Cool News
Harry's VANILLA SKY review
VANILLA SKY unveiled as the 9:30pm film at BUTT-NUMB-A-THON 3.
I had invited the film to the festival sight unseen. I’d never seen Alejandro Amenábar’s ABRE LOS OJOS (OPEN YOUR EYES). I always wanted to, but it opened at the Dobie Theater here in Austin, and that’s the surest way to keep me from seeing a film. I prefer a DVD presentation in my home to the discomfort and truly bizarre film watching experience of the Dobie Theater.
Back in September I ordered the film on DVD, but it only just arrived today, so I have now seen it, though I did see Cameron Crowe’s VANILLA SKY first.
I think that’s a very important distinction as to the reason I feel the way I do about VANILLA SKY. I prefer his film to OPEN YOUR EYES. Having just seen both films I can say that Cameron’s film is my preferred film.
Cameron wanted no introduction for his film, he wanted it to just play… no audience preparation. The film would just suddenly hit the audience.
Prior to the film, I hit the audience with 25 minutes of Giant Bug and Animal trailers. Films like TARANTULA, KING KONG, DEADLY MANTIS, THEM and MONSTERS FROM GREEN HELL and a lot more.
After that I screened Will Vinton’s MOUNTAIN MUSIC, which really placed the audience in a very contemplative mood, a great mood for this film as it turned out.
Then the Paramount logo hit, the audience didn’t know what the movie was going to be, then suddenly "OPEN YOUR EYES" "OPEN YOUR EYES"
The Audience Screams, then settles in.
As this was my first introduction to the story of ‘OPEN YOUR EYES’ each and every surprise hit me like a revelation. I found the visuals quite arresting, the music propulsive and the story… Well frankly the story of VANILLA SKY played like a dream. Reality was constantly askewed. I had to wonder if Cruise’s character was sane, alive, dead, insane or fictional altogether.
To be honest, VANILLA SKY fucked with me pretty hard. I mean, coming off of KING KONG which has always been a reality bending film of the subconcious, to stumble into VANILLA SKY without any real preparation.. It was the way to see the film. Unhinged from reality, unsure of your grounding.
If you know nothing about VANILLA SKY, perfect… Go see it. Know that the film is from the collective minds of the man that brought you THE OTHERS earlier this year and Cameron Crowe, who has consistently cemented us generationally speaking to the world of film.
Cruise plays the role with more confused narcissism and prominence than Eduardo Noriega. You see, for me, Tom Cruise has a vitality of celebrity for me as a viewer that Eduardo doesn’t have. Eduardo is wonderful in the original film… However, I can believe Tom Cruise as a huge, bigger than life silver spooned fella in the film. He sells that at levels that Eduardo’s relative unknown status doesn’t. It is an intangible, that works to the benefit of the film.
Penelope Cruz is luminescent in the film, I liked her in OPEN YOUR EYES, but I truthfully feel that she is far more lovable in this film than she has ever been before. I have never seen the attraction to her before, but here… maybe it is simply the contrast between her and Cameron Diaz’s personality in this film. As a result, Cruz was just wonderful here.
Cameron Diaz. My one crushing problem with the film is that she didn’t drop the blanket, but um… that’s just not professional… Ahem… It is my feeling that Cameron Diaz continues her track on being my favorite all around actress working today. Cameron is simply hypnotically beautiful. Not only that, but she has an absolutely luminescent stellar gleam that radiates from her and infuses straight out of the screen and into us. She makes me hate Tom Cruise, she makes me feel that he needs his face ripped off for treating her for granted. Anyone that would have Diaz as an intimate… and then seek ANYTHING or ANYONE ELSE…. Insane! He deserved everything that came to him.
From that point on all the feelings of oppression that falls down upon Cruise’s character… I believe that it is deserved.
Now Cameron Diaz is one of the PRIME reasons why I prefer this version of Amenábar’s story. Diaz has a neediness and a desperation… as well as a love and a want and a desire and a spoiled innocence and a hurt. A hurt that I never registered from the first film. Her selling of that Julie is just stunning and so so sooooo important. If you don’t buy her, where she is coming from, the rest of the film would fall apart for me.
Ok, now Diaz and Cruise were two of the reasons I prefer this film to the original, the next is cinematographer John Toll. Toll’s work here is wonderful. His camera never lets me get a grip on what is and isn’t reality. Amenábar’s film is shot more grimy and dirty… more nightmarish in colors and tones. While that fits what is happening to the character in the latter part, it isn’t what the world was supposed to be from the beginning. As a result, I feel that the world, as captured by Toll’s camera, is more captivating and sells the story better.
I also prefer Jason Lee as the ‘best friend’. It might just be that I’m a total Jason Lee whore, but I love watching this guy on camera. Also, Kurt Russell’s psychiatrist was perfect and at the end of things… PERFECTION.
Finally, the key reason for me preferring this version is Cameron Crowe and the setting of the film within the context of the United States.
Crowe’s taste for music, his capturing of pop-iconography and the intermingling of that with our collective subconcious… Well, it just jives. It pops and it works for me. Why? Cameron, with his choice of music and imagery… the ever so slight visual changes. They are all latching on points for me as a viewer.
The scene at the beginning in an empty New York… That feels so genuinely creepy and poignant to me, particularly this year. To anyone that has ever been in TIME SQUARE, to see it empty in all directions. There was just something preternaturally befuddling about it. Signs, imagery, all selling to you the individual in a world devoid of human life, but echoing it with every billboard, every oversized television screen. The buildings… empty, no faces, no bodies, just you.
It played dead on right for me. The setting of OPEN YOUR EYES though wasn’t an added emotional connection. It just felt like… some place. VANILLA SKY taking place in New York, having that story told there… right now, meant quite a bit.
Seeing the World Trade Center there in the film, in this film, shown that way, when he’s doing what it is he’s doing. Just felt right. It felt so good to see it there, to see it NOT ERASED.
Well, I’m rambling. I just have to say that for me, walking into that film really unaware of what was going to happen. Coming off of ROCK ALL NIGHT and KING KONG… Both of which were also NEW YORK stories… It just seemed to play perfect for me and quite a bit of the BNAT audience.
I hope ya check it out, I’m really curious to hear what you folks thought as well.
-
+ Expand All
-
So, uhm, what's the movie ABOUT?
-
Well Open your eyes is one of my favorie international movies of the 90's. The work that has been done in that film is amazing, especialy the storytelling by amenanbar, amazing!:)
I love Cameron Crow, one of my favorite working active filmakers. Ir really hoped that this version of that now spanish clasic toped the original, i really do. But the last one week i only see mix reviews hiting me from all ways!:( I trust harry and hope he is right, that this movie is not just a movie or a remake but a film an amazing film!:)
thx777b
12-15-2001 -
Dear Mr. Thrack: There is no, I friggin repeat no Peter Travers review of lotr fotr up at R------S----.c--. God. All I know is if it only comes out on the print edition of the "magazine," I'll have to hope someone puts it up in here. Oh well. However, there is a delightfully puerile review up at DarkHorizons.com (and a quick thank you to this website for eating my previous post so that I have to type the whole fudgsicle-sucking thing twice. Double grrrrrr!!!!)! Anyway, the review is mercifully short, so I'l just give you the "highlights." The reviewer's main complaints are as follows: that LOTR FOTR fails to follow the example of better "popcorn" flicks like the Mummy series, takes itself way too seriously, and doesn't make the slightest concession towards a girl-on-girl scene (guess he'll just have to rent Heavenly Creatures). Anyway, here goes: (in reference to the Mummy Series) "There are so many rewindable moments like the sexy girlfight between bikini-clad gold-sprayed hotties Rachel Weisz and Patricia Velasquez which I call the Yummies Return. The Lord of the Rings doesn't have such wanna-see-billion-times memorable scenes, I can't single out any. Even the babes are nothing to write home about, very anaemic like they're dying of tuberculosis, dressed from their heads to their toes, totally unorgasmic." The horror. Imagine women on screen with dialogue and clothes! (Be sure to include an abbreviation for the words "What" "The" and the "F-word" here, to drive home the point that you think the reviewer's comment here is somewhat questionable). It is certainly a strange move on Jackson's part to portray thinking, human characters on-screen as also being female. Verily, "unorgasmic" seems to be an apt description for such a decision. Well, maybe Butt Sluts from Outer Space will be out soon. Maybe the reviewer would have appreciated the Bridge of Khazad-Dum scene if the Balrog had had a CGI-enhanced rack. Well there's always the director's cut. I didn't really like the review from the Irish Times either. Only about a third of the text involves having seen the film, and that only just. Well it's not as if we haven't seen enough reviews. I did want to read Travers' though. As to the wussy grumblings of any nancy-boys who are wondering as to the relevance of this post on this particular talkback: Cameron Crowe used to work for Rolling Stone, and he directed a movie with Tom Cruise. And apparently he's having sex with someone. So now you can see that this post is just frothing over with relevance and topicality. Thanks. I read about halfway through Harry's review, I quit because I'm aware of his propensity to throw out spoilers sans attendant warnings, and I don't wanna know too much about this movie. Not a Cruise fan, but I sure loved Almost Famous and Say Anything. And Fast Times at R.H. Don't like Cameron Diaz much either, although she was thoroughly solid performance in Being John Malkovich. My girlfriend didn't even recognize her.
-
Anyway, it doesn't matter, because, you guessed it, LotR will kick ass! sorry to bring it up, but, as is my duty as hobbitgeek, I must inform you of Tom Cruise's fake sentimentality. Celebrity or not, he seems too fake for me to even try to identify with him. Tell him to go fuck Cruz and Diaz until his wang falls off.
-
Dec 15, 2001 7:56:23 AM CST
There is NO possible way that "Vanilla Sky" is better than "Open
by silenceoffreedom
As great as people are saying "Vanilla Sky" is, I truly believe that it cannot top "Open your Eyes". First of all, if you have seen "Open your Eyes" already, many of the plot details are already known. Second, the spanish dialogue has a way of completely drawing you in and holding you there, not letting you go until the story is done. Let's just say I'd rather hear Cruz speaking spanish than speaking broken english. Third, "Open your Eyes" had no (at the time) star power in it. That is what will detract me from "Vanilla Sky". I won't see three tortured souls. I'll see Tom Cruise, Cameron Diaz and Jason Lee. Good actors, but actors nonetheless. "Open your Eyes" had an excellent indipendantcy to it that "Vanilla Sky" will not have. Fourth, the scenes (in "Open your Eyes") where the main character was trying to come to grips with his disfigurement, and when he is making a drunken fool of himself, they had me close to tears. You actually FEEL for the character. I just don't think that those scenes and that feeling can be translated in "Vanilla Sky". They can't move me the way I was moved. Of course, it is POSSIBLE, but again, it's still Tom Cruise, etc. I live in Canada, so to me the opening sequence in "Open your Eyes" did not seem like "just some place". By the end of the film, I felt a deeper connection to that city, those streets. My point is, the fact that "Vanilla Sky" is in an empty New York means nothing to me. I have never been to New York, so that seen will have no more of an impact on me than the opening scene from "Open your Eyes", if not less. In conclusion, I am sure that "Vanilla Sky" is a great film. I loved "Almost Famous", but I really don't feel it can beat "Open your eyes", as it is my favourite movie of all time. I expect no one to agree with that, but I just feel strongly about re-makes. Especially ones whos stars can detract from their impact.
-
In case this is out of order, look down. But anyway, that review was totally stupid (not Harry's), the one in this talkback about LotR. "Unorgasmic" killed it for me. How old is this reviewer? It sounds like a smart Beavis. Although, a little titty is not such a bad thing. think about it, the fellowship arrived in Lothlorien at night, so why can't we see a little nip through a sheer night gown? Gees, my nose is bleeding again, Dammit! I guess the movie is fine without Galadriel's hi-how-are-ya.
-
Here Cifra2's writting FROM Spain. Saw Open your eyes YEARS ago... it was bullshit. Complete and genuine bullshit. Noriega's performance was one of the worst leading performances I can remember of. The rest of the cast was just OK (with the exception of Najwa Nimri (who played Cameron Diaz's character) who was really great). The script was like if Amenabar thought I was stupid. I saw the trick coming from minute 20 in the film, when I told a friend... "This is a Total Recall rip-off... wait and see". I began hating Amenabar and Noriega... till I saw "The Others" and "Devil's Backbone", that hate continued... then disappeared. Open your eyes is, along with Crouching Tigger, Hidden Dragon, problaby the most overrated film of the 90's. But I have faith in Cameron Crowe and THIS cast (even Cruz, which is a far better actress than american audiences think), so I'm first in line.
-
Whether you like "Open Your Eyes" or not, the one thing that remains clear to me having now seen both films and having liked "Open Your Eyes" very much, Hollywood is made up of a bunch of people that believe their own hype and its killing creativity.
"Vanilla Sky" was as pointless as the "Psycho" remake. Tom Cruise, who I have begun to like more in recent years, is a HUGE overactor and was terrible in this movie.
This movie was a glaring example of a bunch of delusional, albeit talented people, who make too much money and think they are making something better than it is.
Sure it looked good, the music was good and Cameron Diaz was very good, but it wasn't imaginative, original or interesting.
Hollywood needs to stop paying these f**king actors so much so they can't afford to produce their own movies anymore.
Tom Cruise should go see "Ocean's 11" if he wants to see some real actors and stop looking in the mirror.
The porn industry is putting out better remakes than "Vanilla Sky."
I hated it because it was flat, soul-less and mediocre - everything movies are not supposed to be.
Just my opinion. -
And gimme a pukebag.
-
This has got to be one of the worst films I've ever seen. The pacing was poor, the blocking made every "surprise" obvious and Tom Cruise's performance was unmotivated and forced. Obviously, I'm not a Cruise fan, but this made his other work look like Robert DeNiro. It's too bad, too, because everyone else in the film had to work off of him so they had to work twice as hard. But the absolute worst thing about this film is that I'm going to have to hear about how it's a work of genius from people who don't know any better.
-
Having seen both of them, I personally prefer Abre Los Ojos, though there are many many good things about Vanilla Sky. However, 2 things dropped Vanilla Sky big time. #1: Tom Cruise was not ugly enough when disfigured. In Abre Los Ojos, when you see Eduardo Noriega disfigured, it's pretty disturbing. You recoil in horror. Having seen Abre Los Ojos first, this almost wrecked Vanilla Sky for me. I don't know if Tom Cruise didn't want to get too ugly for the role or what, but when you look at the disfigured David Aames, you think "Hell, for what happened to you, that's not bad at all, it's just a massive scar!" Whereas in Abre Los Ojos, it really as a case of "Oh my God, he's hideous."
#2. The music in Vanilla Sky, while good in and of itself, seemed for the most part wildly inappropriate. I mean what the hell was Cameron Crowe smoking when he put "Good Vibrations" in the almost final scene of the movie? Amenabar wrote most of the music for Abre Los Ojos, and he is one of the few directors who can write genuinely good music for film. So while the music in Abre Los Ojos was sometimes touching, sometimes chilling, and sometimes haunting, and always appropriate (the final scene on the roof in Abre Los Ojos is just a stunning cue from the moment they get there till the moment he jumps - it's just awesome...), the music in Vanilla Sky seemed to cast this warm fuzzy sheen over everything that just did NOT belong there. As good a director as Crowe is (and he is GOOD), I feel he dropped the ball with the music in Vanilla Sky.
Now, there were many things that Vanilla Sky did better than Abre Los Ojos. These are where Crowe's input shines. First of all, the interaction between the actors was phenomenal in Vanilla Sky. Cameron Diaz actually brought a ton of depth and humanity to what seemed to be a much shallower psychobitch character in Abre Los Ojos. Her scene in the car with Tom Cruise is just incredible. Fantastic writing, fantastic acting and it actually adds a ton of depth to the original. Jason Lee's character rocked. Hands down. His scenes with Cruise at the birthday party were great: funny, but also sad; perfect. Also, why the hell isn't Timothy Spall in more films? The guy's awesome! The dialogue is consistantly great, though there are a few cultural references ("OJ Territory?") which, while they seem to work here, could possibly diminish the lasting value of the film. And John Toll's cinematography is great. Also, I thought the elevator ride to the top at the end was excellent. For a film that was essentially a new take on "Vertigo," Abre Los Ojos had a few references to it here and there. There seemed to be many more in Vanilla Sky which I really appreciated. I understand how the film might have been edited after Sept. 11th to not include the shootout in the lobby, but it really was a shame (Damn it, I know it was shot because it was in the trailer) Maybe it will be included on DVD, but I'm not holding my breath. At least it was nice to see the World Trade Center in the film. It actually fits too. Who wouldn't opt to have the terrorist attack never happen in their LucidDream (tm)?
Also the whole falling down sequence in Vanilla Sky was done better (mainly fx-wise, though overcranking it towards the end was a great choice). That was one thing I disliked about Abre Los Ojos: the fall down just looked bad. Given Amenabar's budget, I can understand it, but it still sucked you out of arguably one of the best moments of the film.
However, though Vanilla Sky improves on so many things in Abre Los Ojos, the overall film is lacking somewhat. The only things that I can attribute this to is Crowes poor choice of music in much of Vanilla; the film lost so much of the original's compelling atmosphere because of this. Secondly, for much of the film to have the impact it should have, Tom Cruise needs to be HIDEOUSLY disfigured, not just mildly disfigured - that choice bothered me to no end. And also, while Penelope Cruz is gorgeous anywhere and in anything, and as cute as a brown coat and black velvet pants are (hell, my girlfriend was wearing almost the exact same thing when we went to see the movie), her clothes on the roof in this movie seem all wrong. For a film that is very much about (again, shades of Vertigo) obsession with a practically unobtainable woman (in this case because they only met several times and she's been dead 150 years) Amenabar's choice of going with a white dress flowing in the wind on the roof of the building seems perfect. I mean hell, the image was so strikingly haunting that it's on the box cover of the DVD (and is a damn fine cover too.) The brown coat and black pants just seems wrong.
Anyway, I've written way too much already. Overall, Vanilla Sky was a rather frustrating experience for me: parts of it were so good and were so much of an improvement on Abre Los Ojos, but they places where it fell almost ruined the film as a whole, at least for me. But I do congratulate Cameron Crowe for doing something new, and for all the improvements he made in a remake of an already very fine film. If you gotta do remakes, I think Crowe has the right attitude towards them, and should be commended for a job (mostly) very well done. -
Hold the gravy boat. Did Harry say that Diaz was his favorite actress??? Did I miss something here? I HAD a level of respect for the man, but now.....
