Vanilla Sky (2001) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
1,267 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Frightening, sad, touching and so underrated
yellonet15 January 2006
I had heard some not too good things about this movie and had probably seen the low score here at IMDb and that's why I had avoided it. Today they showed Vanilla Sky on TV and as I had nothing better to do... and as it turned out, I would have had a hard time finding anything better to do. Vanilla Sky is a frightening, sad and touching movie, actually one of the best I've seen in a while. I was surprised by how I was affected watching it. It's hard to explain, but during the movie your feelings towards the characters and your perception of what is going on changes and it's quite an emotional journey. Vanilla Sky really touched me in a way that is very rare for a movie, or any media for that matter.

I really recommend everyone to watch this movie. Regardless of what you have heard about it.
276 out of 327 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Why people dislike this movie...
udkyle4 December 2003
Warning: Spoilers
I for one really like this movie for some reasons I'll go into late but I want to touch on why I think people don't like it. First off, there are people out there who just like to hate Tom Cruise. I don't understand it really. Second, Cameron Crowe I think successfully p***es off two groups of movie-goers with this film. The casual, relaxed, "not looking to think too hard" group of movie-goers are left confused when the plot takes a complete 180 at the end of the movie. And the deep, philosophical, mystery-fans are devastated when Crowe has one of his characters completely explain the mystery.

This is a good movie. And Tom Cruise does a very good job in it. I think it's probably his best performance from what I've seen all though I haven't seen all of his movies, or even a majority of them probably. The supporting cast is good as well. Penelope Cruz gives a solid performance and Jason Lee was enjoyable.

I like the story, and I think that's what Vanilla Sky is more than anything. It's a mystery, an adventure, and a romantic comedy, but it's mostly just a good story. And it has a lot of philosophical undertones to it, and many similar ideas and stories like this occur in historical philosophy. David Aames (Cruise) is the man that had everything he wanted, more or less lost it, was given a second chance with a catch to regain it all back, and in the end facing his demons and the full scope of what is happening, chooses reality, simplicity, and normality to see if he can finally find the one thing he could never get a grip on: happiness.

Many people were disappointed that Crowe laid out the complete mystery at the end. I think it's necessary. The audience then knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that David is aware of his circumstances and it makes the choice at the end all the more powerful.

And the music in the movie is great. It's probably what makes the movie as enjoyable as it is. Particularly, "Njosnavelin" by Sigur Ros, which is an amazing song.

All in all, I'd give it 3 out 4 stars. It's a movie with some substance for those who like to think things through, and a great story for those looking to relax. That "moderate" approach is probably why people dislike it so much because it isn't a full blown mystery, or a full blown love story. It mixes and matches different elements and genres.
348 out of 445 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Engaging psychological tale
Danny_G1321 December 2003
Recently the BBC in UK held a poll for worst film ever, and while Titanic *won*, this came 4th. I just don't understand how anyone can dislike this movie...

Vanilla Sky is a dark psychological drama about dreams, reality and 'what might have been'.

Tom Cruise is Dave, a yuppie who has it all. He has a 51% stake in his father's company, therefore the majority shareholder, and constantly finds himself in a battle to main his control over the '7 dwarves' who make up the rest of the board. His personal life is a mess, with a shallow relationship with Julie (Cameron Diaz) the closest he gets to love, while his best friend Brian (Jason Lee) who adores Julie sticks by him regardless.

However, on holding a birthday party he's introduced to Sofia (The perfect Penelope Cruz) and falls instantly for her.

This is all very well but the plot is parallel to a side story of Dave wearing a white mask in a cell with Dr McCabe (Kurt Russell) who's accusing him of murder and wants to understand why it happened.

Dave begins on a journey to make sense of his life.

I admit there is a 'Hollywoody' feel to this film, and given it's a remake of a Mexican/Spanish original also featuring Penelope Cruz it's probably disappointing to purists. But only viewing this on its own terms I absolutely love this movie. It keeps you guessing, and the ending is very conclusive.

