
Really, though--I know I am at least getting the DVD.