-
Dec 15, 2001 9:29:58 AM CST
Both VANILLA SKY and OPEN YOUR EYES are incredible peices of CRA
by fightingamerican
I finally saw HARRY POTTER today at the local AMC here in Burbank. Not a bad little flick. I enjoyed the beginning much more than the second or third act due to the sense of childish wonder it brought to me. Though, at times, it truly had bad SFX that brought me out of the movie and moments of 'leap of faith' story-line logic that was explained away by a friend in a "Read the book and it will explain more" speech. Damn it, if you spend $100 million on a film, explain things, don't chince the audience that may have held back from reading the original material so they can't fill in the blanks left empty. Upon exiting we decided to jump into VANILLA SKY. My pal had seen OPEN YOUR EYES and liked it enough to buy the DVD. I asked him what it was about. He said, "Explaining the plot to EYES is like trying to explain the plot to the MATRIX." I retorted, "Humanity has been taken over by the very machines it created. After blocking out the sun in hope of disabling the machines power source, humans are now used like batteries to keep the machines running. Some humans have broken out of the virtual reality mental prison created by the machines and now race to find the one person who can use the MATRIX's power against itself and save humanity." He just stared. MATRIX was visually stunning, but the movie ultimately sucked hard! A story that was written over and over again by much more competent writers in TV, comics, and novels in the past. It was a two-hour TWIGHLIGHT ZONE episode without the cleverness of Rod Serling to help. After VANILLA SKY I felt the same way...only without the really clever visuals and cinematography of MATRIX. VANILLA SKY needed to be a half-hour TV show. I desperately want to spoil this movie for everyone and reveal the 'twist', but I won't. Let me just say I hate watching anything that negates itself in the end. That has characters that you WANT to see dead. That, no matter how hard you try, you cannot gain any sense of emotion for ANY character! I sat in the theater and watched pretty colors flicker on the screen for free and wanted my money back. After dinner and a long discussion, my pal convinced me that I should watch OPEN YOUR EYES. He had already convinced me to read HARRY POTTER, though I needed little prodding since I did enjoy the movie. He loaned me his EYES DVD and I watched the whole thing... Three movies in one day can be exhausting. I TOTALLY agree with Harry. VANILLA SKY was better than the original OPEN YOUR EYES... Though both were pretty looking; had pretty people, and were pretty crappy! I have seen many movies that I have disagreed with people on, like MATRIX, but I can see why they liked the movie and respect their opinion. These two movies are just plain bad. I'd rather watch an Adam Sandler movie. That's saying a lot...... I am and always will be THE FIGHTING AMERICAN!
-
Dec 15, 2001 9:35:40 AM CST
Most Common thing heard in the lobbies this weekend...."MAN THAT
by mentallymariah
I am talking about Vanilla Sky, I have not seen the film but being at the theatres today doing some market research work, That is what I heard all day...Pretty Scary Buzz for the Suits eh? This movie will drop so hard come next weekend when Lord dominates the field...I am looking foward to seeing Vanilla, I was a very big fan of the first one although the plot, storyline is not for everyone, so I guess Mainstream America is again walking out on the uncoventional and seething about it! I think that is great!!!!! Now if they would only just make a remake of Mulholland Drive starring Catherine Zeta Jones and Renee Zellwegger!!!!
-
So "Tom Cruise plays his role with... confused narcissism" does he? So he's just playing himself then?
-
Dude, complete suckage. Can you say Total Recall?
Can you say It's A Wonderful Life?
Yeah yeah, it's based on a foreign film but this
really is not original in the slightest.
In fact it is a chore to watch.
How much did they pay you, Harry? 20, 30 twinkies? -
Dec 15, 2001 10:07:20 AM CST
How dare this film ask us Americans to actually THINK while watc
by oksurya
Yes, I did hear some people say they didn't like this movie when I saw it, and I see some of you here didn't like it either. Apparently, these people went into the wrong screening thinking they were going to watch "Not Another Teen Movie". Why do Americans rebel against movies that ask for audience participation, to think and to get inside the jigsaw puzzle of the film? Film watching is already a passive experience, all these films are asking you is to use a few brain cells to comprehend them. Unless those who say they don't like it don't have any cells to spare, or don't have any to begin with.
-
Dec 15, 2001 10:10:39 AM CST
SKIP THIS POST IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN MULHOLLAND DRIVE AND DON&
by almost sexy
You know, I was really disappointed with Mulholland Drive. I loved the first hour and ten or whatever, and then he does the character switch thing, and I just got lost. I don't mind non-linear stories, or ambiguous endings, but I feel like, within the last half hour or so Lynch just totally abdicates any sort of responsibility for seeing the story through and just does a Lost Highway (my favorite Lynch movie of all time, but I've never seen Eraserhead), switcheroo. So she opens the box, and then that actress from then on plays...see I can't even remember what happened before. I know at the end he shows the setup for the hit, and I thought that was cool that he was bringing it full circle, but there's just no ending. I guess I liked the movie, but I felt like he was just recycling himself at the end. So the girl that is found decomposing is the woman who ordered the hit on limousine woman. But then in the second act, limousine woman becomes the woman that the vague criminal types want cast as the lead in the film? No, I'm sure that's not right. It can't be the same person as limousine woman because she's still hiding in aspiring actress' aunt's apartment and bathing. God the first hour is soooo good. And whatever happened with the guy who was having nightmares about the guy behind the diner? So then there's four women? There's the aspiring actress from the sticks. There's the aspiring actress with obscure criminal connections. Then there's the decomposing woman. Then there's limousine assassination-attempt woman, who was having an affair with decomposing woman, and who called a hit on her. Oh right, and limousine woman was going out with the director, so she's not aspiring actress mob connection woman. Okay, I think I've got it. Director's girlfriend breaks up with decomposing woman, so decomposing woman puts out a hit, gets killed by hitman for something confusing, then promptly lives up to her name, limousine woman takes up with aspiring actress (after failed hit attempt) from the sticks woman? Arrrrrrrgh!!!!
-
Dec 15, 2001 10:28:35 AM CST
www.discoscottie.com sayz...The people that hated VANILLA SKY ca
by theemiracleman
I didn't think it was the best film of the year, and there were one or two things I would have done different, but the people who didn't like it are the same who went to see OUT COLD and other low I.Q. crap like that. Just stay at home with your crying babies and leave the theater to us.
-
Dec 15, 2001 10:29:29 AM CST
Vanilla Sky is a great movie, you Hobbit-diddling fuckwits!
by heywood jablomie
God forbid a movie should make you think about more things than your 11-year-old desire to hang out with hairy elves! GROW UP YOU DWEEBOS!
-
Dec 15, 2001 10:55:23 AM CST
So no one's gonna help me out with Mulholland Drive, huh?
by almost sexy
Hey guys, I'm sorry if you were put out by my posting about Lord of the Rings earlier. I was just really bored, and my life is bereft of any sort of meaning or, failing that, teleology. I'm looking forward to Vanilla Sky/ Actually, that was just a lie. I'm not looking forward to anything except seeing Lord of the Rings. But I will be going to see Vanilla Sky today, and if it's only a half as good as Almost Famous, I'll...Oh blah blah blah. What do you people want from me???
-
Actually HJ, if you don't mind me calling you that, as your name seems to have a sort of unsavory connotation that I don't wish to augment with my own post (not that I'm judging you per se, cause I'm not...well maybe I am, but that doesn't mean I think you're a bad person...)...I just did a cursory re-read of this talkback, and I don't know that any of the people that tore into Vanilla Sky mentioned LOTR at all in their posts. They're just criticizing Vanilla Sky; I was the one talking about LOTR, and I'm actually a big Cameron Crowe fan, as well as Jason Lee. Kurt Russell too. He did this movie with J.T. Walsh (currently doing an extremely convincing performance of a dead person, on location) where Walsh steals his wife. Can't remember what it's called, and it's a variation of an older movie, but that movie looked so unbelievably bad when I saw commercials for it. I was pretty much forced to see it, and I was really glad I did. God this post sounds like it was written by a fourth grader. Off to finger-paint!!!
-
Give up trying to analyze the story of Mulholland Dr. It's not a story. Lynch gave up trying to tell a story years ago. His movies are all about trying to conjure a mood or emotion, an experience that can't be communicated through plot machinations. Just analyze your feelings about the movie and that's the only way it will makes sense. For me, it gave me the strong impression of what it must feel like to be an actress in hollywood, what being in that constant state of willed schizophrenia must do to your identity and self-esteem.
-
It is a very on-the-mark comment on our pop culture and the American Dream. No, really. It's about dreams. It's about dreams you can't wake up from. Like life. It is about guilt and vanity, and how if you are given everything you ever wanted, it still won't necessarily provide you with everything you need. We live in a culture of dreams, of desires, stoked by the facts of our consumer oriented lives, and by the vivid means we have of telling stories. But if all your dreams and wish fulfillment still leave you unhappy, you might want to see this film, and perhaps... you'll understand what it means to be happy, to be truly free.
-
What is up with you people? I didn't see the film this was based on and purposely stayed away from any spoilers and still Vanilla Sky was easily the most predictable film I've seen this millenium. Apart from the great falling SFX, this film was an absolute waste of my time. What was there to think about? The film broadcasts it's reveals a hundred miles away. My girlfriend and I kept saying "Gee, I wonder if he's going to..." and "I wonder if this is going to happen..." all in a sarcastic tone. The only thing that required any thought from this piece of spoon fed crap is why Tom Cruise felt the need to punctuate every line with his patented laugh.
-
Battuta, thanks for the response. I remember Lynch in an interview once saying that his film-making process really comes from his sub-conscious and just letting it take him wherever it wants to go, so what you're saying makes sense. My problem is that my mind wants to impose order (no matter how superficial) on chaos (i.e., a Lynch film.). The only things I felt by the end of the film were confused and unsatisfied. And maybe those were the feelings Lynch was trying to convey, or maybe he wasn't trying to convey anything at all, one way or the other. But my mind sees the germination of a potentially very good story in the film, and once I sense a story, I have a really hard time letting go of it (obligatory Lois Lane joke here), and just "feeling." I see so much story potential in this movie, that it's frustrating for me to see it just fade into the background. What about the Lost Highway? The first hour of that film is my idea of film. The video tapes? The dark hallway. That first hour is intensely disturbing on a psychological level. That movie really frightened me. But nothing comes of it. Maybe I'm just not suited for his type of film. He sucks me in the first act, gets me all excited in the second, then bottoms out and leaves me hanging in the third (sorry, that sounded really gross). But thanks for the response.
-
Give me a break.
The miracleman thinks if we didn't like it we don't want to think? And another poster says, oh, people could learn a life lesson about happiness.
I hate this movie more every second because of people who praise it for being inspirational and life-affirming.
It was predictable as hell and from most of the talkbackers who didn't like it, I get the impression they are smart and recognize a cookie-cutter remake when they see it.
I love a movie like "Jacob's Ladder," "Angel Heart," "Fight Club" or Takashi Miike's "Dead or Alive," all of which are fairly original and turn conventional filmmaking methods on their heads.
To praise this for being original is proof positive that you are the non-thinkers and need a another big spoonful of whatever the mass marketing machine wants to feed you. Half of the movies in my DVD collection are from foreign directors and are films much smarter than this painful vanity project.
"Vanilla Sky" was more like "Vomit Sky" to me.
If you loved it, great, but don't praise a remake for it's originality and then say those who didn't like it are non-thinkers.
After this wretched year of movies, I would much rather read a book anyway.
-
But nowhere near as painful.
Still, most movies like this give you the puzzle pieces and then let you assemble it after viewing...
This movie completely assembles it for you.
And some people seem to like it more for that...
I enjoyed it, but I want to see the original now. I mean, I wanted to see it before, but now I REALLY want to see it. -
Dec 15, 2001 11:41:00 AM CST
I think Harry has been spoiled by Cameron Diaz's "swirling a
by terry_1978
She couldn't drop towel this time around...tough break. And the mainstream movie going public hate ambiguous or vague endings or plot twists in movies (read: A.I.), and people are gonna be walking out saying they don't get it or that it was stupid....sad, really.
-
Dec 15, 2001 11:50:30 AM CST
I CHEETED FOUR TIMES! I SWALLOWED YOUR BEER! THAT MEANS SOMETH
by vegas
Sorry, couldn't resist. Anyway, I too loved this movie, and although I also love the original which I saw about a year ago, I prefer VANILLA SKY more, mainly because of the pop-culture angle and the acting. Jason Lee's line in the coffee shop...perfection...
-
I liked the movie. It had an emotional impact on me. My two problems were that I had a hard time relating to cruz falling in love with penelope. I dont think she is ugly, but I think alot of other acctresses would have capticated me more. Also, the ending seemed to be paced wrong somehow.
-
I can agree that Mulholland Drive is a less pure a film than Lost Highway . I think because Mulholland was originally intended for television it contained some conventional story elements, which sets up conventional expectations. Personally, my favorite Lynch film by far is Blue Velvet, which balanced abstract mood and conventional storytelling perfectly.
-
On your most grammatically atrocious, malaprop-laden review to date! Vanilla Sky was hit and miss. Anyone who claims it Totally Sucked, yet hails A.I. as a work of genius is full of shit, in my book. Both films were intermittently brilliant, but deeply flawed. I'm just pleased to see high profile studio movies take such risks.
-
I was all primed for the movie after reading little tidbits on this site for months. I saw the film yesterday, and I have to say that I'm thoroughly disappointed. The movie is so in your face about being "deep" and "like, this is real heavy man," like some stoner trying to be profound. At the end of the film, I heard the whole audience groan about the cheesy ending. I'm a big Tom Cruise fan, and I think he did the best he could in this schlocky clunker.
Though AICN is great for finding out what movies are coming out, I'll stop listening to the fanboys' advice about what constitutes a good movie. These fanboys would get their knees dirty for any director that uses some obscure camera angles, but who can't direct or write themselves out of a paper bag! -
I'm a fan of Cameron Crowe, and loved Almost Famous, but this movie already has two strikes against it. First off, why would someone choose Penolpe Cruz over Cameron Diaz? Inconcievable!!! Even if Cameron Diaz were a kooky broad, I'd pick her over Penolope Cruz anyday! Secondly, this movie is too top heavy with the goddamn Scientologists..Tom Cruise, Jason Lee, and of course Penelope Cruz will be joining them soon if she hasn't already, seeing as it looks like she's been ordained as Tom's latest "See, I'm not gay" broad, and those Scienos invaribly try to recruit their potential spouses.
-
How can harry say that the scene with the street empty in abre los ojos feel like just another street. This kind of comments from people who have the opportunity to have their voice heard all over the world are just innaceptable. That street in abre los ojos is, for you idiots to understand, just as important in madrid as times square and to see it empty is just as disturbing and represented the same high level of logistics to do it. In the time of the release of the movie it was the one scene everybody talked about. "did you see the madrid avenue empty, oh my good how could they do it"
I guess it -
Have you lost your mind?
What a pretentious mess of a so called "film".
Gee, I wonder if this Harry guy has been compromised, or rather star-struck? -
.....Out of Seeing a Good Film, that is. What a f**king waste of an evening! The first 90 minutes are just tedious with no sense of proper pacing. Then he tries to squeeze in as much Lynch-inspired nonsensical crap as he can into 15 minutes. And finally, he caps everything off with one howler of an ending, showing that the bulk of the film was nothing more than one character's giant masturbation fantasy. I think the film had only two saving graces: Penelope Cruz, and the fact that it didn't continue any further than it did. Remember that feeling you got watching AI, like there were a couple of good places they could have ended the movie long before they reached the true, drawn-out ending? You'll get that feeling here in spades; the problem is that such an ending wouldn't have made it a better film, just less of an exercise in tedium. Even though I often agree with and value his opinion, Roger Ebert was out of his MIND to attempt to put this film on the same plateau as Memento. The "jigsaw puzzle" line in the TBs just had me on the floor. I think some of you are giving this film way too much credit in the depth department; jumping from Memento to this is like going from Jeopardy to Wheel of Fortune. In conclusion, please don't waste your time with this flick, as it's really not worth your valuable time. As someone once said, "They didn't make a movie. They just burned film."
-
I applaud your wanting to figure out "Mulholland Drive" -- seems like so many of the readers on this site just didn't get it the first time around and wrote it off. You're still sort of on the wrong track, though, I think. In brief, there are only two women -- Diane Selwyn and Camilla Rhodes. I don't want to spell out the rest, but if you check the article on this site from earlier this week about the New York Film Critics Awards (where "Mulholland" very deservedly won Best Picture), the talkback's got a very good thread which includes some pretty spot-on analysis by myself and hexagonsun, among others. I think if you figure out some of what's going on and then return to see the movie again, your mind will be thoroughly blown. This is the best thing Lynch has ever done (supplanting "Blue Velvet").
-
why is it that everytime Harry like a movie that even comes close to the mainstream, you guysbash the hell out of him and try to tear him a new one? i saw vanilla sky last night and it wa beyond anything i had ever expected. i wasn't expecting much becuase i'm not one for remakes, but i was very impressed with the quality of the film. there's really nothing out there right now that could possibly compare to this movie for one simple reason : IT MAKES YOU THINK! in the past ten years, this has been the only movie i have not been able decipher until that movie ended. as for the ending, for those of you who actually figured it out, it actually gave your mind a reason to wander(if you don't know what i mean, then you probably haven't figured it out yet). it was quite a remarkable film, possible the best of the year.
-
I agree with Uberob 100%. This movie would have been much better had Crowe not decided to explain everything to the audience. The ending was so cheeseball. The message was the same "money isn't everything," "Life 101" stuff you find on Oprah, wrapped up in a nice little package. I don't mind messages, I just don't like to be preached to. "Vanilla Sky" makes you appreciate movies like "Donnie Darko" even more.
-
So when he wakes up, do you people think that he's waking up from the lucid dream 150 years after his death... Or do you think that he's just waking up to a new lucid dream after all... Or do you think he is waking up to a normal life in present time and every last bit of it was a dream? Also... Do you think the splice in the lucid dream did in fact begin where explained, or that the splice actually began the night he fell asleep after Julie brought him soup (which would explain why it was sophia's voice in awaking him in the dream) and that the business of waking up from the lucid dream was actually part of the dream and something else happened... In the end it doesn't really matter though because it doesn't really give you enough evidence to make a logical conclusion any way really and thinking about it too much is just that...
-
maybe i'm just to insightful, but i really didn't feel that anything was force fed to me in this movie, it seems like every talkback is taking the movie at face value(no pun intended). if you didn't like it, fine, it's really not for everyone, but it wouldn't be a fair assessment to say it was a piece of crap just because you weren't intelligent enough to figure it out. judging by the talkbacks, people are pissed because they truely didn't understand the film, although they won't admit to it.
-
A thought just grabbed a hold a me tightly... Why on earth didn't they get VANILLA Ice to do the soundtrack for VANILLA Sky ?!?!? It would have been perfect. WORD TO YA MOMMA
-
Any film that punctuates its climax with a deformed man running around desperately yelling "Tech support" basically sucks. The film built itself up as a nice trippy little thriller, but the crappy turn at the end was dumber than Helen Keller. As someone mentioned before, it is like the end of AI when the crappy looking androids come and summon all of their filmic power to turn a good movie into a horrible one.