It may not be to everyone's taste, but I loved it.
128 out of 165 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Open Your Eyes
monk_venkman24 March 2004
Vanilla Sky is a 2001 remake of the great 1997 movie, Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes). And in my opinion, a much more human and emotional version. Tom Cruise plays David Aames, a selfish egomaniac who takes other people's emotions for granted, and thinks only of himself. Jason Lee plays Brian Shelby, David's best, and in many ways, only friend. Penelope Cruz plays Sofia Serrano, Brian's girlfriend whom accompanies him to David's birthday party. Cameron Diaz plays Julie Gianni, David's occasional bed buddy. Kurt Russell plays Dr. Curtis McCabe, a psychologist interviewing David. All of their interactions, and the consequences of them, make Vanilla Sky one of the most emotional, and complex thrillers ever made. I won't explain anymore of the plot, because it's far more compelling, the less you know. Ignore all people that call this film too confusing to follow. If you pay attention, you won't be confused. The film is very complex, but not confusing. And in my opinion, one of the best movies ever made.
270 out of 393 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Made me think
fallinginsane13 September 2004
"Vanilla Sky" was a wonderfully thought out movie. Or rather, "Abre Los Ojos" was well thought out. I watched that movie late one night, excited about what was to come. I wasn't disappointed. By the end of the movie, I was awstruck. I couldn't get it off my mind. The whole idea of it just blew me away. The ending, was more of a surprise than Shyamalan could ever do. The plot line was also something that kept me interesting through and through. The cast, superb. It was an all around wonderful movie. The kind of movie you can watch again and again and always find something new. I've seen it four or five times and I'm always finding something new. It's a movie to keep you interested forever.
135 out of 195 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
One of the Best of 2001
jhclues19 December 2001
How strange the human mind is; this center of activity wherein perceptions of reality are formed and stored, and in which one's view of the world hinges on the finely tuned functioning of the brain, this most delicate and intricate processor of all things sensory. And how much do we really know of it's inner-workings, of it's depth or capacity? What is it in the mind that allows us to discern between reality and a dream? Or can we? Perhaps our sense of reality is no more than an impression of what we actually see, like looking at a painting by Monet, in which the vanilla sky of his vision becomes our reality. It's a concept visited by filmmaker Cameron Crowe in his highly imaginative and consciousness-altering film, `Vanilla Sky,' starring Tom Cruise and Penelope Cruz. At the age of thirty-three, David Aames (Cruise) inherits a publishing empire left to him by his father. His fifty-one percent controlling interest, however, has made him something of a marked man, as there are seven members of his board of directors, and each deems himself more worthy than the young Mr. Aames of the lion's share of the company. And fueling the fires of discontent is their perception that David lacks the focus the job requires.

Admittedly, David likes to play; still, he's in control of the business and does what he sees fit, whether the board (he refers to them as the `Seven Dwarfs') likes it or not, and no one has ever had the courage to challenge him directly. But during a lavish birthday party in his honor, one of the corporate lawyers, Thomas Tipp (Timothy Spall) warns David that the seven are up to something behind his back. At the time, however, it's the last thing on David's mind; he's been having a casual affair with a friend, Julie Gianni (Cameron Diaz), but even that moves to the back burner when he meets a woman at his party that he can't get out of his mind. Her name is Sofia (Penelope Cruz), and after knowing her for only one night, she becomes a pivotal part of his life-- which is about to be turned upside down, as on the morning after his party he makes a decision that will change his life forever. And he is about to learn that sometimes, there is simply no going back.

Director Cameron Crowe has crafted and delivered much more than just another film with this one; far more than a movie, `Vanilla Sky' is a vision realized. Beginning with the first images that appear on screen, he presents a visually stunning experience that is both viscerally and cerebrally affecting. It's a mind-twisting mystery that will swallow you up and sweep you away; emotionally, it's a rush-- and it may leave you exhausted, because it requires some effort to stay with it. But it's worth it. Think `Memento' with a driving rock n' roll soundtrack and a vibrant assault of colors proffered by the stroke of an impressionist's brush. There's darkness and light, and sounds that pound and drive until you can feel the blood rushing through your veins and throbbing in your brain. And all played out on a landscape of virtual reality swirling beneath that ever expanding vanilla sky. Simply put, this one's a real trip; it's exciting-- and it's a mind bender.

As to the performances here, those who can't get past the mind-set of Tom Cruise as Maverick in `Top Gun,' or his Ethan Hunt in `Mission Impossible,' or those who perceive him only as a `movie star' rather than an actor, are going to have to think again in light of his work here. Because as David Aames, Cruise gives the best performance of his career, one that should check any doubts as to his ability as an actor at the door. He's made some interesting career choices the past few years, with films like `Magnolia' and `Eyes Wide Shut' merely warm-ups for the very real and complex character he creates here. And give him credit, too, for taking on a role that dispels any sense of vanity; this is Cruise as you've never seen him before. `Jerry Maguire' earned him an Oscar nomination, and this one should, also-- as well as the admiration and acclaim of his peers. Cruise is not just good in this movie, he is remarkable.

Penelope Cruz turns in an outstanding, if not exceptional performance, as well, as Sofia, the woman of David's dreams. There's an alluring innocence she brings to this role that works well for her character and makes her forthcoming and accessible, yet she lacks any hint of mystery that may have added that special `something extra' to the part. But Crowe knows how to get the best out of his actors, and he certainly did with Cruz.

He also knew what he was doing with Cameron Diaz, who is absolutely vibrant in the role of Julie. She's never looked better, and fairly sizzles on screen. But make no mistake, this is no `window-dressing' part, and Diaz delivers a complete package with this character. The quality of her performance can be measured, in fact, in the impact she makes with rather limited screen time. And it's the persona she integrates so fully with her innate beauty that makes Julie so unforgettable. Overall, a terrific job by Diaz.

The supporting cast includes Kurt Russell (Dr. McCabe), Jason Lee (Brian), Johnny Galecki (Peter), Armand Schultz (Dr. Pomerantz), Noah Taylor (Ed), Mel Thompson (`L.E.' Man), Jean Carol (Woman in New York) and John Fedevich (Silent Ed). About half-way through, this one may have you questioning your own sense of reality; but rest assured, by the end of `Vanilla Sky' all will be revealed. It's a reality-bender, to be sure, and a wild one; but this is exciting entertainment that offers a satisfying-- and unique-- experience, one you have to see to believe. It's the essential, and absolute, magic of the movies. 10/10.
208 out of 311 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Vanilla Sky is dream come true.
mindcraft-119 August 2006
I could not agree more with the quote "this is one of the best films ever made." If you think Vanilla Sky is simply a "re-make," you could not be more wrong. There is tremendous depth in this film: visually, musically, and emotionally.

Visually, because the film is soft and delicate at times (early scenes with Sofia) and at other times powerful and intense (Times Square, post-climactic scenes).

The music and sounds tie into this movie so perfectly. Without the music, the story is only half told. Nancy Wilson created an emotional, yet eclectic, score for the film which could not be more suitable for such a dream-like theme (although never released, I was able to get my hands on the original score for about $60. If you look hard, you may be able to find a copy yourself). Crowe's other musical selections, such as The Beach Boys, Josh Rouse, Spiritualized, Sigur Ros, the Monkees, etcetera etcetera, are also perfect fits for the film (Crowe has an ear for great music).

More importantly, the emotional themes in this film (i.e. love, sadness, regret) are very powerful, and are amplified tenfold by the visual and musical experience, as well as the ingenious dialogue; I admit, the elevator scene brings tears to my eyes time and time again.

The best part of this film however (as if it could get any better) is that it is so intelligently crafted such that each time you see the film, you will catch something new--so watch closely, and be prepared to think! Sure, a theme becomes obvious after the first or second watch, but there is always more to the story than you think.

This is easily Cameron Crowe's best work, and altogether a work of brilliance. Much of my film-making and musical inspiration comes from this work alone. It has honestly touched my life, as true art has a tendency of doing. It continually surprises me that there are many people that cannot appreciate this film for what it is (I guess to understand true art is an art itself).