-
Ok, for the record, penelope is way better looking then cameron, but that has nothing to do with david ames' choice. to those of you saying him picking penelope over cameron diaz i say this:
diaz character was a psycho obsessive wackjob that david wanted nothing to do with. sophia was one of the most lovable female characters ive ever seen.
and thats what attracted david. it wasnt julias looks versus sophias looks.
get it right -
Salon.com did a big article about M. Drive and broke down the whole movie. It's probably still there in archive, so check the site and do a search. As I mentioned in the TB for Moriarity's review of Vanilla Sky, I understood where M. Drive was going moment by moment -- and loved it. Which is why Vanilla Sky proves itself to be such a lame piece of film making. Those of you (escpecially outside the united states -- how sad it must be for you to wake up every morning with the some apparently neurotic crisis about not living here and thinking "What crass generalization about the lack of taste of Americans can I make today?") who insist that people who don't like this movie don't like to think: check again. Everyone who doesn't like this movie states clearly they knew what was coming ahead of time -- and were right. There was no confusion. There was no lack of comprehension. *We got it!* And it was still dull. For those of you who think it has somethig to do with inspiring us to wake up from pop culture -- please, this is a movie made by C. Crowe, who'd suck himself back into the womb if he could guarantee headphones with the sixties and seventies greatest hits would be installed. Remember, Cruise' character, before he jumps, say: "My God, how foolish of me to have thrown away my life for a woman I met for one night -- that's pure rock and roll sentimental insanity." He says to the woman of this shallow obsession (again, a woman he knew for one night): "I lost you when I got in that car." Lost her? And here's the kicker. You want a movie that would have been about leaving behind dreams and fantasies? Cruise would have had to have said to Diaz, "Every minute is a chance to turn your life around." (The only good idea in the movie.) Because as it stands, Cruz is the good girl because she gives Cruise that advice, telling him to grow up and get on with living. But Diaz is tossed aside as psycho-girl. A truly mature film would have had Cruise take responsibility for Diaz' self-loathing. He would have had to say, as he stood by the car, or at the end of the movie, "You were weak and desperate, and I took advantage of that. I don't know who you are at your best, but this isn't it. I'm sorry I've treated you so shabbily, but I know most of all, only you can treat yourself well. Every minute is a chance to turn your life around." He would have returned the favor Cruz did for him, and taken responsibility for his action which helped -- in subtle ways -- drive a woman to suicide. Instead, Cruise still feels bad he "lost" Cruz because he got in the wrong car? Gimme a break. The guy is still the same narcissistic clod at the end of the movie he was at the beginning. Trust me: I think about movies just fine. And this one really wasn't worth the effort.
-
Just presenting a counter-opinion about a pretty horrid film. It seems the main complaint the pro-VS people have is that folks who disliked the films weren't smart enough, perceptive enough, or couldn't "read between the lines." Being a writer and poet myself, I can say that subtle nuisances rarely get past me.
The problem with VS is not that it's subtle-- just the opposite. It oozes with "ain't I cool atittude" (words pointedly chosen there). There was no subtlety in this film -- it was typical surface Hollywood stuff. And it's true-- once you hear the Bennie the Dog story you know *exactly* what the ending was going to be, so there was no mind-bending "Aha!" at the end of the film.
Even "The Matrix" friggin' blew my mind more than VS, and that movie DID make me think about the solidity of reality. And so what if VS has pop culture references? We've had to suffer through schlocky, self-referential "horror" flicks for ten years -- does their citing of current pop culture make them good films? Does doing the same thing make VS a great movie? NOT!
I pose this question to the Cameron Crowe fanboys out there -- what makes VS different from any film out there now? And don't bring out the "makes you think" crap. If you really want to "think," tackle Hegel's Philosophy of Right or T.S. Eliot, don't see a Cameron Crowe film. VS only made me "think" about asking for a friggin' refund. -
I think people get it. It wasn't that complex of a story, but the elevator sequence was absolutely force fed and simplified for American audiences. They spelled the whole thing out whereas the original was more ambigious and ultimately more interesting.
I would have had a much higher opinion of the film if it was an original idea, but whether you liked it or not, having seen "Open Your Eyes," I didn't think there was a need for a sequel especially one with the level of over-acting of Tom Cruise. I have defended him for too long and now undrestand what his nay sayers have been saying.
So, my argument is that it isn't a very good film based on the fact that it was not an original idea and a pointless remake.
What irritates me more is that I do love movies with twists and surprises that push the borders of what we expect from cinema, so when something as vapid as this comes along, it ruins it for the ones that actually have good ideas.
I understood the movie when it was "Open Your Eyes" and I understood it as "Vanilla Sky," but I am against the recycling of imaginative stories from Foreign countries that are only a few years old. It's bad enough when they remake old movies, let alone the new ones from other countries.
They should have just released "Open Your Eyes" and saved all of that money because they made the same movie just like with the "Psycho" remake, almost shot for shot.
Really, its cool if you like it, but defending it as a quality movie is a displaced reaction based on the facts.
Hey, I was really open to liking it and have waited months to see it, thinking they were going to take it in another direction than the original, but they did not.
-
By the way, that was, "Cruise's character, before he jumps *doesn't* say..." :)
-
PERFECTION? He didn't do anything. Any number of actors could have pulled off that role. I guess he was acheived PERFECTION because he performed the role as well as any number of actors would have. A complete throwaway role if you ask me. Nevertheless, I thought Vanilla Sky was very good.
-
Dec 15, 2001 3:48:55 PM CST
Made me think? Yeah, it made me think that the first 2/3 of the
by hung-wei lo
SPOILERS here if you don't want to read it. OK, I'm not going to completely bash this movie. In fact, I praise the efforts into getting a non-mainstream movie to a mainstream audience. But even further, if it was an independent film, I would still praise its efforts while exploring its shortcomings. After sitting on this movie for the past day, I've come to the conclusion that it was not a good film. Here's why: 1) Tom Cruise as Tom Cruise. Now I still enjoy some of his work, but did he really push anything with this role? Not in the least. Some may say that it was intentional in this case, and I say that it was the director's approach to portray him as a bigger-than-life celebrity, not the script. It also would have worked if he was just a generic bigshot IMHO. 2) Tom's laugh. Do women find it attractive? I found him to be more annoying than any other film I've seen him in. He works off of the "I'm Tom Cruise" charm rather than the "I'm sexy but cool" charm. 3) The ending. I actually enjoyed the rollercoaster ride up until the ending. It was like pulling a rabbit out of a hat to piece the complex puzzle together. Did it actually pull the movie together? Yes, it did. But it did it too conveniently. Those who say that Crowe didn't forcefeed us are lying. The entire last act was a way to cover all of the plot holes that would have made an otherwise enjoyable movie that made you "think", as some of you smartasses like to throw around. Did he wake up into another lucid dream at the very end? Who cares. Crowe pushed the explanation to the far end of the movie to not make you want to "think" about it. If he had moved the explanation of the lucid dream to the middle of the movie, it would have made for a more confusing and thinking movie (ones that I like). 3) I could simply not watch this entire movie again knowing that the entire first two-thirds of the movie is pointless. Just because an ending grabbed you does not give you the right to waste my time. This would have been a nice short film. But I can tell you that I checked my watch like three times at this movie. At most, I will watch it one more time to see if I think differently. But rest assured, I've already decided that this movie will not be added to my dvd collection.
-
i just came back from seeing vanilla sky and boy what a dissapointment.During the first half hour i felt like i'd been here before.This film looked like it was trying to go for that JACOBS LADDER vibe but i wasnt feeling it.It was nowhere near a total mindfuck that film was plus it didnt have that creepy cool factor going for it.As far as tom cruise goes i'm sorry but he doesnt have much range he's been doing the same thing for years.I didnt buy him as some playboy.He had that whole surpressed homosexual ala rock hudson in seconds thing going on. I dont know maybe its just me.As far people calling this a "thinking" movie what the hell have you been watching lately, pearl harbor probably seeing how its racking in milllions in dvd sales.If you havent seen jacobs ladder on dvd yet go now and see what vanilla sky was trying to accomplish....nitty out
-
Things Vanilla Sky has going for it that Open your Eyes doesn't: 1) Movie STARS! We all feel like we know Tom Cruise before anything happens in the film, so we already care going in 2) It happens in America! I ain't never been to Madrid so the subleties will be lost on me. Sorry, that's just the way it is, I ain't been to New York either but it's familiar to all of us through constant images. 3) It's much less subtle, period, than Open Your Eyes. I don't want to have to research a culture before watching a movie in order not to miss anything. 4) The director is American. He Crowe understands the American audience and won't pull anything too subtle like Verhoeven did in Total Recall, an ending so subtle that people to this day misunderstand the ending of that film. And he's Dutch, about as close to an American mentality as you'll find in Europe. 5) Music, music and more music. Hollywood has the bucks, they can get the tunes that are relevent to the story and me since I know the artists and they or the tunes already resonate with me on some level. I think it's Hollywood's duty to present a good premise to a wider audience so we don't have to sit through A French speaking and acted 3 Men and a Baby.
-
What an awesome movie. I remember seeing "Jacob's Ladder" in the theater and being unable to get out of my seat afterward. I've seen many times and I still get the emotional desperation and feeling of loss for our character and how difficult it is to accept tragedy.
"Vanilla Sky" on the other hand didn't reach that level. Even if you like it, it hardly compares to some of the amazing movies, including its source, that it draws its inspiration from.
-
Open Your Eyes was far better because it was original- a creative vision, whereas Sky is just a reworking, lacking the originality and creative flourish. The differances add up up to being just that, minor seperations, and I dont find the inclusion of pop songs and slightly different takes on characterisations to be a particularly great creative stroke... Dont waste your time, go see the original. Its what Harry should have done first. Seeing Sky first was a mistake, because you take that star power baggage (in Harrys case, they played it at my movie marathon!) with you, it'll gloss you over the original.
-
Just got back and am writing without analyzing my thoughts too much. Just want to write what I'm feeling on this one. What bothered me was, I think, that after knowing the ending, it didn't feel dream-like enough. Seriously. While in the theater I instantly thought of Terry Gilliam and wished he had been in charge. I realize the need to retain a sense of reality -- after all, it's the fact that he can't distinguish that is his problem -- but it needed to be more of a nightmare. My girlfriend loved Cameron Diaz in this because she felt she was very creepy and scary. That made me realize that not only was she incredibly creepy, but she was much creepier than anything in his 'nightmare'. Next to Diaz's character, his dream is disconcerting, but not the overwhelming nightmare I think Crowe wanted us to feel. Eh, just my $.02.
-
First, I saw "Open Your Eyes" almost a year ago. It's not my favorite Amenebar film to begin with. I much prefer "Tesis," but the chances of A-list Hollywood tackling that film are about as good as Steven Seagal winning a Oscar for playing a gay man dying of Aids. Seeing "Vanillia Sky" is like watching Aerosmith in a giant stadium doing a cover of a song by a garage band from Ohio. You just wonder "Why?". Mainstream American audiences would not be interested in seeing the Spanish version of "Open Your Eyes" in the first place, and if the audience I sat through this with is any indication, the addition of Cameron Crowe and Tom Cruise don't make a damn bit of difference. They got conned into the theater because the previews looked like a sexy Tom Cruise thriller, and they got formally screwed in the dark. And boy are they pissed. For a good laugh, hang around the theater after the credits and listen to the 15 year old girls with cell phones and middle aged Cruise fans to see what THEY thought this film was about. It's scary, but amusing. Even with Crowe's spoonfed clues, they were totally and completely lost. But it didn't matter anyway, because they started hating the film and tuning out as soon as Tom got "ugly." Personally, I enjoyed the Crowe-ification of the film. Specifically, the musical cues and pop culture references are the real changes. But this isn't going to make a dime in theaters next week (even if "Lord of the Rings" wasn't coming out).
-
Okay all you psuedo intellectuals out there, guess what: Movies are not things you participate in.
Give me a fucking break. If you want participation, play a fucking videogame.
All this "American's don't like movies were they have to think or participate" utter bullshit is pretty fucking weak.
90% of people go to movies to be entertained, not to be fucked with which is exactly what Vanilla Sky and Memento do.
Yeah I like this movie because I have spent 40 hous this week at work exhausting my brain so I can go be tortured by some stupid fucks that think their pretentious bullshit movie is pretty clever because it refuses to admit what the hell it is about while throwing up images that are totally meaningless out of (the later to be revealed) context.
So take your stuffy chore movies and shove them up your collective pretentious asses because people that want actual entertainment don't give a fuck about your total bullshit snobbishness. -
i has less to do with being a snob and a hell of a lot more to do with being sick of the so- called "blockuster" action movies that use the same tired special effects and camera angles that first appeared in a matchbox 20 video years before. VS may not be the greatest movie ever made, but at least it was an attempt to salvage the movie industry from all of the bullshit, pointless, meaningless movies that people watch primarily to pass the time between work and sleep. it's also not really fair to compare it to the matrix because, let's face it, in terms of a storyline the matrix is a piece of shit. it was just an excuse for overly elaborate, unrealistic special effects to be used and stuffed down our throats for the next decade. remember, it's just my opinion, but i, for one, would like some quality instead of quantity every now and then.
-
Dec 15, 2001 5:13:26 PM CST
Cifra2, Amnebar didn't do "The Devil's Backbone", you id
by silenceoffreedom
That was Guillermo del Toro. And despite the fact that you have this "incredible spanish connection", Open your Eyes is NOT a piece of crap. First of all, if you like Vanilla Sky and hate Open your Eyes, you are a hypocrite. It's a RE-MAKE for god's sake. Second, the main actor in OPen your Eyes does an excellent job. The fact that he's not well known internationally allows you to get into his charachter much better than if it is Tom Cruise with a scar. And "Venture", read my first post near the top. Having stars and being set in the states with rock music does NOT make this film more accessable to audiences. Half the people are expecting Penelope Cruz to tell disfigured Tom that he "had her at hello". I like some of Cruise' and Crowes work, but I just don't feel that this movie had to be re-made, simply because americans are too fucking stubborn and lazy to watch movies with subtitles, or movies in black and white (psycho). Why else do you think most re-makes are made by americans ?
-
I agree with most you. AMERICAN AUDIENCES WANT ENTERTAINMENT, NOT THOUGHT PROVOKING, PRETENTIOUS ART. People work 50 hours a week and take care of screaming kids all day. They want to escape. Not see a movie "about escape" if you work through the puzzle. This type of film is a film maker's folly. They put a lot of thought and work into it, when their audience doesn't want that at all. You can almost hear the audience say collectively: "This is what you do for a living, not us!" They would rather see 85 minutes of dinosaurs chasing people--and forget about it. Let's get sumthin' to eat now! Film geeks like many of us, live for this stuff. Some of us don't work. Some of us, like Harry, DO this for work. We don't mind a little brain work. Most people don't want MORE work at the theater. I try to be accepting of all types of films, even though I fail when I see the previews for the next Bruckheimer piece of crap. When American audiences want art in cinema, they mean they want to cry at a depressing war film where the messages are clear and driven home by a manipulative score or a Celine Dione song. Mind Fuck does not equal art to the masses. That's why this film is such a problem. It stars Tom Cruise. The audience doesn't know what it's in for. If they did, they'd stay home. So why do this to people? The intended audience will seek out a subtitled print of "Open Your Eyes" and doesn't need this.
-
Is it just my imagination, or is the enitre third act missing from Vanilla Sky? It seems to me that Crowe was planning to resolve things more 'dramatically' than with Noah Taylor's man-ex-machina exposition, but, possibly for running time issues, didn't get to?
I'm sure I saw stills on this very site of a court room trial with Tilda Swinton's character present, and the various quick snips of scenes we see during the lift ride, well, several of those could have come from excised scenes - not to mention an interview with Crowe I read in which he mentioned having an entirely different third act than Abre les Ojos. And thinking about the structural dictums Crowe and Billy Wilder bandied about in their conversations, I can't imagine some of the narrative balls he throws into the air but we never see come down weren't meant for some sadly-lost last hour juggling act.
Hmmmmmm. Longer cut coming somewhere down the line?
As it was, I enjoyed the film, found that Crowe's changes brought a lot of extra ideas and meaning out fo scenes that remained basically the same, and that his central thesis, hanging as his work so often does on pop ephemera was much more solid than the original. And any film that uses Spielberg's friendship as a signifier for a shallow life is alright by me.
It's hard for me to say how 'predictable' the film was, knowing how the Spanish version played out, but found narrative twisitng and turning largely irrelevant. Like Mulholland Drive - which you all seem to be citing - the structure is in service to the ideas.
Anyway. Beats the hell out of The Matrix, that's for sure... -
Cameron Crowe is at his best when his films are personal and character driven. "Fast Times at Ridgemont High," "Say Anything," "Singles," "Jerry Maguire" and especially "Almost Famous" all benefit from Crowe's skill at making his characters seem real and sympathetic and human. Well, none of that applies to "Vanilla Sky." To begin, the movie's a remake of Spanish director Alejandro Amenabar's "Open Your Eyes," rather than a Crowe original. Secondly, this isn't a character piece, it's a gimmick movie. (Is it real? Is it a dream? Is it too late to get my eight bucks back?) And third, there's not a single character that seems real, or sympathetic, or human. It's an exercise in cold, empty style, which is all the more disappointing considering Crowe's record of making films which warm your heart.
On the acting front, Tom Cruise is an actor who is always as good as his material. When he's got a strong script, he's always good - but when he has a crummy script, he never rises above it. And considering what a mess this script is, he spends a lot of time trotting out the vapid, confused stare he perfected in "Eyes Wide Shut." Penelope Cruz continues her streak of unimpressive performances in sub-par films - hey, at least she's consistent. The only performer to come out unscathed is Cameron Diaz, who handles a thankless role with style and skill. With all the talent in front of and behind the camera, "Vanilla Sky" has to be considered one of the biggest disappointments of the year. They may have changed the title from "Open Your Eyes," but that's what ushers will be telling moviegoers after the lights go back up.
Save your money for Lord of the Rings!
-
Of course I know that. I was the first reviewer of
"Devil's Backbone" for AICN... even Guillermo del Toro
sent me an e-mail, thanking me for that praise (I
loved the movie). If you check my post again you'll
noticed:
"I began hating Amenabar and Noriega... till I saw
"The Others" and "Devil's Backbone", that hate
continued... then disappeared." So... I meant I hated
Amenabar till I saw "The Others" and that I hated
Noriega till I saw him in "Devil's Backbone"... by the
way, did you know that Noriega makes a cameo
appearance in "The Others" in a painting? The one that
looks like a ghost behind Kidman in one of the better
moments of the movie. One last thing... it was really
necessary to call me idiot?
Another point: Open your eyes was a piece of crap.
Absolutely. One of the most frustrating experiences in
a movie theater. But the source material is good
enough to remake it into a good movie... the actors
are good and Cameron Crowe is great, so I think it
will easily be better, 'cause they only need to take
away the flaws of the original.
When you say that Eduardo Noriega makes an excellent
job... you obviously don't speak spanish... a lot of
people here couldn't help laughing at him while
watching him in that movie... in fact, despite his
nomination for best actor that year (at almost
everybody's surprise) only a few people consider him
here in Spain a good actor.
And finnally remakes... well, I've always found
interesting to see how Americans can take a foreign
story and turn it one of his own. And also there are a
few remarkable remakes... "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels",
"The man that knew too much", "Little Shop of Horrors"
(despite this one is not exactly a remake), "John
Carpenter's The Thing"... this one has the right cast
and crew to become a classic. My only regret is that
this film was screaming for a David (Cronenberg,
Fincher) to direct it.
Well, nothing more for now, fellows. -
Okay, that was stupid. i like movies that raise the ante on the main character. I certainly didn't think it was the best movie of all time, and it's a remake of a Kiefer Sutherland remake (or did that one come after?), I love the escalation of the conflict. First his wife is taken, then he finds out the guy that did it is a cop, then he's in their kitchen with a shotguy, and the evil cop's son (who's all of eight years old, has a gun on him). I bought the initial situation, and after that it was a pretty smooth ride of believability throughout (except for the semi-truck destructo scene on the bridge in the end. That I coulda done without). Sadly, J.T. Walsh is gone now. But we've still got John C. Mcginley and M. Emmet Walsh. Man, what is it with fine character actors and convoluted names. Oh, one last thing; there's another talkback around here somewhere where I told everybody that Louise Jefferson's (you know, George's wife) middle name was Wilhelmina, and they didn't even call me on it.The dissemination of mis-information appears to have inculcated little to no provocation.