Bottom line: Vanilla Sky is in a league of its own.
132 out of 194 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Sweet and Sour
belowzero87 December 2007
"The sweet is never as sweet without the sour." This quote was essentially the theme for the movie in my opinion. Tom Cruise plays a young man who was handed everything in his life. He takes things for granted and it comes around full swing in this great movie with a superb twist. This film will keep you engaged in the plot and unable to pause it to take a bathroom break.

Its a movie that really makes you step back and look at your life and how you live it. You cannot really appreciate the better things in life (the sweet), like love, until you have experienced the bad (the sour). The theme will really get you to "open your eyes".

Only complaint is that the movie gets very twisted at points and is hard to really understand. I think the end is perfect though. I recommend you watch it and see for yourself.
62 out of 87 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Vanilla sky all time movie
Bogdan Huleva26 November 2007
I'm from Romania i'll try to speak in English. All i want to say about this movie is that it is and will be my all time number one. Seen it above 30 times at least and will see it for many years now. It has all the little things i like in a movie , it's very touching makes me cry . Shows a whole lot of twisted love things and questions about love and reality , and the true things that matter for different people. It so happens that for me this matters the most , the love , the soul of a man , he's inner being, and this i see in this movie. Perhaps for me it's much more than a motion picture , it's a proof in my mind that it could really exist and that you most make the best out of every moment you live with your soul mate. It's a long way from reality to sci-fi , but .. what if. What if all the capitalism disappeared and economy would go down , would fall? We would all be concerned about other issues and my thought is that , on your death bed , the bigger thing you remember , is not the wealth , not the adventure , not the countries you visited and the people that remember you. But the true friends and your true love and the hope that after you die , all will be god damn perfect and people would be good and care more. WATCH THIS MOVIE and probably it will guide you through your life like it did to me :) Hail from Romania
102 out of 162 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
This is an ace film
InOne229 February 2006
This film is one of Tom Cruise's finest films. He captures the audiences imaginations with his role of David Aames. His character can relate to us all in some way.The story line is very clever and keeps the audience on edge throughout the whole film. I never really watched Cruise movies that much before but after seeing this it shows me his true talent. My favourite part in the movie is the end where it all comes to a big conclusion and he find out the truth. If you have not seen this yet you definitely should give it a try. It's one of those films that once you've started watching it you just got to see it until the end or it will keep you thinking and you will regret it. My opinion is you should just go buy it and take a risk thats what I did and it became one of my favourite films of all time. It's A* 10/10 I promise once you watch it, it will stick with you and you will like it forever.
118 out of 193 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Open your eyes and you will notice the mistakes
hellraiser4028 July 2002
Abre Los Ojos was a great film, with solid performances, haunting atmospherics and a unexpected, original ending. Vanilla Sky is the remake, a film that tries to copy Abre Los Ojos and fails rather miserably.

In fact, you can say it very simple : if you have only watched Vanilla Sky, than you're in for a movie that reaches some nice intellectual heights for an American movie with an original ending. But, if you see this movie and then see the original (or if you had already seen that one), Vanilla Sky suddenly becomes a quite lame movie. Which is a shame actually, because I like Tom Cruise and certainly because he has given the attention to Amenabar he deserves. Cruise has always been to me one of better actors in America. But Cruise should have known that the quality of the original could never have been injected in the remake. There are a lot of things which make the original better, but now I'm going to give the 3 main points why this movie is way underneath the original :

1)the performances : how hard Cruise tries, he never puts as much tragedy and quality in his role as Eduardo Noriega. But this goes for every actor here (also Cruz, who had a more sharp, vivid character in the original)

2)the approach : the original is more scary, leaves more to the imagination of the audience and has a better ending (yes, vanilla sky manages to remove some of the intensity of the original ending!!)

3)the music!!! : although the songs on their own are good (2 songs from my fave band REM), the music is just totally inappropriate and actually ruins some of the scenes. you know what i'm talking about when you can compare the 2 movies

therefore 1 advice : just go see Abre Los Ojos and wait until Vanilla Sky comes on television, late at night. Ironically, that's what the special featurette on the VHS edition suggests!!!
23 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
alexander_moskov9 November 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I've seen the movie a few times and every time it seemed better and made more sense. Unfortunately I happened to read some of the comments here and I'm absolutely surprised by the people who wrote them. Obviously their movie culture is so low that they can only appreciate movies like the matrix or Lord of the rings for example which although beautiful in terms of special effects lack any meaning whatsoever. Vanilla sky is a movie which tries to explain the human mind, why dreams turn into nightmares and in the end it is all about choice and making decisions. The characters are amazing. They look almost human. You can't say "this is the good guy". Well that's the way it is in real life anyway.

Tom Cruise's character is lost in his own dreams. After all,his life was a dream - handsome, young, rich....but as it often happens dreams do turn into nightmares because most of us lack the ability or the will to control them. And that I think is the message of the movie - you are the master of your own fate, the master of your own life and you (no one else) possess the power to control it. This is a movie about the "revolution of the mind", a movie about the freedom of choice and the fear to face an important decision.

The crew of the movie is also incredible. The actors (well at least most of them) do try hard to create the personality of their characters. The music is breathtaking. In many cases it is in absolute contrast with the events, just like in a dream and yet there is a strange symbiosis between the movie and the soundtrack. Just remember the scene where Tom Cruise killed Cruz and the song was "What if God was one of us" and I think you'll get the picture.

The end although a bit confusing at first is exactly in it's place - beneath the vanilla sky, the symbol of freedom. It is a logical end to the journey of Cruise's character trough his mind and fantasies - facing his greatest fear. He faces it not to fulfill his dream, but to escape from it and live a complete and real life.

The meaning of the movie is well hidden behind the car crash, the disformed Tom Cruise and the jumping scenes but if you watch really carefully and pay attention you will find much more to it than you expected. It's like the voice in the beginning and in the end is that of the director himself who is trying to tell the viewers to open there eyes. This is my advice to the people who watched "Vanilla sky" and didn't like it - Watch it again and OPEN YOUR EYES!!!!!!
68 out of 115 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An Intellectual, Frustrating and Alternative piece of film...
giancarlorocks15 December 2001
Warning: Spoilers
Times Square is already a sight to behold in itself with all the lights and sound, but imagine the world's most photographed tourist attraction silent. Cameron Crowe manages to shutdown Times Square and captures this magnificent site in what sets the tone for the most mind-bending, headache inducing, multifaceted frustrating film to hit theatres in quite a long time. Director Cameron Crowe adapts the haunting 1997 Spanish Film `Abre Los Ojos' and transforms it into an indescribably brilliant piece of entertainment in ‘Vanilla Sky'. This is not your typical Studio conformist film that will leave audiences with a sense of satisfaction, but rather with a sense of shock, interest, sadness, confusion and utter disbelief – simultaneously. Tom Cruise plays David Aames, a womanizing millionaire who becomes horribly disfigured after his obsessive lover (Cameron Diaz) decides to commit suicide by driving herself off a bridge - with him in the car. The crash creates a world where nothing is as it seems that has David ‘s story throw the viewers into one intellectual hurdle after another.

Note: the key word in the previous sentence was intellectual. If anyone expects a timid, bland conventional film, they will be disappointed. This is not a romantic film, nor a formulaic film. But it is an exercise into the intellectual psyche of our David Aames character as he plays back the sequences that lead to his arrest for a murder. As aforementioned, intellectualism is the key to this film. Viewers must enthral themselves into this film to appreciate its unique blend of flashback sequences, musical incorporation as only Crowe can do and mind-bending storytelling that throws you a curve at every unexpected turn. Before people begin to think that everyone will love this film, you must not make my words control your opinions. Many will completely dislike this film, in fact, I am sure only a minority will actually truly see this film for what it is. Not since David Fincher's 'Fight Club' has there been a film so ‘out there' that remains engrained within your thoughts long after the film and thus remains open to such misunderstandings. Cameron Crowe directs Cameron Diaz in a short; albeit juicy role, as Aames' jealous casual squeeze that begins to feel threatened at the appearance of Aames' interest in the mystical Sophia (Penelope Cruz). This emergence of interest between Aames and Sophia causes Diaz's character to spiral into a whirlwind of rage as the movie propels itself into a different stratosphere after the simple yet effectively shot car crash. If one were to study the acting within the film, the attention will be directed towards Cruise's performance as we get to see both sides of this womanizing yet desperately lonely figure who searches for something more.