-
Because I SHOULD have called you a moron !! No, just kidding. I got too wrapped up in the arguement. I apologize if I hurt your feelings. The fact is, I don't speak spanish, so I felt that the acting in "Open your Eyes" was quite good. The reason he probably got a best actor nomination was because Spain felt they needed to reward the film in some way, as it does have an excellent imagination. Just like Will Smith will probably receive a best actor nomination at the oscars, simply because they feel that any performance that an actor has worked hard on must be worthy of note. That's also why Russel Crowe won best actor for Gladiator. Not because he was the best actor THAT year, but because they realized they fucked up the year before by not giving him one for the insider. Though I do agree that re-makes can be done well if the source material merits it (I hated little shop of horrors, though it wasn't quite a re-make as it was a re-visioning), I do feel that far too many re-makes are useless and are done simply because the youth of today (and americans) are waaay too finicky and cannot be bothered to watch films that are in black and white or that are foreign and subtitled. i worked in a video store, trust me, i know it's true. It's agravating though, because I'm a film student and many of my favourite movies are black and white or subtitled. It just bothers me when a travesty like the psycho re-make is made and studios wonder why it does poorly. I like vince vaughn AND gus van sant, but why in god's name was that movie made ?! Next up, Citizen Kane, directed by steven soderburgh and starring Tom hanks.
P.S. - Tell Guillermo del Toro that "Mimic 2" was a piece of shit. I know he had nothing to do with it, but still !! -
the whole twist ending thing is so played out and its just not fun any more. eveyone is judging these films buy their last 3 minutes and that's the only reason anyone likes them.
P.S. in interviews talking about VS tom cruise sound like such a dick. "Its about the choices we make and the effects of pop culture on us." WHAT THE FUCK is that shit. He just a 40 year old short guy. -
Seeing this movie makes me want to see the Spanish original (Abr
-
I too prefer Open Your Eyes to Vanilla Sky, I too work at a video store and find it overly annoying how arrogant some people are about watching old or foreign films, and I too am a film student who gets annoyed by new filmmakers remaking films that are already quite good. I gotta admit tho, I'm really looking forward to seeing the deleted scenes on the Vanilla Sky DVD - see what was cut from the whole shootout part from the end that was missing (for those of you that don't follow, in the original Tom Cruise's character realizes that if all this is really true he can do anything, so he shoots someone, if I remember a cop, repeatedly - and from the trailers of Vanilla Sky it shows two shots: one with Tom holding a gun, another with a swat team coming through the doors of LE).
-
Ok, no hurt. I agree with you that most of the remakes are shitty... and that it is a shame watching things like what happens in Harry Potter, which has one sequence "taken" from The Phantom Menace... and that sequence of the Phantom Menace was already "taken" from Academy Award winner Ben Hur, which was a remake!!! Horrible, isn't it?
-
Silence of Freedom, are Canadians too lazy and stupid to pick up on irony, or just you? You completely misunderstood my post and were insulting to a whole nation of movie goers to boot. My apology to all Canadians for the subject line, I just hope one person gets the point. No irony in this post. It's sad that I agreed with your premise and then not only did you misunderstand it, you felt some bile needed to be inserted into the dialogue.
-
Anybody know why the New York Times review of Vanilla Sky compared the movie to the "coneheads episode of Star Trek". I haven't seen Vanilla Sky, but I sure don't recall a "coneheads" episode of star trek in any of its incarnations. Is the NYT reviewer on crack? Trying to be clever? Confusing SNL with ST?
-
I find myself agreeing with Harry's assessment, although I have not seen OPEN YOUR EYES. This film engaged me at every level. Cruise's character, David, was emotionally engaging. The support on this film was particularly good. Be advised, this film will screw with you. And as it turns out you may find yourself asking all sorts of philosophical questions in the end. Ask yourselves, how often does that happen after you've seen a Hollywood film? ...exactly, now go check this flick out. Go on...I'll wait.
-
plant
-
Dec 15, 2001 7:51:55 PM CST
Venture, simmer down !!!! I apologize for being a complete imbec
by silenceoffreedom
Christ, I'm sorry. I glanced over your post without reading it word for word and I'm sorry for riling you up like that. I was wrong, you were right. But we can at least bury the hatchet since we have a similar mentality on the subject, right ? Now calm down and put down the knife, you're scaring the children.
-
I almost never agree with Harry on anything, and I still think he's nothing but a corporate shill who pushes movies based on who he thinks his friends are (those who cast him in cameos and fly him to sets!!). HOWEVER, I'd take a loony, psycho, violent Cameron Diaz over a charming Penelope Cruz any day!!! Camerona Diaz is about 1000 times more attractive than Cruz, and I like the kooky chicks, so sue me!
-
...Is if there was a deleted scene of Cameron Diaz and Penelope Cruz in a intimate entanglement and Tom Cruise was replaced by a digital Jar Jar Binks. I'd buy the DVD for that.
Maybe they should remake "Open Your Eyes" again in a couple of years with Jim Carey, Russel Crowe and Kevin Spacey and they can all dream that they are fighting for an oscar, but the public is tired of their manipulative, heart-strings pullin`, Capra rip offs.
What a year for movies.
On a more positive note, my special edition DVD of "Delamorte Delamore" just came, along with "The Man Who Loved Women" and "Betty Blue." Mmmmm. DVD goodness. -
Cruise as possible victim doesn't develop well enough, undercut by the continual re-establishment of untrustworthy narration as well as being inadequately suggested.
Ebert's review (after his spoiler alert) has an interesting catch about the apparent resolution of the film -- suggesting either that the film is or is not playing within it's own rules -- you be the judge, but I choose 'is not'.
Choosing life over dream (if that is what this is about) is an awkard message for an escapist medium, and it is interestingly addressed. -
That's Vindibudd backwards, which is exactly how you've got your story, my man...or is it?! I don't know, I'm just screwing with you. I haven't seen Vanilla Sky yet but I think you're probably right about people not enjoying pretentious crap like Memento. Probably explains why it was the only movie of the year to make more money each consecutive week (than the last)of its' release. I guess it also explains why Christopher Nolan's first film, when recently released on DVD, was labeled as "from the director of Memento." Yup, I think at least 90% of the people hated that one.
-
Dec 15, 2001 8:41:44 PM CST
http://tvguide.com/movies/database/ShowMovie.asp?MI=43270
by silenceoffreedom
Amen to the sarcasm, guy above me. Memento was amazing.
-
I thought Memento was super dumb.
-
$5 the first week, $6 the second,
$11.95 the third....
Little kids watch Barney over and over, that doesn't make it a great film. And 90% of the 14 people that saw it isn't really a whole lot. -
When I think about the character she played in that movie, I just want her to become my wife. That was the sexiest role I have ever witnessed, save Cybil Shepherd in Taxi Driver.
-
Well you've told is in great detail what you don't like... which as usual begs the question what DO you like.... it's easier to fully digest a critique when you have some idea of a persons overall taste in film. So let us know. I haven't seen Vanilla Sky yet, but i really dug Open Your Eyes until the over-explanation at the end that just negated the sense of mystery for me. Some Director's who's over all bodies of work I like are Dario Argento, Alfred Hitchcock, Mario Bava, Jean luc Godard, Tony Scott, Scorsese, Fincher, Burt I. Gordon, Lynch, Eric Rohmer, John Landis, early Copola, Anthony Mann, Michael Mann etc. Cheers.
-
Anyone with half a brain and without a hate agenda? The reason why Harry is successful isn't because he is always "right" (he's only right when he agrees with me), it is because he loves movies, can express himself well and isn't a chronically discontented moron. This isn't a review of LOTR, it is about a DIFFERENT movie and there is room in the world for more than one. As for those of you masturbatory eyesight damaged pinup connoisiers, get real. Criticizing Cameron Diaz does not impress anyone. She is as beautiful as beautiful gets, so is Penelope Cruz, and sure someone who had the choice of the two, might prefer one over the other. A dilemma which NONE of you guys will EVER have, so get over the sour grapes.
This was a great film, it just assaulted me all the way through it. I no longer like Tom Cruise, I hate his personal life, but the ads for the show hooked me completely and he is perfect in this. Everybody in this is perfect. I wish I wasn't old enough to be Jason Lee's mother, because he is MY dream guy. Tom Cruise may or may not have had to act for this role, but he played it completely. Cameron Crowe has never failed, except perhaps in only reaching people who appreciate movies with strong characters and plots. I can't wait to see OPEN YOUR EYES, but no matter what I think of it it doesn't change this one. There may be no need to remake CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON because everyone saw it, but OPEN YOUR EYES is only being seen as much as it is because it has been remade. And that is a good thing for everyone. -
i've noticed cameron crowe has a radiohead fixation now. And he also decided to put music that wouldn't fit certain scenes into those scenes anyways. i.e. the beach boys song at the end. i have never been that disturbed by "good vibrations"
-
Crowe is overated in my opinion. Jerry Maguire was nothing special, and Cuba Gooding winning the Academy Award for Supporting Actor was nonsense - "Show Me The Money!" What the F***???
Almost Famous was average. He should have said "NO" to Tom Cruise when Tom brought him the script of "Open Your Eyes," to be redone as Vanilla Sky.
Maybe I'm the only one, but I just did not think that the original version (By Amenabar) was really any good! It wasn't the worst, but it was nothing I would want to see again anytime soon. Initially, I thought that "Vanilla Sky" would be an IMPROVED version of the original, but unfortunately, it was pretty much the same thing, with the addition of Hollywood dollars. -
Dec 15, 2001 10:32:24 PM CST
Vanilla Sky is one of the absolute BEST MOVIES OF THE YEAR.
by a goonie
a truly incredible, undeniably brillaint thrill ride.
-
What the hell does the title Vanilla Sky mean??
-
"Vanilla Sky" is a title that pretensious, f*cking Cameron Crowe has wanted to name a movie for a long time, and he finally got to use it. He incorporates it into the movie by associating it with a painting.
"Vanilla Sky" is a brilliant movie...If you've never seen any other movies before and you don't know its a f*cking remake.
-
Just because a movie brain fucked you doesn't mean you should hate it. This is why there are violent lines drawn against movies like Fight Club, The Matrix, and Vanilla Sky. Its a damn shame when people go apeshit over horribly empty movies (which I strongly feel LOTR will turn out to be...of course, I like losing brain cells every once in awhile...I'm waiting for "Episode 2"...). Its also a damn shame that I am now afraid to be cryogenicly frozen, like I had always planned to be. Fuck.
Soundtrack was the year's best...the movie itself is definitely in my top 5.
"What is life if not the pursuit of dreams?" -
somehow managed to spend $25 million dollars (in the US alone) on repeat viewings. Even at full price they saw it something like 620,000 times apiece. WOW. Now either they REALLY liked the movie or someone out there is talking-back out there ass, which would be nothing new.
-
Karla--
TV Guide was probably talking about "The Menagerie," a Star Trek Original Series two-parter with the Talosians, who kept old Capt. Pike in a dream-like world, in which he's not crippled and stuffed inside an electronic box.
Even these episodes were better and more suspenseful than Vanilla Sky. -
it occurs to me, reading some of these reviews, that most of you are just trying to be elitist and seem very "cool" and "hip" because you have also seen abre los ojos. You're so wrapped up in comparing the two films, you seem to be forgetting that they are two different films, and at the same time, they are very close to the same. I have also seen both and it pains me to say that I agree with Harry here. Crowe's film just did more for me. It effected me more. It spoke to me more. It made me think more. It made me feel more. And I think that if most of you who saw Abre first had not gone into the theater thinking, "there's no way this is going to be better," and just let yourself experience it as something new...you would have loved it as much as I did.
-
Dec 16, 2001 2:31:08 AM CST
The FIGHTING AMERICAN is happy to answer you question, ARZAK...
by fightingamerican
My list of directors pretty much matches yours, ARZAK. Though I have not had the chance to see many Rohmer movies, but I did greatly enjoy THE COLLECTOR. Michael Mann on the other hand has never struck me as much of a moviemaker. THE KEEP was the only movie of his that I felt was worthy of a theatrical release. All his others felt too much like TV movies of the week in their execution. I am greatly looking forward to ALI, however. ALPHAVILLE is my all time favorite Godard movie, Tony Scott movies tend to fall into the popcorn category, and Bert I. Gordon flicks fall into the guilty pleasure category (I hope were talking about the same Gordon
-
A lot of you who hadn't seen the original are claiming to have been able to predict the ending from a mile away? You could predict that he was cryogenically frozen and having some trouble with his eternal spiritual dream? Yea, ok sure. I too found it interesting and quite a trip. Not overwhelming or terribly likable, but an intriguing trip nonetheless, and for that it certainly gets points. I also agree with those criticizing the haters for not liking to think. I'm not sure what Crowe was trying to say, but what gets me is that the whole L.E. explanation is also likely a psychological subconscious dream. NOT DAVID AAMES REALITY. So where does that leave the reality? I'm not sure yet.
-
"Abre Los Ojos" or "Open Your Eyes" was a brilliant, daring and highly original gift (sure certain plot points may have been seen in other forms before, but that's true of any book, film, etc) to film fans from writer/director Alejandro Amenabar. Amenabar is a truly unique voice in modern cinema and not unlike John Woo, he was offered an opportunity to come to America to ply his trade. As with John Woo, he may soon find himself in danger of being swallowed up by the Hollywood machine (or what may be more commonly known as "The Death Of All Creativity"). "Open Your Eyes" is a gutsy mystery in the form of a film that forces true cinema fans to contemplate and puzzle over what he/she is viewing. A world where the rules are constantly changing and where nothing is as it seems. This, of course, means that the average movie viewer will immediately dismiss the film (sorry people... there's no simple solutions or pathetic spoon-feeding here, but don't worry, I'm sure "Not Antoher Teen Movie" will be a bit easier to comprehend.). I've been a film fan for the last quarter century and I, for one, am not interested in viewing a film unless there's something special, or something truly unique about it. "Open Your Eyes" is one of the best psychological thrillers I've seen in years and was an daring follow-up to "Tesis" ("Tesis" was everything "8mm" could have been. Think "8mm" done right + "Scream".) ."Vanilla Sky" was almost as good. Tom Cruise was wonderful (and although many people complain that he was an arrogant, shallow, self-absorbed, obnoxious pretty boy who believed himself to be God's gift to humanity in general and women in particular, this was exactly who and what the main character was supposed to represent.). Let's be honest though... Cruise is a fine actor who has greatly improved over the last fifteen years, but in all fairness, he has, at times, certainly relied heavily upon his smile, charm and looks. Because of this, I believe that Cruise was brave to take on such a role. Cameron Crowe's directorial style was wonderful as always. However, as one of your previous talk-back posters has stated A.) Cruise should have been much more disfigured (I'm not sure if this was a vanity choice or why his disfigurment make-over was so downplayed, but either way it was not a good idea and served to detract from the remake), and B.) Crowe's total Americanization of this film might not have been the worst choice, but some of the music was amazingly out of place (yeah I gotta admit, I personally felt that The Beach Boys "Good Vibrations" was just a bit more than slightly shocking and maybe even inappropriate.) Another of the problems with the Americanization of "Open Your Eyes" comes from the fact that the main character was softened up to be made more likeable (the missing shooting spree is just one of many examples...). This is most likely because American film-makers tend to soften characters because they're so damn terrified that (God forbid!) the almighty, all-knowing audience might actually lose sympathy for the main character. In the end, I believe that Amenabar and Noriega made the right choice by playing the lead character as much colder and more of a prick. Also, although I believe that Kurt Russel did a wonderful job, I found the Spanish actor's portrayal of the doctor in "Open Your Eyes" to be far superior (if only because his final rooftop self-realization seemed to illicit considerably more sympathy). I personally believe that "Open Your Eyes" was a much smaller movie but it seemed, ironically enough, to be more real. I was also very moved by Eduardo Noriega's tragic portrayal, which by the way was heightened by a totally appropriate and haunting score by Amenabar. People like Harry, who love this film and see it before they view "Open Your Eyes" will probably prefer it to the original, but I believe that if they had seen the original first (and therefore knew all of the secrets ahead of time)then they might have a slightly different opinion. In the end, both films are masterfully done and well worth viewing, but if I had to make a choice, let me just say that "Vanilla Sky" is the more polished and flashy, but that isn't always such a good thing. I'd go with "Open Your Eyes" as the better film mainly because it (and it's anti-hero) are a lot rougher and unpolished... kinda like life.
-
Gosh, I feel just like a part of the gang. Well, not really. You'd hate me if you knew me. Everybody does. Saw 'Vanilla Sky' this afternoon, thought it was pretty darned terrific, better than 'Open Your Eyes' and much better than 'Memento'. Not as wild or as sexy as 'Mulholland Dr.' though (I'd really like to see Naomi Watts at least get an Oscar nomination for that. There are all sorts of things I'd really like having to do with Naomi Watts.) I never really think of myself as a Tom Cruise fan, but he's been in some pretty damned cool movies the last few years. Only George Clooney can surpass him as someone I never wanted to like who ends up in so many movies I need to see. All in all a good fun time at the Ol' Cinie. Would have been better with more Hobbits, though. And because no one's brought it up, is this whole Open Your Eyes - Eyes Wide Shut - Others - Shining - A.I. - thing all kind of weird? And that was Spielberg at the birthday party, wasn't it? I have always been the caretaker.
-
I guess i have some things to say about your review. And it is most important for me to say it before I have seen the movie. You sound like Ebert before Empire Strikes Back came out, "This movie sucks just as bad as the first one!", except you are heading in the opposite direction...YES Cameron is hot, and she can act...but really, she cut her teeth just as Tom did. And Crowe can direct. He knows what he needs to see to tell his story. So let's face it...no matter how many takes of any scene that anybody does, the director is the one that pulls the "final cut" into the final movie. Yeah, Jason Lee is charming, and he is real, but he doesn't blind me. And I love everything that he has been in...
I guess I am just saying that the bottom line is the screenplay/story and the directors vision of it, when it comes to actors in the movie. So don't try to sell me on actors in a movie. Even De Niro and Connery can go wrong. But it is because the director accepted that actors performance and thought that that scene could fit into Highlander 2 or Rocky and Bullwinkle!.
The tone, the (leitmotiff), the actual vision that the audience sees,...that is all dependent on the director. (For example: La Femme Nikita...Point of No Return. Both good movies...One had great actors...same screenplay...but only one vision is really remembered. Why?--the final cut?)
I guess that it is all subjective. But Harry, I'm not going to go see it because Cameron is cute...or because Cruise beats his performance in Top Gun. We all know that they can both perform...but can they put the soul into it that is more than Titanic? And the hundred takes of each scene that it takes to buy an oscar? I'm sorry, did I say that out loud? How is the movie?
On a more important note, I am very excited about LOTR and your coverage, since the begining, of it. Your review of it had more heart even after your obvious bias towards it.
Believe me "Red-Headed Stepchild" I love all of Hollywoood and what it can give us, that is why it hurts when it doesn't acutualy deliver...
FB -
Dec 16, 2001 3:07:59 AM CST
To those who are saying that American audiences and films are st
by fightingamerican
And please, DO NOT watch American films. It
-
The U.S.....one country. Foreign.....hundreds of countries.