And as audiences leave the theatre, they too will want something more. They will want answers. This film makes for hours of interesting debate and conversation as every scene can be meticulously deconstructed and analyzed as it culminates into one of the most absolutely twist endings in recent memory. Yet, that it is not to say that the film contains no imperfections. Crowe makes no secret of ‘shmaltzing' his way through pacing and character development in the film and making sure we fall for the wrong clues. Furthermore, he enjoys capturing his characters in their most brutal and defenceless moments. Also, Crowe wants to hammer the notion that our main character is not what he seems. Also, many might find the film pretentious for its slow pacing and tedious flashback story telling, which I myself found a turn off and took some time getting used, but one cannot deny the brilliance of the film. Without a doubt, many will criticize the film for its' ambitiousness that it might not have achieved according to some, but this is just too great of a character piece to dislike. It is haunting, it is disturbing and it is exquisitely filmed with some great moments of cinematography –notice NYC's archaic overhead shots, Bob Dylan's Album Cover brought to life and Cruise's fall to earth in the film's unravelling moments. Notwithstanding the film's frenetic back and forth storytelling, and it's over the top character development, this film must not go unwatched. See it for Cruise's performance, or see it for the direction, but see the film. This is a film that will leave many baffled throughout the entire third act, making us hang on every detail that may or may not unravel the film's explanation.

After viewing the film, many will feel let down or even mislead by its' seemingly surreal sci-fi ending which may turn on or turn off viewers. ‘Total Recall' may come to mind for those film buffs who really studied the film and understood it to its' fullest extent, yet ‘Vanilla Sky' will long not be forgotten as the film that even if one were to follow the tagline ‘Open Your Eyes', they still won't exactly know what the hell happened.

Giancarlo's Rating: ***1/2
71 out of 121 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
One of my Favorite Movies and Soundtracks!
Codeybear91119 April 2006
This movie consists of such great emotion especially with its outstanding soundtrack that coincides with the film. Tom Cruise is one of my favorite actors because of his enthusiasm to make films and to entertain. This movie was not the best the first time I watched it, but after about 3 more times I decided that this is one of the best films that I have ever seen. It takes place in New York, and progresses on through his lifestyle. He discovers a delimma in his life with his girlfriend (Diaz). He goes through a state of depression and then an outgoing blend of imagination. This film was beyond my expectations, and is one of Cruise's best films ever!
42 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
To me this movie is not about going insane at's much much more....
Sontaloso27 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This movie made a huge impact on me. When I saw it, and then saw it again numerous times on DVD, I was always very emotionally disturbed by the deep places the movie goes.

I never thought about Tom Cruise being an insane murderer, driven to extremes because of his guilt.

To me, the central message of the movie is that one moment in life, ONE moment, can change things forever. It's a life lesson that smacks you in the face like brick. For David, the one moment is that he has treated this girl like a toy, with no respect, and she's hurt by it, and in her rage and love for him, angrily tries to kill them both because it hurts too much. She can't stand being his love puppet any more. She WANTS to be taken seriously by him, but to David, she's just a toy.

And I absolutely love the way this movie weaves in modern technology as a possible way "out" of a bad reality that we have created for ourselves through our own rash decisions. It shows a potentially frightening future of being able to "live how we wanted to" after we die, through a prolonged filtered dream life.

To me, this movie is really a mix of techno future, drama, alternate reality, and maybe even slightly fantasy. Not at all a psychological thriller/murder mystery in the least! What happens between him and Sophia, or the supposed murder, is secondary to the central theme of trying to alter one's real life through suicide induced "after-life".

I see this as a kind of a "Heavy Metal" type graphic novel fantasy story, in which a young man who has a devastating accident and can no longer handle the loneliness and pain of living as a disfigured mutation in society. In desperation, he turns to prolonging his life after he commits suicide, and does it in a very haunting way, the "lucid dream" in which he can have whomever he wants as a lover, have whatever life he wants, or should have had if things had not gone so wrong.