Hmmmm. That couldn't be the reason that movies (especially the ones Fighting American listed) make more money in the market outside the U.S., which includes countrieS (not just one country) and an audience many times the U.S.'s size. Nah...that couldn't be it...... -
I think I just stepped in some Vanilla Sky. Tom Cruise can act but he does it so rarely that its easy to forget he was ever any good. Its got a good director and a good cast but plenty of good directors and good casts have made crap films.
-
And I don't like spending my hard earned cash on stupid movies. In fact, it pisses me off.
I'm not getting all intellectual but I can't understand a person's need for what's called pure escapism if it doesn't loosen up and yes, tries to make sense of this world we're all a part of, especially these days.
I HATE the war flicks that have been advertised lately. Do they think we're heartless morons?
Hey, if NOT ANOTHER TEEN MOVIE is something you enjoy and get something out of fine but don't call me a pretentious wanna-be because I goto movies that are considered arty. Somtimes they are crap and hell yeah, I'm pissed at those too, but mostly I don't want to feel like the money I give to the studios is further solidifying their belief that I'm some lame brain who'll bark like a seal at any recycled shit that's tossed my way.
Did I like Vanilla Sky? Not as much as the original but I appreciated the effort and dug the last section of the film. The basic problem upon my initial veiwing is that I just didn't connect with the characters but the situation, wishing that all the crap that gets in my life to fill my time (READ: pop culture)is somehow worth it when I know it's all bs, yeah, I could relate. Overall: **1/2
-
Sorry, I'd intended to mention 'Minority Report' and possibly 'Magnolia' in my previous post. Do you suppose that 'LotR' has been trumped? Do you suppose that 'Open Your Eyes', 'Eyes Wide Shut', 'Vanilla Sky', 'The Others', 'The Shining', 'A.I.', 'Minority Report', and 'Magnolia' (and now that I think about it, maybe 'The Sixth Sense' as well) are each chapters in one enormous film? There's your line-up for next year's Butt-Numb-A-Thon anyway. Because in the future, all movies will be like that. Except with more Hobbits.
-
Yeah...salon.com's review nailed it. especially the whole meet cute penelope cruz thing they try to pull over us. And guys the reason we keep comparing the 2 movies (or I do) is the idiocy of remaking a mediocre film so closely but then trying to dress it up. The sad part is always that such talented people make such a mess.
-
You could not be more wrong. For two hours, it was brilliant. It was the best movie of the year. Then the last twenty minutes came along, and UTTERLY DESTROYED, RIPPED TO SHREDS, AND SHAT ON ANY CREDIBILITY CAMERON CROWE HAD BUILT UP IN HIS CAREER. "Almost Famous" and "Jerry Maguire" mean nothing now. I will forever remember Cameron Crowe for taking a brilliant film and, in five seconds flat, turning it into a complete train wreck hybrid of "What Dreams May Come" and "Total Recall". This film also happens to possess the WORST line of dialogue in movie history. Literally. I won't quote it here, because it's a spoiler, but I'm sure all of you who saw this and hated it know what it is. "I'm _______ and you're ______ and we're in love..." Whether I laughed or cried at that moment can't remember. Probably both.
-
OK, I won't scare the children. Yes. we're in agreement.
-
and Vanilla Ice will suck. Amenabar gilipollas.
-
like the only thing I had to think about tonight was , should I stick my TV dinner in the oven or the mircrowave tonight tonight, or should I just eat my fast like the pope? i Opeted for the RED HOT BEEF BURRITO, TINA IS THE BOMB!!!
-
It's a way of life, I stole a box of YEAST INFECTION REMOVER TONIGHT and oh golly gee Walla-kerrs, I thought of my darling friend WINONA!
-
How did a guy figure out the ending of Vanilla Sky without seeing spoilers or the original Open Your Eyes. Oh, I don't know. How about when Tom Cruise tells Penelope Cruz that the cryogenically frozen dog is on Conan. Or when Cruise wakes up and suddenly the sky is a digital near-painting effect. And how about the annoying commercial for cryogenics they keep showing throughout the film! The whole film is jammed down your throat so much that you end up waiting until they get around to telling you what you already know. The light on my watch almost burned out. You know what would have made this a better film (other than re-cast the lead)? At the end of the film, Kurt Russell can't remember his daughter's names. Why? Because he doesn't exist. What would have been better is if Kurt couldn't even SEE the tech support guy. Then I would have walked away from the film not knowing whether it was a dream or not. A decent "Lady or the Tiger" ending can save the worst film. Which this is. The worst film, I mean.
-
"Amenabar gilipollas"
This is a clear example of someone who not only knows nothing about cinema (VANILLA SKY, sucker) but he is indeed an asshole. Do you know Amenabar in person, little bitch? Have you ever talked to him? it is pretty clear you hate him and you dont even know him. It is pretty clear you envy him: he has succes and he is a great filmmaker. unlike you. the only thing you can do is post here. BTW Vanilla sky will suck, he he. I think is nice a director like Amenabar makes a lot of people hate him. That really means something cool: he is good. there is no need to hate him. You dont like his movies? fine, i dont like Ron Howard movies but i dont hate him. but no, Amenabar has great succes everywhere and as always in spain, some motherfuckers just cant stand that. -
I hadn't seen "Open Your Eyes" - so I will rent it today AFTER seeing Vanilla Sky. I figure I want to see it again, so I'll just see the original. In any case, I thought it was pretty fucking great. I mean, it had flaws and it had problems, but it was a great film. Now, I hate it when films bring in Basil Exposition to tell us what's been going on - in fact, that is what tipped the scales for me against AI - and I would have loved it if the writers had found a better way to introduce the concepts explained at the end - I thought that was kinda lazy. But otherwise, it was a great flick. Not able to compare, I was able to appreciate what Cameron Crowe had done with this film - it was a lot of fun, the acting was pretty much pure Cameron Crowe - you either love it or hate it - and I loved the soundtrack - especially "Good Vibrations" - it stilted the film at a moment when it needed stilting. All in all, one of the better movies of the year.
-
Dec 16, 2001 10:54:24 AM CST
Tom Cruise swallows himself and cheets on his own persona...
by pretty much yeah
Reconsitituted and mechanically separated big screen 'Amerikin' versions of books, euro flicks and TV shows (anyone for "survivor, the movie"?). This is it? It's dead, it's dead. Face it, the damn thing's dead and we're all better off getting our own fucking digitalcams and flooding the net, because this ride's over.
-
I have already written above that I did not like Vanilla Sky. But, it seems that many talk backers equate not liking Vanilla Sky with not liking intellectual movies in general. Vanilla Sky is the latest in a recent genre of movies which can accurately described as "mind fuck" movies. While one can go back to the silent era (Metropolis for example) and find such movies, the genre has really taken off in recent years. Films like Fight Club, Being John Malkovich, The Sixth Sense, Memento, and Mulholland Drive are the better known titles with Pi, eXistenZ, and Waking Life as lesser known titles. Even Oscar favorite "A Beautiful Mind" may have some mind fuck qualities (at least I hope it does, a movie about paranoid schitzophrenia that does not fuck with the audience a little bit is just another made for TV disease movie). **** Two points I want to make: First, like all genre's there are going to be good movies and there are going to be bad movies. In my opinion, Vanilla Sky is a bad movie of the genre, all the other movies I mentioned are better. Second, Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes) came out in 1997, over a year before all the other movies I mentioned. It was the first!
-
Dec 16, 2001 11:25:54 AM CST
Vanilla Sky is the feel-good movie of the year!!! I never felt
by mully4ever
I saw the "film" last night and immediately went home and popped in the Almost Famous DVD in order to cleanse my poor soul...
Shame on you Crowe. -
Penelope Cruz is way better looking than Cameron Diaz. I can't believe any of you can even begin to say otherwise, or even notice that Cameron is in the film at all. Penelope Cruz is soooooo hot!
-
It seems like there are two distinct views on "Vanilla Sky," those who thought it was really great and profound and those who didn't. I am of the latter, as I have stated, but I want to be clear about what I am opposed to regarding "VS" and so many other films like it, the lack of originality and subtlety is offensive and rendered the movie a pointless mess.
The original was a small movie with a good idea. Like it or not, it was interesting. Too many times Hollywood comes along, throwing big money and big stars at something like this, and loses the point and heart of the source.
People who didn't like it for the reasons I didn't are not snobs, they just hate it when they discover an imaginative, low budget movie that and enjoy it, and then have Hollywood remake it into a shallow piece of shit, only yo have legions of people dismiss the original and declare the remake brilliant.
I could have enjoyed "Vanilla Sky" on its own merits, but the point is that its idea had been done better so many times before, not to mention by its source inspiration.
It would be like Hollywood remaking Takashi Miike's "Dead or Alive" and giving it a PG-13 rating. For those of you who have seen it, you know it is lurid and absurd, but one of a kind.
A few years ago Richard Gere was supposed to be in a remake of John Woo's "The Killer," and it never happened because you there is no need to remake something that cannot be improved upon.
There are so many original scripts out there that should be made before a recent, and good foreign movie should be remade.
"Vanilla Sky" looked good, but was as subtle as a hurricane and anyone who thinks it was emotionally deep experience and a great movie, doesn't strike me as very sophisticated in there tastes or sense of quality.
Why do I care enough to talk back so many times on this? "Vanilla Sky" is everything that is wrong with Hollywood and Crowe and Cruise seem smart enough to know better. I am glad Crowe wants to pursue material that elevates Hollywood, but it should come in the form of an original idea and script.
I would rather see a digital video movie made by any one of you talkbackers than a glossy remake of a movie I have already seen done adequately the first time.
It also really surprises me that super film geek Harry didn't see "Open Your Eyes" first, but I think it is easy to be biased if you see "Vanilla Sky" first.
For all of you who like "Vanilla Sky" better, you should at least acknowledge that there would be no "Vanilla Sky" without "Open Your Eyes." That is a fact!
-
amen to that!
-
I don't think that the L.E. frozen dog cryogenics was actually what happened to David Aames. They said that everything was a dream made up of images and pop songs and clips of movies that had been logged in his memory, right? Well wouldn't that also include L.E.? He kept seeing the commercial in his real life... so after his accident it was included in his dream along with the Bob Dylan album cover, Kurt Russell being pulled from that one movie, etc. The problem with this interpretation though is it makes it hard to pinpoint reality. Where was David Aames when his subconscious/dream was giving him this L.E. explanation?
-
i neglected to mention this before, but a movie only means as much as you are willing to accept from it. VS was giving quite a bit and all you have to do is take it. do most of you haters honestly believe that cameron crowe really wants you to accept exactly what he feeds to you? it's true that he gives a plausible solution to the movie, but is it really the only one? i for one, don't believe that the ending has anything to do with L.E., i think it was meant more as
a tool for confusion just to give you one more reason to doubt the outcome. i believe that the entire movie is a creative insight into the mid of a coma patient ( i know, now you all think i'm fucking nuts). think about it, the first thing he tells the shrink is that he just came out of a coma and he doesn't remember anything(and if you know anything about coma patients, a majority of them remeber nothing about being in a coma). now, remeber the fact that he kept going over and over the same scenes in his head? some of them stayed the same and others didn't. no we can say for sure that he was in a car accident with some crazy chick that he happened to be sleeping with, and he did fall in love with a woman at his birthday party. no matter how many times they go over this, these facts remain the same. that is where i find think to the coma theory, everthing that happens afterward can be linked to this series of events. one piece od ecidence to support my theory is that no one really know what goes on in a coma patient's mind while in a coma, or what it takes to come out. i think that if you view the film with this idea in mind, it takes on whole new meaning. bear in mind that they told him throughout the entire film how powerful his subconscious is. in my opinion, he created this entire scenario in his head in order to convince himself to wake up from the coma.
this is just my humble opinion, but i believe i have enough evidence to support it. bear in mind that there is only one person who knows what it all really means -
just said what I was trying to say more eloquently in the post right before his. I agree with you completely, dude! This movie was a trip.
-
the ironic part is that i didn't see your post until after i posted mine. nevertheless, i am glad to hear that i'm not the only one with this idea .
-
Yea we posted it at the same time, so I didn't think you had. When I first was walking out, I was accepting the L.E. explanation, but found it odd. I couldn't believe he would offer up such cheesy sci-fi as an explanation. Then my brother was like "That was probably a dream too," and that just made more sense. Did I like the movie more with this realization? Not necessarily, but I did feel I had a better sense of what Cameron Crowe was trying to do. L.E. commercials had infused Aames' dream in the same way the vanilla sky did.
-
Vanilla Sky is exactly like Open Your Eyes ( which I liked ) except with advertisements (IE "HEY WANT TO LISTEN TO RADIOHEAD" " I EAT AT BLACK ANGUS" and about 1,000 billboards in time square) I wouldnt know the others because I walked out about 40 minutes into this thing.
Also the acting was bad. There wasnt one interresting scene in this movie. They all revolved around music and products.
Cameron Crowe made this film because he needed a film to match the title. Vanilla Sky was originally going to be for Almost Famous. And before the film he knew he wanted to make a film with Radiohead in it.
Thats not how you make a movie. Come up with titel, then music and then use someone elses good movie to do it with and through in advertisements.
If you want to see a movie thats going to fuck with you. See Mulholland Drive. That was great.
-
thanks for your answer Fighting American.... you have excellent eclectic taste.... just like any TRUE movie lover should (attention most talk backers). Was blown away that you'de seen La Collectioneuse (THE COLLECTOR) a movie I Iove... can't believe I forgot to mention John Carpenter, a director who's films I've been a bit obssesed with lately.... but like you said there are too many to list and keep your sanity. Yes we are talking about the same Bert I. Gordon (FOOD OF THE GODS, EMPIRE OF THE ANTS) although I try to stay away from using the term "guilty pleasures". Guilt is highly overrated if you know what I mean and I'd be feeling guilty 24-7. Cheers and keep on fightin'.
-
Hey, Film316, there are hundreds of advertisements in real life too (especially times square). And people really do have restaurants they visit on special nights, and they do refer to those restaurants and favorite music groups by name. How does this make the film bad?
-
What the F? Watching movie was one of the coolest experiences I've ever had. FOTR has got ALOT of work cut out for it to beat this one. Dear Lord, why is everyone bitching about it not maing sense? Everything's F'in explained!
-
The Matrix, Dark City, Total Recall, Jacob's Ladder ..... same idea, better emotional payoff and ending.
-
Dec 16, 2001 5:25:21 PM CST
I've never been more ashamed of being an AICN geek. You guy
by lenny nero
Entertainment isn't about participation? Huh? Art and entertainment is about experimentation, and these films recently (MEMENTO, MULHOLLAND DRIVE, VANILLA SKY, etc.) are new experiments. I think it's fascinating that these can be about the audience as well as the film itself. You guys just don't want something new. MEMENTO was a huge sleeper hit ($30 mil for an independent movie is incredible) and was not just a fluke. It was a captivating tale that brought us back to see it again and again. Participation is bad? Did any of you naysayers understand the movie? It doesn't seem that way, because you seem to have missed out on the utter enjoyment and entertainment of figuring that movie out. There was no better feeling this year (until LOTR, I'm sure) than understanding what the movie was. Figure out the mystery. It made us feel like intelligent moviegoers again. The twists were justified, the narrative was outstanding, and our intelligence as an audience was not insulted. Same with MULHOLLAND DRIVE. Stupendous. VANILLA SKY was a tad disappointing, and the Noah Taylor let's-explain-everything ending was too obvious (handled much better in ABRE LOS OJOS), but it was still good in the fact that it created true mystery, not like the dumbass thrillers we have nowadays like ALONG CAME A SPIDER and DON'T SAY A WORD, which to be fair had a good ending. So stop being ignorant, and accept films not as traditional escapist fare, but entertaining you in new and innovative ways. Stop seeing shit like TOMB RAIDER and PEARL HARBOR and start seeing the smart films. Hollywood will learn soon enough, because it is at that point in the cycle where we have another cinematic Renaissance.
-
So Cameron Crowe has made a film that the masses are struggling to accept...big fucking deal!! Kudos to Crowe for trying something different and alittle left field. I can't wait to see Vanilla Sky when it opens in the UK next month. The guy is one of my all time favourite directors and a all round friggin legend - I'd give my right nut to have lived a life like his in....ALMOST FAMOUS! (FYI...buy the bootleg edition...it is something special....now wheres the Jerry Maguire special edition!!!!)the bottom line is that I'd much rather have new and interesting films that challenge and make you think than most of the mediocre crap that has been released this year...and it has been a really bad year for films.
Keep up the good work Cameron!
-
Vanilla Sky was a very good film. The actors were all in top form. Peneope Cruz WAS a dream girl, Cameron Diaz WAS a scary woman with "snakes in her head and Tom Cruise WAS a great playboy that just happened to piss off the wrong woman. Many people seem to hate this film and that is great. A movie is like a picture in an art gallery. Or a menu item at Red Lobster. Some people like it while and others hate it. It's all about taste. I think it's great when people get emotional about film. They argue and get pissed off. They name call and compare movies. It's great. Vanilla Sky is doing this and I LOVE IT! It knocked Ocean's 11 down to #2 this week, so that's also a good thing. Talk about a vanity project for all involved. Have fun with the name calling and be sure to stress out abut what others like or don't like. I hate 95% of the movies I see these days, so it's fun when something comes along that I like...Vanilla Sky was it...
-
Dec 16, 2001 6:45:17 PM CST
NOBODY READS DOWN TO THE LAST MESSAGE ANYWAY BUT I HAVE SOMETHI
by neutral_density
It's just a movie. It's entertainment. There are a lot more important things in life than film. When you go to the theatre, you expect to be entertained, and everybody has different ways and needs of being entertained. Life is 100% opinion, 1000% of the time. A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still. I have no idea why everyone gets so pissed trying to convince each other to their opinions. I enjoy many different kinds of films, but in my opinion I will not see Vanilla Sky simply because the trailer doesn't tell me enough about the story. American cinema is not the be all and the end all of cinema, in my opinion. I would very much like to see some fresh directors come out to shake up the establishment, because I feel that as a society we swallow too much from established directors and say that its good. These directors lose their edge and what defined them in the first place. But that is just my opinion. In any case, I think we should just be thankful we have the opportunity and means to be entertained in a world in which most people live in threatening and impoverished circumstances.
-
Dec 16, 2001 8:10:05 PM CST
Yes, anal-...whatever...a movie trying to be important isn't
by lenny nero
you shouldn't dislike a movie BECAUSE it attempts to be new and important. It's about opinion, and I have mine, and you have yours. I think these are mostly fascinating. They don't always work, but I still appreciate them. And why do you have to resort to name-calling, especially using derogatory terms? This is not people attacking each other; these are our OPINIONS. By insulting us, you only make your argument less valid. Sorry dude. Don't be so negative. And to others, yes, it's intentional that my moniker is LENNY NERO. While loving STRANGE DAYS, I also agree somewhat with the ideas about entertainment brought forth by the Magic Man. Thanks for noticing. You are the first.
-
Dec 16, 2001 8:18:11 PM CST
CAN'T WAIT TO SEE THE SIMPSONS PARODY THIS ON THEIR NEXT HAL
by lt. torello
Homer wakes up to Marge's voice saying "Open your eyes...and take out the trash." Homer driving around empty Springfield in a Lamborghini. Dr. Marvin Munroe resurrected as the psychologist. Michelle Pfeiifer resurrecting Mindy as Julie. Ned Flanders as the best friend. Lenny, Carl, and the rest of the barflies as the seven dwarves. Dr. Hibberd as the Guy Who Explains Everything at the End. Grandpa's huge visage in Homer's penthouse. C'mon everyone, join in. It's a hell of a lot more entertaining than the movie.
-
Dec 16, 2001 9:00:55 PM CST
Is Cameron Diaz getting more and more skanky with every film??
by viol8tor
Her close ups just don't do it for me....Penelope Cruz is RED HOT!!! What was with that spielberg cameo anyway??
-
Dec 16, 2001 9:08:19 PM CST
Abre los ojos was made for the price of Vanilla Skys catering ta
by viol8tor
Sad no one else has mentioned this.
Original talent still exists. -
it's like, fight club all over
-
it's like, fight club all over
-
Its a weird theater, but I think it has more to do with the fact that Harry is far too big to sit in the seats. Its kind of cramped in there, and the seats are positioned at an angle. I cant imagine how Harry could fit in those seats. Im not trying to offend anyone, hope I didnt.
-
It really helps understanding the film if you look at it like this. It is an updated version of Snow White.
Evidence: The Board, a group of people working for/ in conjunction with David, are referred to as the Seven Dwarves.
The mirror reflection that keeps changing from scarred to unscarred is the ever shifting mirror mirror on the wall. when the queen looks into it, she is reflected back as ugly. when david looks in it, guilty about what happened, he is reflected as scarred.
the whole film contrasts the casual sex versus no sex until marriage methodologies alive today, offering them up as a pseudo science fiction tale, much the same way a.i. did with pinnochio. sophia is the perfect, prince charming figure, diaz the wicked witch/ queen figure, and as perturbing as this sounds, cruise is representative of snow white. just as the evil witch offered the apple to snow white, gina offers a ride to david. -
So far most of the posts I've read said Vanilla Sky sucks or they like "Open Your Eyes" better.. but I can't help but wonder if that many people would still say that if Tom Cruise wasn't in Vanilla Sky.. well there will always be others who prefer the spanish version for artistic reasons and I can respect that.. but I'm amazed at how people quickly judge and blow off a movie because of whose in it.. So the movie's premise isn't that original.. it was still a half decent job.. and the amazing thing is people who don't like this movie at all are often the same people you see not like any other movie too.. why do these people continue to watch movies then if all they do is complain about then... you'll enjoy movies a lot more if you go in without and preconceptions...
-
Over on MRQE most of the reviews are positive. 'Vanilla Sky' is "one of those movies" that a lot of people aren't going to like. I think Cruise is perfectly cast. Since 'Rainman' (in which he trumped Hoffman's gimmicky performance) he's been among the most consistently adventurous of Hollywood stars. Like 'Eyes Wide Shut', this is a film that plays wonderfully off of his star stature as well as the speculation about his sexuality and his religion (The ritualistic orgy of 'Eyes' and the sci-fi themes of 'Vanilla Sky' might seem ludicrous with another actor, but we all know Cruise is into some pretty weird shit). Beyond the titular similarities, both films are erotic nightmares in which masks and mirrors and artworks figure prominently. 'Open Your Eyes' pre-dates 'Eyes Wide Shut', but 'Shut' was titled before 'Open'. Anyways, the synchronicity of these three films, as well as 'The Others', 'Magnolia', 'A.I.' and 'Minority Report' is really weird and kind of fascinating I think. Any two of these movies (only speculating on 'Minority Report', but what I know seems to fit into the pattern) would make a wonderful double feature, each one enhancing the other. Perhaps, if all viewed together, each film makes perfect sense, and it all adds up to one great big masterwork. Just a theory.
-
I just saw it tonight, overall I thought it was a pretty good movie, the scene at the beginning did have a sense of chillingness to it.. the one thing I didn't like about the film was Penelope Cruz, but as long as she didn't talk It was fine.. I don't get the whole thing about her, I just don't fine her appealing at all.. but Cameron Diaz, ever since The Mask, she has a heavenly quality to her, her smile, her gaze, like she can gaze into your soul if she so chooses.. and this film turned her into kind of a darker angel... Tom Cruise also pulled it through, and though originally I didn't really like much of his films, he's getting more into the kinds of films that are right up my ally..
*possible spoilers*
Vannilla Sky reminded me of Jacob's Ladder, with its mind bending reality playing in whatever order it feels like.. the makeup for Tom reminded me of that for Hannabil's main villian character.. Like I said above, my only real complaint was Penelope; Jason Lee and Kurt Russel do a great job.. and I'll leave it at that.. -
I did not like VANILLA SKY,
Not one bit - here's the reason why.
I did not like the stupid plot,
With dreams in dreams that never stop.
It's all enough to make me SCREAM,
I want a STORY, not a dream!
And Tom's back with a rubber mask,
Remember when we saw THAT last?
In EYES WIDE SHUT and MI2,
Come on, Tom - show us something NEW!
I did not like VANILLA SKY,
Not one bit - that's the reason why.
-
"Time Square"? Please tell me that was just a massive typo and that you actually know the name of the famous NYC landmark.
-
I can say that my opinion is split. I saw Vanilla Sky first - and I found it to be a better overall production - I like the way people are in Cameron Crowe films - they are never so strongly defined and so seem more real - this is the case with the Cameron Diaz character - her character in Open Your Eyes was much more sharply drawn than in VS - same even with the lead - in the Spanish film he says he never sleeps with the same woman twice - Tom is slightly less of a womanizer. I also liked the pop culture touches and the overall look of Crowe's film HOWEVER HOWEVER HOWEVER - Open Your Eyes has better writing - specifically in terms of plot development - the markers that are there for you to put the story together at the end are stronger - there is less explanation needed at the end because more ideas have been placed in our heads - I thought it was stupid to replace the head of LE with that "Tech Support" guy - that alone makes for a more consistent story in Open Your Eyes. But I loved both movies - as much as they were both flawed, I found them ruthlessly entertaining.
-
My girlfriend had to see this movie this weekend, and even bought tickets for us in advance. No Ocean's 11 for me this weekend. Anyway, from the previews (cough...MISLEADING!...cough) this movie looked like a "Double Jeopardy"-like film. Not a chance. It was more like AI, in a very bad and boring way. Hell, the entire middle part of the movie just got stranger and stranger, and most everyone around us was falli9ng asleep as I did. This movie was horrible. Granted, the acting was okay, but the story was just silly and it was simply too, too long! What a waste of time.
-
...Harry, you're generally SO on I'm shocked that we're so far apart on this one.
Never saw Open your Eyes. Foreign films (excluding Leon and anything star the ridiculously scrumptious curves of Sophie Guillemin) are generally not my bag... But anything REMADE from a foreign film tends to pique my interest...
Here's what we do agree on... Diaz was really more than I've ever seen of her (though I agree I wish she had been more than we've ever seen of her). Cruise I truly LIKED for the first time ever. Cruz, a yum-biscuit with jelly, Lee... He's f$%*^$ Jason Lee, what else do you need? Russell, perfect.
Acting superb, directing superb, cinematography superb. Dialog was strong. Cruises face was shockingly well done, making Gibsons Man without a face look pleasant.
Plot sucked ass.
I love Crowe, he's a minor deity in my book, so I'm shocked even moreso.
There is a strong difference between a Hitchcockian twist and Deux Ex Machina, and Crowe missed it.
While the plot twists are awesome, and you are kept guessing until the end, "it's just a dream" would have been more plausible than the frozen boy cop-out. Bad setup, the professor and the LE company are portrayed as fringe screwball infomercial snakeoil salesmen... laughed at on Conan, and never given a hint of credibility. Not simply that but they are on the absolute edge of the stories perception. The lucid dream concept is revealed to us AT the reveal.
The timing was off. He fought back, he got control of his company, surgery options would have become available, he WOULD have been ok. His suicide doesn't play. If he had popped off right after he saw his face, that's a LITLLE better... but he was still in the game.
Now had the same thing played in a sci-fi, and not an "erotic thriller" it would have been less painfully shocking.
Basically everything they did was awesome, and executed just the way it should have been, except the core story itself, which in any writers opinion, and certainly mine, should not have happened.
Chris TruLove -
Now I'm Sure
-
I just have to say, because of all the things I despise about modern art, poetry and most particularly art film:
The intellectual capacity of the viewer is not an excuse for bad work, nor is accepting bad work a sign of intellectual capacity.
You see those overly fashion conscious yutzes all the time, bantering on about how this or that was groundbreaking and inspiring. It disturbs me as a writer and artist that there is a group of people out there so concerned with their image that anything they don't understand (generally because it's not readily understandable) is then declared marvelous, and anyone who calls them on it is deemed just another dumb American.
Wanting to see a film with experienced actors, directors and writers, as well as a solid script, high production value, and a cinematographer that understands light does NOT make someone and idiot.
Does the hollywood machine make crap? Yes, tons of it, all the time. So does every other film genesis. But for my 7.50, I'd honestly rather gamble on a good hollywood production than a great indie. -
...But Vanilla Sky sucked the chocolate starfish...
Just rent Jacobs Ladder instead and save the $9.50 -
Dec 17, 2001 1:07:05 PM CST
Didn't anyone else notice this was a blatant commercial for
by lord-yuppa
Also,"the others" was overtly anti-catholic/christian. I read a recent interview with Jason Lee where he confessed he had been converted to scientology after making this movie.
Admittedly, unless you know somthing about scientology going in you won't get that out of it. Most people I have talked to left the theater pissed off because they didn't understand it.
(Watch TRON!) -
First of all, Vanilla Sky was an excellent (if unnecessary) remake. I saw Open Your Eyes in the theatre when it first came out, and again on DVD. Big fan of the film. Vanilla Sky added some nice touches (particularly the impeccable music and cinematography). Had there never been an Open Your Eyes, the public at large would be pissing all over themselves about Vanilla Sky, hailing Crowe as a genius. I liked both versions. It is an excellent story, and was directed and acted well by two excellent directors and two excellent casts. As for Cameron Diaz... I must be missing something. Not only do I not find her attractive, I don't even find her average looking. Her big stupid grin, her scary-looking wide-set eyes, her stringy scare-crow hair, her awkward posture body... what about her is beautiful. This is not a slam on her personality or acting, both of which are often very good. She infuses each of her characters with wonderful enthusiasm, but that does not change her trailer park looks. This must be a case of the emporer's new clothes, because I don't get it. I could name thousands of actresses both past and present that are better looking than her, and yet so many people, including Harry, seem to think she stands above them all. For my money, the best looking actresses working today are Jennifer Connelly, Winona Ryder, Penelope Cruz, Heather Graham, Jennifer Love Hewitt, and... well, don't have time to think about it right now. Oh, the brunette from Mulholland Drive was hot too.
-
As minor as this may be within the actual "time" of the movie, the Jason Lee character shows a "tell" that may lend more truth to the notion that David is living in a fucked-up cryogenic lucid dream. The tech support guy claims the characters within David's world will do nything to preserve themselves. Jason Lee's character lies to David in order for David to still see him as his best friend. David's subconscious simultaneously allows this because he views Lee's character as his only true friend.
Julie Giani/Sofia also resurfaces after she committed suicide in the car accident. -
Jesus Christ, it's about time. I was beginning to lose faith in the entertainment industry...with Stanley gone, I thought that was it--from then on all movies would be like an endless golden shower(and not in a good way). Cameron Crowe is great, long live the new king. While watching the film, I didn't know what the hell was going on from one second to the next--but then I'd get a glimpse of something that seemed like the truth. This movie played with me and I liked it. Truthfully, I don't understand why more people don't like it--I guess I gave the public too much crediblity. Ocean's 11?!? WTF?
-
I know that lots of people have taken issue with your spoilers in the past, Harry, but this is one film which I was really looking forward to your take on the ending and explanation.
-
this movie was really bad! i expected some sort of psychological thriller but i considered it more like a surreal, confusing science fiction movie! toward the end of the movie, i kept hoping it would end so i could be put out of my misery! i won't ruin it for anyone who wants to see it but there is this whole dream vs. reality thing that leaves you confused and frustrated by the end of the movie. ive heard some reviewers say you have to see it twice to appreciate and understand it. now when i hear that i think of great movies like sixth sense or usual suspects where the ending makes it so you have to see it again to see how the story is interwoven now that you know the ending. with this movie, you have plenty of understanding at the end and only the bravest of souls would put themselves thru it again. you should know, i normally like tom cruise type movies, with the exception of eyes wide shut which weirdly this could have actually been a sequel to if they wanted to go that route between the masks and surreal dream like sequences! i wouldnt recommend this to anyone. wait for video or on cable tv and thank me later for saving you your time and money.
-
i think i understand both sides of the "remake" coin. hollywood money-grubbers aside, i think the truly creative minds behind VS had discovered a movie they genuinely love. but how many mainstream moviegoers (in this country, anyway) have the tolerance to watch/read a movie for two hours. i believe an earlier tb-er pointed out that there would indeed have to be a basic understanding of a culture before you see a film from that culture and most american moviegoers are not going to "brush up" before dropping 10 bones on being entertained. that being said, imagine if it was the other way around. suppose "the godfather" was seen by almost no one outside the u.s.-- except for a few filmmakers in Japan who loved it so much they decided to tell the story their own way (albeit not nearly as well). suddenly, you'd have an entire country boasting that it's THE BEST FILM EVER MADE!!! i suppose i'm just playing devil's advocate to a crowd of one...i'll go back to my corner now.
-
Vanilla sky was a bit too predictable, and Tom Cruise didn't come off as an asshole at all. He came off more as the 'popular' kid in high school, to tell you the truth. He had no real character or personality. Honestly, the whole movie was building up to something..but I would have felt that Vanilla Sky would have been worth if for one small change to the ending. Instead of Tom Cruise's eyes opening, you're given a shot of him crashing into the ground and the "Tech Support" character sitting there and grinning at the therapist.
-
jesus harry, you "key reason" for prefering vanilla sky is simply racist
-
"Eyes Wide Shut', 'A.I.', and 'Vanilla Sky' all have a character near the end who sort of explains everything, and people seem to complain about everything being made too obvious. The thing is, none of these explanations are to be trusted. I like the coma theory, too.
-
Please allow me to begin this post by stating that I never meant to say that anyone who didn't enjoy "Abre Los Ojos" or "Vanilla Sky" was a dimwit. However, I certainly do believe that a great many of the cinema 'fans' (that I've run across and heard from, as well as perhaps a few from this very board) who have expressed their undying hatred for either film (the original or the remake) may not have completely understood them. Also, for the record... sorry 'dude', but the sad truth is that there are an awful lot of people out there who can, and continue to, only relate to basic movie dreck like "Not Another Teen Movie" (I'm not really sure, as you suggested if they actually 'get-off' on it, but I suppose that's a discussion for another board). I never said that this was true in any one person's particular case (although, in your case... well perhaps you might be familiar with the phrase "methinks thou doth protest too much"...). By the way, I'm as patriotic as the next guy, but you might want to consider easing up on your "American films are the best films" mantra. (In case you're not aware of it... the reason why Hollywood films always win the vast majority of Oscars might have something to do with the fact that for the most part, the Academy Awards are amazingly blatant examples of celebrity self-gratification, politics and popularity contests.) I'm also proud to state for the record that I happen to love American films ("Fight Club", "Angel Heart", "2001:A Space Odyssey" "Bladerunner", "12 Monkeys", "Unbreakable", "A Clockwork Orange", "Taxi Driver", "The Godfather I & II", "Heathers", and many other classics that people to this day love or hate (although many ... not all, but many dislike these films because they simply do not understand them) I also love a variety of films from many other countries... believe it or not, there is life and creativity outside of Hollywood and acknowledging this does not mean one is anti-American or harbors ill-will toward the American film industry, it merely implies that a film fan has an open mind. If you or anyone else would like to discuss any or all of these matters relating to film then, please by all means feel free to respond. I only ask that you (anal-na-thrack) respond in a proper manner and not as in your other "ART-FAG" posts. I'm only interested in thoughtful discussion.
-
Granted, I have not seen Abre los Ojos, but I just saw VS last night and was quite impressed. I got really irritated at the fact that there was a group of middle age women at the showing I went to that spent the entire time talking about how they didn't "get" the movie. If they had actually spent 10 minutes thinking about it, maybe it would have dawned on them. VS brings up the classic philosophical paradox of whether it is better to live in a sort of blissful ignorance or experience the real world. Other people have posted saying this has been done too many times and lacks originality. Simply the fact that something has been done many times does not mean it is bad, look at Brave New World, the Matrix, Dark City, and many others. They are all variations on the theme presented in VS. Each offers a completely different take on a very complicated and interesting problem. I spent a good 30 minutes just talking over the issues it brought up as I drove home with a friend. I feel any movie that makes you think like that and spurs conversation is good, even if it does do it in a sort of mindfuck way. Just tossing my opinion in with the rest here, take it or leave it.
-
I am a great admirer of Cameron Crowe, I think he has done some of the best work during the last few years...
and again he delivers a movie that is well worth going to see.
Anyone seeing this movie will have to admit that it is different to the mainstream (howvever - he has been totally honest that this is his 'cover' version of 'Open Your Eyes', he does not pretend that this is totally original. I have not seen 'Open Your Eyes' yet but I do know that I enjoyed seeing a movie that was truly entertaining.
Who can name five truly entertaining movies that came out in 2001 ?
Unless you live somewhere like New York and are able to see many of the less commercial movies out this year this number will be low.
Cameron Crowe made a non-conventional movie and managed to get it out there in a commercial way. It may not be perfect but I for one am thankful that this is on the main screen instead of 'Behind Enemy Lines'. At least this movie has the ability to start a discussion after seeing it. I have read many reviews of this and they seem split down the middle either liking/or not liking which to me is a good measure that the movie has some worth.
Although this movies presents an ending anyone can look at this ending it is not the 'be all end all' and the movie can be viewed in many different ways.
Do yourself a favour - don't find out what people think they know about this film before you go and see it - just see it...
-
My friend started a website where he goes to movies and gets drunk. I just thought I'd spread the word because his review might not be the greatest but it makes the film seem quite interesting.
"It was quite a shame that I viewed Vanilla Sky under the influence of an alcoholic beverage instead of doing what the director desired and took twelve blotter tabs of acid right there in my movie seat. This film combines Michael Myers, Radiohead, seven dwarves and Citizen Dildo in a blur of conscious bending images and close ups of Tom Cruise. Thank you Cameron Crowe for not only convincing your contemporaries that you have the talent to take on such a screwball movie but convincing Cameron Diaz and that fine Puerto Rican girl to get nude, jump into bed and have a rampant sweaty sex scene. If only I found some cocaine, opium, weed or elephant tranquilizer that could juice up the experience. Instead I had to enjoy the film on the same level Tom Cruise was when he was dancing like a faded honkey inside of a rave.
After finishing some work and feeling hella bored I just wanted to catch a movie to take my mind off webprogramming. So I got to the parking lot, took four shots of Peppermint Schnapps in my car, and found out in line that everyone seeing this movie is about 50 years old and has glasses. Dude, at least 75% percent of the movie goers had glasses. I -
After 12 hours of processing "Vanilla Sky," I can say that it was a really triumphant movie. For me, the biggest qualm was that the viewer is left in the dark for too long. Your left fumbling around, trying to figure out what is real and what's not and it gets frustrating. Of course, when it all becomes clear, the revelation is simply perfection. I won't discuss it beyond that to avoid spoiling it, but it's bittersweet, poignant and pretty fucking cool. While I was grinding my teeth at points trying to figure out what the hell was going on, viewing the film through the filter of the climax made it all worthwhile. Some people are going to be pissed off at a lot of this movie, but I was surprisingly moved by it.