I don't think that the tech support man at the end of the movie ruins fact I like that he explains what happened to David. To me the explanation makes the whole fabric of the story that much more haunting.

To me, the plot was actually pretty straightforward. And I personally feel that his life was completely real up until the point he committed suicide. At that point the company that froze his body switched on the "lucid dream option", which begins by Sophia accepting his disfigurement and picking him up off the street and taking him in(the point where David's life is over, and the lucid dream kicks in), and they fall in love all over again. What a lot of movie goers failed to grasp was that David was not DREAMING or hallucinating what he wanted in life while he was still alive....but that half of the movie actually takes place with him already dead.

And another thing that movie goers really failed to grasp onto....was that all that was really happening in the second half of the movie was what the tech guy said it was..a GLITCH! And I love that concept! That maybe the company hadn't worked out fully the technology of the lucid dream, and that things could go wrong in this death/dream state. That's why tech support had to go in and enter David's world just like another character.

I mean think about it...if you are already in a lucid dream state, the only way tech support could reach you is to enter your dream state and explain what is going wrong! I think of it like a very, very weird type of internet support, except YOU are the subject of tech, and the glitch is in your head.

So, for me this movie is a fantastic vision of the regrets we have in life, and the decisions that led up to those regrets, and...and what if.....what if we could actually have a way to take the consequences away, to take the pain away? That girl that slipped away? That job we didn't take? That thing we wanted to say, but never said before our father died? Make it all better? And, what if while we tried to do that, something went wrong with the technology? I just think that simple premise alone makes Vanilla Sky a haunting masterpiece.

Mike H.
12 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A Pale Representation of the Original
lasherxl24 September 2010
I was originally very curious about this film when it first came out because I loved the original, Abre Los Ojos was enthralling melodic and enchanting, and Vanilla sky tried very hard but it just kept missing the mark.

Even when you compare the amazing Penelope Cruz's two performances there was so much more in the first film. She had this sweet haunting eloquence that was not present in the latter. Then we come to Tom Cruise who can ofttimes be so hit and miss with his acting (yes I know this will earn me scorn, but its true), there are films he's done where he is brilliant, The Last Samurai, Born on the 4th of July. This felt like one of his more pedestrian performances, much could be said for Cameron Diaz in this as well.

Perhaps if I had not seen Abre Los Ojos my opinion of this would have been vastly different I really can't be sure, but it was sad for me because I desperately wanted to like this.
22 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Why bother?
DocFilm15 December 2006
A remake of Alejandro Amenabar's Abre los Ojos, but this time with a living, breathing mask as a lead. For the dubious advantage of an English sound track, we endure Tom Cruise's soulless performance, as usual, with zero depth. Yes, the character is identified with his persona, but we usually are given some character underneath that to hold our interest. His empty posturing negates any erotic energy that could have been between his character and Cruz or Diaz.

There is an acting exercise that involves using masks to free the actor to enrich his presentation of character by verbal and body language means. Cruise's masking only painfully emphasizes his inadequacy as an actor. Do see the 1997 original Amenabar Open Your Eyes!
36 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Joni's Clouds for Dummies
tedg16 December 2001
Spoilers herein.

I was prepared to not like this film; Crowe too consistently centers his vision on the cheap shot. And Cruise -- well, it is hard to be an intelligent actor when you're as dumb as a flagpole knob. I found my worst fears to be true, but also found some strong, really strong elements that make this worth watching.

First the bad. Most films are built on other films; some -- especially recently -- openly quote other films. Some of these are also in the category of films about constructed realities, and that's when things can get interesting: you go to a film to construct a reality for you, and the story is about constructing a reality. Often these fold with sophistication. But here they do this intrinsically intelligent thing in a fifth grade dumb way. Not Monet, but paint by the numbers.

The film is about fantasy love and deciding between lovers. Rather than quote 'Jules and Jim' on this in a light way as anyone else would: Crowe puts a floor-to-ceiling poster in Cruise's bedroom, then when a voice ('tech support') explains that the constructed images were taken from movies, we see an actual clip. Those of us who Crowe targets would immediately recognize the quote of Bob Dylan's most famous album cover. But instead of quoting it like Greenaway would use a famous painting, we are walked through it with chalk.