-
Vanilla Sky was, from a standpoint of plot development, a technically flawed piece of crap. This just goes to show you that Cameron Crowe, like Jim Carrey, is an overrated figure coasting on the waves of past successes. The only thing Crowe ever did worth a flip was 'Fast Times.'
-
did harry have to promise to give a glowing review to get Vanilla Sky to show at the Alamo? c'mon, I saw this movie in a screening in Westwood. in the elevator after the show, even the Paramount people were saying how much this movie sucked. it's not a honest and true review just because you say a few cuss words and king kong in your review. i've read your reviews for some time now, and i just had to comment on this because it's an indignity
-
*Vanilla Sky* was a valiant failure. I think the world of Cameron Crowe, the crafter of so many ordinary-people-in-extraordinary-pursuits films. However, the subject matter of "Vanilla Sky" (a disgustingly wealthy, "superior" playboy finally getting some comeuppance, or does he?!) was totally lifeless. The totally vacuous core of "VS" chilled any larger impact this film might have had on me. If you want to see films that make much better use of fractured narratives and "lucid dreams," go see "Mulholland Drive" or "Waking Life." My advice for Cameron Crowe is to get away from the insidious influence of Scientologist-freak and purported-heterosexual Tom Cruise. I read that Cruise originally brought this material to Cameron, and I can just imagine that the aw-shucks part of Cameron may have felt as impressed to be a confidant of Tom's as Cameron's alter-ego William was to become a confidant of the rock stars in "Almost Famous," so Cameron got sucked into making this pretentious pap of a film that is more about Tom Cruise's jaded view of life than Cameron Crowe's. Cameron, you're famous on your own now, so get away from Peter-Pan Tom Cruise!
-
I realize that this film is a remake, as soon as the premise was revealed, it made me wonder why Arnold wasn't in it and why they weren't on Mars. Then, once they end rolled around, and it was futuristic and that British dude kept saying "David, David, David" and they went up that huge building it was so AI (which sucked as well). It ripped off Total Recall, even to the point of the facial disfigurement:
"You're got a lot of nerve showing your face around here."
"Look who's talking." --Total Recall -
Harry, no mention of the music? i thought that was one of the strongest parts of the film (plus Cruise, who never gets enough praise for his good work). Inside tip: the last piece of music by Sigur Ros from Iceland was a bootleg tape of a live performance that CCrowe got, loved and then got permission to use in the film.
-
My friends dragged me to see Vanilla Sky. I thought the movie was a bit of cheat... Its sort of like reading a mystery that gives you no clues along the way... just the explanetary diatribe at the end. I think if a movie wants to have a "clever" twist, it should at least forshadow it in some reasonable way so that an astute audience member could possibly have a chance to piece things together... or at the very least realize the puzzle pieces that they had overlooked, if they go back for a repeat viewing... Just have a long winded "total recall" explanation at the end sucked
-
Loved the opening sequence. Also there were references to other Tom Cruise and Cameron Crowe films. VS plays on the same theme as ALMOST FAMOUS: (possible spoiler) that sometimes when the right person comes along, fate- or your own stupidity- can be cruel. All that was missing was Barenaked Ladies' "It's All Been Done", but when it comes to MUSIC Crowe is too hip to be that obvious.------later------m
-
I love Cameron Crowe. Love him. I understand why he wanted to make his own version of Abre los Ojos, to get the story across to us ignorant americans who, like me, don't explore all the brilliant cinema out in the world. But I still want to defend Amenabar's film from people trying to put one film up against the other. Crowe has knack for feel good romance and friendship in his work, he's one of the best. Not like a Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan movie, but a feeling that is real and can actually touch a fan of film, without the cushioning. He does it with music, acting, and humility. He lets the scene roll a few more seconds longer on an facial expression. You stumble into the actor's skill and character and wonder how they make you feel so human and in love with life again. He did it in Almost Famous and in Singles. For me, Vanilla Sky was much easier to watch being raised on Hollywood movies and actors like Tom Cruise and gang, but the story in whole, and especially the ending couldn't equal the original. Crowe obviusky gets a better performance out of Penelope Cruz, but I don't think he has an edge on Amenabar when it comes to the film's whole content. His ending wraps up the film much more neatly than Vanilla Sky, explaining important details. Cesar's (David's) phsyciatrist is more believable than Russell, and the roof scene is a strong point as where Crowe's roof scene was one of the weaker points of the film.
In my biased opinion, Vanilla Sky is a better film than Andres los Ojos. Whether Crowe is just a better director or that he has the money to hire better acting and crew is a good question, but both films should resonate as very powerful cinema, for different but just as important reasons.
-
but I have been to Times Square a bunch of times.
Great flick, I saw it a week ago and am still thinking about it a great deal. The opening scene in an empty NYC is amazing. -
I know you wrote that intentionally. could you tell me why?
-
I thought Vanilla Sky was a fundamentally "good" movie, i really liked the editing and camera shots and soundtrack and all that, but the story kinda got to the point where it was like ok, where are you trying to go here? i liked it as a psycological thriller more than what it became toward the end...and i thought it kinda was a little too self-consciencly mind fuckie, but whatever, it made me think and it was pretty cool to watch. glad i saw it.
-
At about the minus 1 hour from the end point I realised the twist (what *I* thought was the twist, that is!) but no one else has even mentioned it here. It was an explanation that freaked my date to the point that he now wants to see the film again (which seems to be a fairly unique reaction if the comments above are anything to go by). I'd like to see "Open your eyes" to see if I get the same feel from that...
OK, I thought it was all the coma-reality of David Aames Senior. All of it. And yes, that is a bit Bobby-Ewing-in-the-shower... but it kept ME busy re-referencing everything that had happened. -
Vanilla Sky,its the word you refer to the background of a Monet painting or the color of an Autumn morning. Vanilla Sky,the best film experience for me this year. Vanilla Sky is the genre of film that lures you in, kicks the hell out of you with flawless performances, beautiful filmmaking by the man Cameron, then spits you out, a changed person in my case.
This film will stay in your head and make you wonder, for certain people. I think the critics and talkbackers who disliked or plain hated this movie were captivated by Harry Potter. Not the same mentality. Open Your Eyes (Abre Los Ojos) also a great film but doesnt master what Vanilla Sky did.
-
Thanks for pointing that out. Actually that was 8 beers talking and me not knowing spanish.
-
Ummm...I finally caught the movie and was praying all involved would elevate the material. The big Nope! I won't reveal the big twist but some of what I say may constitute spoilers so beware. First off, I can't believe Crowe wrote the dialouge. It was so forced and over written. It was like Skip Woods doing a Cameron Crowe script. Next, it really was a scene by scene remake. That's too bad. They skimmed the surface of interesting ideas just like Amenbar which is too bad. If they had played around more they might have come out ahead instead of ending up with a medicocre mess echoing another medicore mess. And ahhhh..."Tech Support". God, that was cringe inducing. Toll's photography was nowhere near his best. And oh..."in another life when we are both cats."? Right, ummm that not only doesn't sound cool, it really means nothing. And no one would say that in a club. And folks, that was still reality. So Aames wouldnt make that up. Also, why wouldn't he follow her back to her house instead of getting in the car? Finally, (and there's more but I don't have all day) Crowe did what I was afraid he would. So many directors fumble the scifi aspects of stories, whether out of contempt or unfamiliarity or whatever but they shrift it and the movie suffers. I will give Amenbar credit for at least seeming to enjoy that element. And to the TBer who said there were no clues...there were tons. They were shoehorned in. Not in a cool way like the 6th sense but in a way that they needed to be in there so they could do it. The whole movie was written in capital letters ya know? Here's a big moment posing as a little moment. Heres something important. Here's how David feels NOW. And I know I promised to leave but ummmm Harry, man don't be ragging on Dobie. Without it there would be no Linklater or QTfest. And I would have missed some great movies (hell I saw "Abre" there 3 years ago)and some fun midnite shows. I think it's great we have Drafthouse and Dobie! Now there's a dream I dont wanna wake up from.
-
I have been EAGERLY anticipating this film, but I have to say that I was let down by the resolution. There were so many cool (and much more in line with the suspense of the movie) way this film could have ended...Although I did not hate it... I just felt kind of shafted at the end. As an interesting side not, I live in a fairly small and conservative town (after relocating from a large city) and there was a sign posted on the Box Office glass tht read, "No refunds on Vanilla Sky due to content." What the hell do you think that means?
Wild.
-
left me feeling like a paranoid schitzophrenic. loved it.
-
i'd say the "no refunds because of content" thing means a lot of people felt the movie was so WEIRD and CONFUSING and BIZARRE that they deserved their money back so they could go rent Pearl Harbor.
i've seen some reviews say this movie is pretentious and overblown. well fuck you. there needs to be some pretentious movies out there. not everyone has to get everything. so what a lot of stupid people will watch this movie and go.. well heckity damn. that "WEIRD" huh huh. fucking christ i hate stupid people.
this is a fantastic movie yer either a dolt or an overly cynical picky motherfucker if you didn't dig it.
-
one big question i have about the ending --- why would cruises' character choose that time to "splice" --- why would he have not chosen before his face got disfigured? --- seems like the perfect place would have been right before he got into the car.. to me that alone gives a lot of credence to the people saying the ending wasnt really the ending at all... maybe he wanted this fake reality --- to be as close to reality as possible? or because he wanted his body to be like it really was. any one else have another explanation of why he would have chosen that time to splice? (besides that it would have thrown off the entire movie if he hadnt chosen that time to splice ... but why would he have?)
-
Nice try, Cameron Crowe and Tom Cruise, but this movie is like a 2 1/2 hour sleeping pill.
-
i found vanillla sky to be an ultimately infuriating experience, however i would say of it that is an almost excellent idea excedingly badly excecuted. tom cruise is not a fine actor, certainly not one of the calibre required to pull off this role.
the most interesting thing about the film given time and place, is the feeling it gets off the streets of new york - i found it to have portayed them as utterly desolate dreamscapes, which i guess is the biggest clue to the premise of the film. i agree that it is great to have seen the WTC left in the cut - that final scene is pointedly ridiculous but it is mesmersing to watch the skyline. i think that where discretion should have been excersised is clearly the falling from the building sequence which brought horrific ACTUAL events vividly to life - minus 10 points there.
won't go on to list the many thousand moments of bullshit throughout vanilla sky, but i will say to the person who thinks that FIGHT CLUB was something original, please read anything by luke rhinehart or bret eaton ellis right now to see from where ALL it's "ideas" were ripped blind. and anyone comparing this cameron crowe shite to lynch - WAKE THE FUCK UP! -
Well, by now there isn't much I'm going to add to the raging discussion on this movie, but I've got a few points...
1) While the story was odd, and challenging (for me, anyway), I wouldn't quite call it "pretentious, arty, crap". I found elements of wit, humor, and character that made this a very approachable movie for me.
2) Much is being made here of the fact that Vanilla Sky is a remake, and that it isn't terribly original. And maybe that's not the point. Crowe, Cruise, et al made this movie because they thought it was worth bringing to an American audience, not because they were trying to say something new. Personally, I think they could have picked much worse movies to remake (Aguirre, the Wrath of God, anyone? *g*)
3) The very fact that this movie has polarized opinion in the way it has should tell you that this is not for everyone.
I enjoyed this movie quite a bit, but I wasn't expecting much. "Thinking too much" will not enhance your enjoyment. No, the music wasn't great (except for REM's "Sweetness Follows", which works on a couple of different levels where it shows up in the film). And, yes, the whole explanation on the elevator went WAAAY too long, no doubt due to a panicky producer demanding the audience be given SOME kind of clear explanation. These are my only real problems with Vanilla Sky.
What I liked: Tom Cruise (yes, I DID think this was one of his better movies), Penelope Cruz (charming, sweet, and smart, just like she should be), Cameron Diaz (WONDERFUL; I marvel at her choice of roles. There could be a "body-of-work" Oscar in the offing...), that creepy mask, which might deserve some kind of Oscar in its own right, and a loopy, dreamy story that I just allowed to wash over me in the theatre without really thinking about it.
I've gotta say, I've seen worse... -
During a year of cinema in which the industry's claims to fame have been remakes, cartoons and a boy wizard, I held out faint hope that Tom Cruise could actually deliver in "Vanilla Sky."
I mean, FINALLY a film which challenges adults for I haven't written a movie review in some five months. (There's a reason for that fact, believe me.)
Indeed, megastar Cruise is most in need of a good movie this side of Nicolas Cage what with recent forgettable releases like "Eyes Wide Shut," "Magnolia" and Mission Impossible: 2."
Unfortunately for him, however -- and me after more than two hours -- this ain't it.
Cruise portrays a "Daddy's boy" who inherits a thriving publishing business which gives him 'creative license,' if you will, to arrive for work late while wearing strange hats, etc. Now with possession of a 51-percent stake, he worries that the stodgy board members (The Seven Dwarves, as they're referred to ad nauseum) are plotting his ouster.
But Mr. Cruise has more on his plate than just business interests. "Julie" -- played by a vulgar-mouthed Cameron Diaz -- is a jilted love interest with more zest than Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction." After Cruise spends the evening with another woman (Penelope Cruz), Diaz stakes him out and takes him for the opposite of a joy ride before plummeting off a bridge. (Those women drivers, you know.)
Here's where "Vanilla Sky" becomes really, oh, how can I describe it, JUMBLED. First, we find out that Diaz has been killed in the accident and Cruise has been facially disfigured. Then we have Cruise donning a doctor-ordered mask to hide his deformities while being spurned by Cruz in a nightclub. Then we have Cruise -- his face fixed after surgery -- reunite with her.....only to have Cruz wake up one morning as the heretofore deceased Diaz, and has the whole turn of events been a dream? (Oxygen, please)
And did I mention that Cruise doesn't know whom to trust (i.e., the "Seven Dwarves" or psychiatrist "McCabe" played by Kurt Russell) during this whole turn of events?
Basically, what we have is an absolute mess which leaves the viewer with the impression of having seen such fare unveiled before -- only with more precision. Think this year's "Memento" or "Jacob's Ladder," a Tim Robbins film which runs circles around "Vanilla Sky." This kind of movie is my favorite with one stubborn little caveat -- IT MUST BE DONE VERY WELL. I believe 'taut' is the word I'm looking for here.
That said, the result becomes excruciating when such material proves subpar. The viewer tends to become frustrated with the twists and turns, and several people exited the theater prior to the end of "Vanilla Sky."
One problem lies in the direction, where the woefully overrated Cameron Crowe is responsible for his second consecutive bomb (2001's "Almost Famous" was terrible as well).
Rightfully lauded as the screenwriter of the classic "Fast Times At Ridgemont High," I suggest that Mr. Crowe continue in that capacity. His direction becomes tedious, complete with sappy nostalgia for 1960s and 1970s background music (Read: Bob Dylan, The Beach Boys, etc.) repeatedly drowning out dialogue.
I would opine that Mr. Crowe is an all-around good guy who's made friends with such HUGE stars as Cruise (collaborators on the awful "Jerry Maguire") and thus aligned himself as a big-time player in Hollywood. It's a short ride without talent, though, and I think this guy is a prime example of what's wrong in Tinsel Town these days.
New movies contain all the 'bells and whistles,' if you will, but are devoid of any bare-bones creativity. Check out this line by Cruise's "Vanilla Sky" character: "People are afraid of heights because of the impact." Profound, huh?
Another problem with this film is the aforementioned Cruz, who is stunningly beautiful but, shall we say, 'struggles' with the English language. Linguistic lessons have her progressing since a star turn in "Blow," but she's still far from believable as a love interest. A sampling of her "Vanilla Sky" dialogue: "I work as a daintal asseesteent." At this point, she should probably be seen more and heard less.
I guess the most I gained from "Vanilla Sky" is that it struck me as the reverse of The Great Gatsby.....just consider that reference if you ever make it to the end of this film, I guess.
In this truly dreadful year of film, come March these big-wigs -- possibly Cruise and Crowe -- will be glad-handing and slapping each other on the back as they hand out awards.
Now THAT'S the kind of irony they only dream of capturing on the silver screen.
Video Picks
"Network" (1976): Remember the 'bells and whistles' line of the preceding review? This is one film I had in mind -- compelling subject matter which proves difficult to erase from the mind. Starring a young Faye Dunaway and Robert Duvall in simply incredible performances, the question is posed: Just how important are ratings in the cutthroat world of television. The fictional answer here is truly riveting. I don't have to explain such a groundbreaking film, and take my word: This is one of the finest movies I've ever seen. Period.
"One Night At McCool's" (2001): Definitely an 'under-the-radar' sleeper pick, this amusing little film stars Matt Dillon, Liv Tyler, Michael Douglas, Paul Reiser and John Goodman. Portrayed here is to what lengths men will go to win the hand of a fair maiden, in this case the aforementioned Tyler. The movie is clever in repeating scenes from the perspective of each character, and progresses to a side-splitting finale. I only scratch my head upon visiting my local Hollywood Video and seeing this one fully stocked -- untouched. Good stuff, believe me. -
I can not believe I've let myself speak about htis again... I had almost flushed that piece of filth out of my head. Ok, pay attention all you pretentious movie viewers. If five minutes into a film, Malcolm McDowell walks into frame sneers, and whispers in a raspy voice "If time and space are infinite in both directions, doesn't that mean everything has to happen somewhere, sometime?" and then walks stage right, is the movie somehow "blessed." No. Just because a movie has a point, 2 points, or even a hole damned plot that is though provoking, it doesn't mean it's good. All of you out there insulting people who "don't get it" might want to consider the fact that we might actually get it, and perhaps you are the "unrefined" one in not being able to distinguish between a good idea and a good movie. Memento for instance was thought provoking AND good. See how that works? Try it with me, "VS thought provoking and bad." Very Good, now go practice on your own.
-
well, i didnt read all of these talkbacks, but if someone already stated this opinion, i apologize.
i think vanilla sky was more of an homage to pop culture then anything else. i think it was a very personal movie for cameron crowe. i think he saw abre los ojos, it touched him, and he wanted to make his own version, with little flourishes of himself in the film. in fact he has gone as far as to call the film not a remake, but a cover, as a band covers a song.
i saw it twice. i thought it was great. sure it was a tad predictable. and tom cruise was a little silly, but actually i could of watched it with my eyes closed. the sound and music were brilliant. they made the movie for me.
but as david ames says to juli giani shortly before the accident..."if you reach just one person..."
-
I am seriously. Anyways, why does everyone forget 'Dark City' when it comes to "alternate reality" type of movies. I know Dark City didn't invent the genre, but it was one of the first in the last decade.
Just saw the movie yesterday, and like everyone else, felt it had moments of brillance ruined by the ending. Cameron Diaz truely does a great job here (even though its hard to say that after reading Harry slobber over her), and as usualy Cameron Crow does a great job incorporating pop-rock into his movies.
-
Missed the first five minutes, and that may have skewed my feelings on the film. However, I do agree with you about the Towers. Seeing them at the end was the exact opposite of what everyone was saying back in September. I enjoyed seeing them, as opposed to the empty piece of sky over Broadway these days. Props to Cameron for leaving them in.
-
I don't know what Harry is talking about. Cameron Diaz is not incredibly beautiful nor a particularly great actress. Furthermore, Cruise has said that Vanilla Sky is his greatest work to date- but it's weird, long and reminded me way too much of A.I (another overly-hyped debacle). He was incredible in Magnolia! Think of the big scene with Jason Robards. The Hollywood publicity machine sucks. By the way, am I the only one who feel that I should get a kick-back or a discount if I'm forced to watch commercials before my movie starts?!!!! Not trailers,full blown commercials!
-
I confess I haven't seen the movie yet although I have seen ABRE LOS OJOS a few times. However, I recently saw ALMOST FAMOUS again (I love the movie) and I can't for the life of me imagine how the hell did Mr Cruise think Cameron Crowe was a good director for this movie. My opinion is that once more a egocentric actor has hired a director for the wrong reasons that is, his bloody ego. And has forgotten the real reason to make the movie. When are studios going to realize that ACTORS are killing the film industry; we don't see movies any more we see huge actor EGOS being filmed!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Dec 31, 2001 2:01:04 PM CST
If only it had ended in the "cell" I would have loved this movie
by davidbooks
I was in deep. I love to be challenged by a movie. What's real, who's real, is any of it real. The problem came when every detail of the story was explained away without any room for the audenience to interpret what they had seen and to do it with such complete and utter cheese.
There were plenty of clues (maybe too many) thoughout the story to get it by the time David sees the Tech Support guy on TV. Why not stop the film right there? OK, Tom Cruise jumping off a roof, but that's not enough to keep it going. The power of that scene is the ending I would have preferred, not some Willy Wonka meets the Matrix blah, blah, blah.
The beauty of the film was in it's mystery. Too bad that was taken away before I left the theatre.
Oh well. -
how can anyone have the nerve to suggest that if you didn't like this movie, it's because you aren't intelligent, or only like movies like "not another teen movie?"
as a whole the movie was awful. i'm a big fan of all involved, but can't imagine why anyone would make this film, except for the excuse to use all of the pop culture references, and great shots. but, a film is not about tidbits and shots, it's about STORY, first. and this story was horrendous. we spend an enitre film waitig to find out who was murdered, and by whom, and get stuck with "it was all a dream." what a ripoff.
i've seen the beter version of this film, and it's called "total recall"
say what you will, but i felt very cheated by the ending of the film.....
until the end though, i was thoroughly enjoying it...it's sad to see a good movie ruined by such a god-awful premise...
-
I just came out of Vanilla Sky, and I must say I'm still gripped by the feelings it left me with. I have hesitated to see it after all of the bad reviews. I, like Harry, have not seen Open Your Eyes, and after seeing VS I can see why this is the way to see it - unadulterated, as original rather than translation/re-do.
I agree with every word Harry wrote about this film, so I will write no more. Thank you Harry - it is a pleasure for me to see a film, be moved by it, and then come home and read your review. My experience is often made the richer. -
I saw it last night at 11 p.m. (which is a bad idea cuz it's 2 1/2 hrs. long and I get too sleepy)and it was really cool. Great acting, cool music, sweet visuals and some smart dialogue. The story is trippy, but I'm never one to over analyze stuff, especially movies. Personally, I've always been a Tom Cruise fan, but some of my friends who weren't before are now after seeing Vanilla Sky.
-
Jan 07, 2002 1:21:49 AM CST
WORST MOVIE IVE EVER SEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by jessyeanne
This is quite possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. I did not understand it, and when I left-it made me feel pissed off that I actually spent money to see it. What the heck happened? Was he dead the whole time??
-
I just got out of Vanilla Sky about 30 minutes ago--and I don't understand it at all? Nobody I was with understood it, and it would be much appreciated if someone wrote me back about or e-mailed me at JessyeAnne@aol.com and gave a quick summary of the movie to me!!!! Thank you.
-
P-P-P-PLANT! Harry's wallet strangely expanding.....
-
It bears repeating again - "If you loved it, great, but don't praise a remake for it's originality and then say those who didn't like it are non-thinkers." Thank you very much and have a good day-
-
Saw it twice last weekend and loved it both times I saw it. Yes, it is both confusing and fucked up at times, but it all comes together and in my opinion, I thought the movie was incredible. I even like how the number 4 kept coming up later in the movie because of Cruise's unanswered "what does four times mean" question to Diaz. Cruise, Cruz, Diaz (whom I normally don't like), Jason Lee, and Kurt Russell all did an excellent job, and kudos to Crowe for revamping this movie from the original and bringing it state-side. Good review Harry. I'd recommend this movie to everybody I know (and I've only heard 1 negative review from about 6 of my friends who have seen it so far). Don't listen to the negative hype, see for yourself, then decide.
-
I very very very much disliked this movie. And it all started out so very very very promising. New York in fall, captured beautifully in sight and sound by Crowe's impeccable sense for setting up the right mood. Naturally there are more people to be mentioned in this regard - here most notably the DP and the so-real-it-hurts- perfomances by Diaz and Lee (and to a lesser degree Cruz and Cruise. I mean really, how hard can it be to convincingly pretend to be in love with either?). And then there's the black vintage Ferrari driving through a completely deserted New York. Add to that the trust and confidence the director instilled within the viewer through his previous movies and how can one not be lured, seduced and sucked into all things to come. Which is where for me it all went wrong. The ensuing drama is tragic and painful to watch (again credit to the director and his cast for their realistic portrayal of lust, love, jealousy, hate, friendship and betrayal) and is at times hard to sit through. And then things start to get weird, which is where we're presumably asked to not just engage emotionally, but even intellectually. So I endure and focus, trying to figure things out along the way, which is not very common in movies nowadays, but as we all know can be extremely rewarding in the end (not being a real movie connoisseur myself and unfamiliar with the Spanish template or any other foreign movies I resort to The Sixth Sense as a fitting example of such). And the more confusing and challenging the story gets, the more painful it is to watch, and ultimately, the more rewarding an ending we expect. And what do we get? An excruciating 5-minute elevator ride during which a Peewee Herman look-alike tells Tom Cruise and us what really happened to him, which basically comes down to "Just kidding folks, it was just a dream (or the current Jacob
-
For the past 6 hours, I've been in a state of disbelief. This film has affected me. It's made me realise where I've been going wrong in my relationships. That I can't live in a dream forever. And that I think, is why I adore this film so much. Everything about it was fantastic, the acting, the setting, the dialogue, the story, the soundtrack, the cinematography, the direction, EVERYTHING. It fucked with my head, and that's what I love about films. When they fuck with my feelings of reality and life. If you haven't seen this yet, I strongly urge you to do so. This might end up becoming my favourite film of the year.
I can't stop thinking about a special girl thanks to this film. It's brilliant. Roll on a AAA DVD release. -
How can you people say you didn't understand it? Did you fall asleep for the half hour exposition (I almost did)? It doesn't matter because the end was atrocious and rendered most of the movie pointless (a glitch?!!!). What a load of crap. And the worst part is, about halfway through the movie I was thinking that it might turn out to be really smart. This is one of the first moments of my life where a game (Silent Hill 2) far outsmarted a film. As much as I like games, I hope that is not an indication of the future of filmmaking.
Dogg Thang bites back. -
You are usually very perceptive in your remarks, however rambling (but that's part of their appeal); but I was shocked to read your praise of "Vanilla Sky," and especially of Tom Cruise, who seems now to be asleep. Sure, there are good twists and turns, and the opening shot of a desolate Time Scuare is fine. But the cranky ending where someone is pulleld in only to try to explain what should have left ambiguous is annoying and baffles in a way clearly not intended.
-
It's mid-February and I finally got around to seeing Vanilla Sky and was, as I expected, somewhat dissapointed by it.
It was an entertaining film but nowhere near as clever as it seemed to think it was. The potential was there for one of the best mind-fuck films of all time but it was sadly wasted.
The scifi ending jarringly and crudely nailed on left me feeling short-changed. It felt as if the writer had sat down, had a great time wanking over himself, writing a mad, fractured collage of all his favourite pop imagery and then decided three quarters of the way into it that 'fuck! I need a story.' and simply tacked the whole LE thing on with all the subtlety of a demolitions expert.
And another thing (and I don't think it's unreasonable to put in a spoiler as I think I'm the last person on the face of the planet to see this film) - why did he have his memory erased from the point he fell asleep in the gutter. Why not have it wiped from the point he decided to get in the car with Diaz? That might have even worked better. There he is living happily ever after with Spanish woman but having terrible and realistic dreams about being in a car crash and being disfigured. That might have flowed a bit more smoothly than the confusing mish-mash we were served. Once again it seems that Harry adores another bland and over-rated film. Along with the Phantom Menace and Lord of the Rings (an over-rated, over-long, boring, second rate fantasy movie with first rate effects) I'm losing any kind of respect for his film reviews. -
I have seen that sad excuse movie twice. (I thought i had missed something Harry got.) Visually it was pretty. Visual aspects matter but what about a plot that matters... Heres my thoughts pre-viewing thoughts:
Hmm another Tom Cruise playing the guy with issues film. I don't know about that.
Wait! Wait! Wait! Charlies Angels' Cameron Diaz is in this. I have to see it
Penelope Cruise Huh? Who? Oh yeah! Her? Oh so they aren't married its spanish for cross? Oh! Cruz. Got it.
Hey is that Brody/Banky (Jason Lee) from Mallrats and Chasing Amy. I love that guy! He's hilarious. Ok I'm gonna go.
This move is based on a spanish film Abre Los Ojos. (Open Your Eyes.) Which is much better.
My story of pain:
I arrived at the theater all ready to be amused and cute boy-ed and was utterly dissappointed. Vanilla Sky was one of those movies you sat through going this is kinda interesting in the beginning. I will only hint at that the trailers already gave you that notion.
Tom Cruise plays a rich guy with issues. Didn't he do that in Eyes Wide Shut? (Great film, by the way.) Cameron Diaz, blonde vixen in love. Penelope Cruz sweet as pie pretty girl with an accent who Tom falls for. Jason Lee funny best friend guy with even more smart mouth comments.
Ok, let break down Tom's character, David Ames he's rich, he's cute, he's a ladies man, and ends up a twisted jerk (just like Tom.) He has everything and self destructively acquires some issues and decides to act upon them, irattionally. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. The whole time you are silently yelling at him dude get with it your rich. Love, Schmove pay for it.
Cameron's character, Julie Gianni, is the ever popular gorgeous jaded lover but she has frantic, mouth dropping, very naughty speils and one liners. I'm greatly impressed with her. Plus she looked even sexier in this one. I mean I know sex and she was redifining it for me. Thank You.
Penelope Cruz, Sofia Serrano, like I said before sweet as pie, a Glazed Sugar Cane Pie! You wanna tell her to stop acting cute and sweet. Be human lady we know you are. Later on she takes you up on the offer. Then she does very well.
Brian Shelby, Jason Lee's character, is the screwed over best friend who has to be there always no matter what crap he has to go through, cause he works for Tom and thats his job. (the last part is just my interpreted secret motive for Jason's putting up with Tom's crap. I would have kicked him in the shin and called it a day.)
In athe beggining the plot was going along good, Tom has an accident, his come uppance is given to him and it gets all screwy till, about the last thirty five minutes then it gets weird and mind numbing and some one dies. And there is this really androgynous guy in there that you are freaked out by, well I was. You really need to pay attention, if you wanna get it. And figure out the not-so-confusing-as-it-was-twisted, plot. If not, you can play dumb the whole time like Tom. You'll be shocked and it will get you to be the laughing stock of your circle of friends. Just like Tom, who's not getting an Oscar for this. Even if you get up five times throughout the movie you'll still say at the end. "That was important to the film? I thought of that and hour ago, I was just entertaining the idea." If you see it, see it on matinee though if not you'll be angry, like I was.
In a sentence, this movie was like Dude, Where's my Car except it didn't warn you that you might think it would be dumb and it's no where near as funny.
I give Vanilla Sky 2 -
This movie was depressing for me. I'm a huge fan of Cameron's movies. Say Anything, Jerry Maguire, Almost Famous, all great films. He is one of the best writer/directors out there. I got a sense of what he was trying to do but for me the movie fell flat on its face. By the last half hour of the movie, I had lost total interest in it. I didn't care about the characters or who was who or whatever. I felt it was sad that the only sliver of a plot appeared in the last ten minutes and had to be brutally explained. I'll probably rent it on DVD when it comes out to see if there is something that I missed, that the rest of you saw. Do yourself a favor if your thinking about seeing this film, go rent "The Game", much better movie.
-
What the hell is wrong with you people? Is it the fact that half of you are uneducated bums or is it the fact that you just don't know what a good piece of entertainment is? This movie had to be one of the bets movies of the year and people, rest assured there is nothing wrong with TomCruise's acting, if there was people wouldn't employ him and he wouldn't keep on making 155 million a movie.
This movie was well done, well acted out and although confusing, a great ending!
Peace and out
Sarah! -
AlmostSexy --> the movie w/ kurt russel and j.t. walsh...Breakdown. kick ass movie.
Vanilla Sky was such a pretentious piece of shit im sorry to say....it tried to be such a "deep" film bent on fucking with your mind but in the end it was just so lameeeee and a mess altogether....it reminded me of that horrible wreck Titanic (no puns intended), in that it was certainly an "entertaining" movie that you waste 3 hours of your life on...it certainly looks and sounds good in a theatre setting (big screen big sound)...but never ever again will i watch it on my own. yuckkkkk......do they really think that this would "blow our mind"?? hollywood really needs to try harder.... the only good part was penelope cruz...i dunno i think shes pr'dy :) -
Okay . . . so I spent my $7.50 months ago and saw a first run Vanilla Sky. I (and a whole theater full of people) walked out shaking our collective heads saying "What was that all about?" because for us, the "TRUTH" was never revealed. We knew less about the movie than when we took our seats. The poor usher . . . waiting outside to sweep up the popcorn, was at the door as we exited, attempting to explain what it was SUPPOSED to be about. I decided that I had just given the theater chain a donation as I sure hadn't received anything for the money.
Now, it's on at the Local Dollar Movie House . . . and MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, I'll spend a dollar on it as a last chance at seeing what the review here on Ain't It Cool News said the reviewer saw.
This is your last chance, Ain't It Cool News . . . if I come out of the theater demanding my dollar back from the front office, you will have lost all credulance in my eyes!
Fight'n words from a puzzled fan!
-
Okay . . . so I spent my $7.50 months ago and saw a first run Vanilla Sky. I (and a whole theater full of people) walked out shaking our collective heads saying "What was that all about?" because for us, the "TRUTH" was never revealed. We knew less about the movie than when we took our seats. The poor usher . . . waiting outside to sweep up the popcorn, was at the door as we exited, attempting to explain what it was SUPPOSED to be about. I decided that I had just given the theater chain a donation as I sure hadn't received anything for the money.
Now, it's on at the Local Dollar Movie House . . . and MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, I'll spend a dollar on it as a last chance at seeing what the review here on Ain't It Cool News said the reviewer saw.
This is your last chance, Ain't It Cool News . . . if I come out of the theater demanding my dollar back from the front office, you will have lost all credulance in my eyes!
Fight'n words from a puzzled fan!
-
Wasted $7.50 on it due to AICNs overwhelming praise and blathering. Now at the Dollar Movie, and a friend coerced me into going along. Now have wasted $8.50 on it. Okay AICN, tell the truth . . . were you high on weed when you saw/reviewed the movie? How much they pay you to bow down to the great Cameron/Cruise gods? You have lost any respect I had for you as a reviewer.
But, to get back into good standing, all you have to do is post a COMPLETE EXPLANATION for the uncomprenehsible trash I sat through two times. And it had better make sense! -
After reading Harry's pomp and pretentious review of a movie that was so much pomp and pretentions, I was angered enough to register just so I could say this: Vanilla Sky was complete, total and utter CRAP! It was the longest 3 hours of my life. And the end was the biggest let down that I have ever felt. Any story that needs to "introduce" a new character at the end, just to explain what the hell happened, is not doing the job of telling itself as a story. I want my money back. Plus I want to be compensated for my wasted 3 hours that I will never get back. If I ever meet anyone that thinks Vanilla Sky was good, i'm not sure what I would do first- let them know that they are an idiot, or blacken their eye.
-
I'm not surprised at all about the constant bad reviews and opinions of Crowe's Vanilla Sky. It is a film that makes you think, for pete's sake. Who wants to have to use your head when watching your films on Saturday night? Give me Rambo or give me death.
If you couldn't tell, I'm being completely sarcastic. I thought Vanilla Sky was a gem among mainstream film-making. The constant guessing that the audience is forced into, twists and turns, Cameron Diaz...and Harry, I'd have to agree with you. I've never really found Penelope Cruz quite attractive before (in actuality, I thought she looked like a muppet), but in this film I found her quite appealing indeed. -
(1) Why don't you all just be honest. If you slagged Vanilla Sky off it's because it made you feel stupid or you weren't intelligent enough to see the point of the movie.
(2) Vanilla Sky didn't rip off Jacob's Ladder. If you want to talk about rip-offs, why don't you go rent that shite movie Sixth Sense which steals its beginning AND twist end from Jacob's Ladder.
(3) I happened to have watched Open your eyes as well, and Hary's words are fair point. Vanilla Sky is better for all the reasons he pointed out. This film might even end up educating a number of young ladies about the way they act and the way they feel, and about understanding that there is world that exists outside of us that has opinions as well as feelings. Both Cameron Diaz's character and Tom Cruise's character both needed to 'wake up and open their eyes' in this movie. It's a damn social comment and most of you thick bastards are too stupid to see that. I wish more movies were made like this. -
Enjoyed this film, never saw the Artisan original (English title: "Open your eyes"-and thank GOD no erasing of the World Trade Center during whose tragedy the film was still being made..I'd rather SEE the center than pretend it was never there and if I were a New Yorkr I'd think that I'd WANT to preserve SOMETHING of the twin towers---I mean that would be the LEAST we could do).
Excellent transition to drama making for Mr.Cameron Crowe and yet lots of transistional stuff (Cameron D. saying "I LOST my audition;' and various stuff from Cruise like "Oh no, it takes care of my face" or something and the Jason Lee-Tom Cruise banter.)
Excellent Bob Dylan "Freewheelin;' Bob Dylan" (1963, Columbia Records) album cover tribute. Tom and Penelope Cruz walking togther. Bob Dylan MUST'VE authorized it. Take THAT Abbey Road! (I AM SAM did yet another Beatles album tribute just a month later).
A number of name coincidences abound. Cameron Crowe-Cameron Diaz. Tom Cruise-Penelope Cruz. And in a variaition, Jason Lee, and Crowe's "Fast Times @ Ridgemont High" costar (to Sean Penn and Judge Rheinhold) Jennifer Jason Leigh, though she wasn't in this film (she did almost appear in Kubrick's 1999 "Eyes Wide Shut", the previous and first film whose messagebord I posted on here, and whcih also starred Cruise ina similiar role.)
Finally all the different film and TV and photo clips (incl.the aforementioned and muchdisscused "Freewheeling Bon DYlan" album tribute of which, udner Noah Taylor (the "Lucid Dream: guy)'s voiceover the ACTuAL DB album cover appears undernearth "an album cover that once moved you".
Great film.:-) -
Still never seen this one.
[list][*]Is[*]It[*]Worth Shit?[/list]
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 419 total posts 209 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 131 total posts 129 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 123 total posts 122 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 124 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 191 total posts 47 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 43 total posts 43 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 42 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 27 total posts 27 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 506 total posts 26 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 77 total posts 24 posts