Patronizing. Embarrassing. Discouraging. Does he think we all move lips when reading?

But there are two really fascinating things. I believe that Crowe's imagination is based in popular music first, with the image to follow, and actors and story getting dragged in a matter of course. So the effect of the music is more powerful than any I recall. He deftly binds it, even having Cruise take up a song at one point. This is the deepest use of Dylan in a long time. For those of us that are Crowe's age, there is a cool take on the Beatles: in the late sixties, the game was that drugs could help you create your own reality. The Beatles provided three alternative worlds for you to choose. It really was a matter of pervasive discussion about choosing (or 'liking') John, Paul or George.

Once the topic comes up in the film, everything from there can be seen as making a choice. John would have stayed in fantasyland. George would have declared the whole thing irrelevant and opted out. Paul would have gone back to the 'real' world. The film ends with Paul's song. Now that's the kind of near-subtlety that's missing in the story at large.

The other thing is no small matter. It purely blew me away, using a cinematic effect I have never experienced before. The whole film is storytelling by reference; what is new is storytelling by direct reference to characters previously played by the cast!

Start with Alicia Witt and work outwards from the center. (Alicia was the receptionist at LE, named Libby who is the first person involved in the dream mechanics.) She played an identical, small center as the whorehouse pianist in 'Liebestraum' (get the name?), also as the fulcrum of folded visions.

Diaz played the shunned girlfriend in the last popular film dealing with constructed realities, 'Malkovich.' Russell plays Douglas playing the character who recreates the narrative. It is the complement of his role in 'Wonder Boys,' where he was the creator, but real; and a complement of a different sort of him in 'The Game,' where he was the target, not the creator. His work here and in 'Boys' are knowingly referential to his other roles. Very tight selfreferential acting. Kudos to him, it makes up for a whole previous life of selfindulgent frippery. (Made right by his finding his own film Latin love.)

And then there is Cruise himself. 'Eyes Wide Shut' is this very same movie (so Kubrick even said in reference to the Spanish original), but with no quarter given to the less astute viewer. How cool that he would come to this very much dumber version while his exwife went to something more elaborately and cinematic ally selfreferential in 'Moulin Rouge,' (a real thrill that should be seen right after either 'Eyes' or 'Little Voice').

And finally we have Cruz, whose reference is to an external movie of a different type: this same film. Except the original is more a film where this is a composite of films. She plays her role not in this film, but here in reference to there as if she herself was Jeanne Moreau. And if there ever was a case of films constructing reality, how sweet to have Tom and Penny fall in 'love.'
24 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I really liked this movie.
DJAkin22 February 2002
I saw this movie because I like Tom Cruise. I feel he is a terrific actor. I never know that Keith Campbell was the actor who was in the scenes where Tom wore a mask and interacted with Kurt Russell. Anyway, this movie is a love story intwined with some serious sci fi. Tom Cruise plays a cocky 30 something year old who falls for Penelope Cruise (no relation to Tom......yet). However, at one point Tom Cruise is in a horrible accident and must learn to live with his face all scarred up and disfigured. The twists turn like crazy after this. Jason Lee from DOGMA is superb as Tom's carefree friend. The acting is great, the music is wonderful and the photography is unbelievable. The end was criticized by many but I actually liked it. Yes, this movie does deliver the goods. 7 thumbs up!
17 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Worst Movie of the Year
jrm-33 January 2002
Warning: Spoilers
This was the worst movie I saw last year, and I saw some doozies (Corky Romano, Freddy Got Fingered...) That acting, directing, editing, and soundtrack to this film are all horrible. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Let's start with the plot. Normally, I enjoy somewhat confusing movies, whether they explain themselves in the end (Memento) or leave you wondering "Huh?" (Mulholland Falls). But THIS movie just made me angry.

First of all, Tom Cruise's character was an arrogant, cocky, rich kid that the audience immediately disliked. He used women, he never really worked all that hard, and everything in life had come easy for him. For the first 15 minutes, Tom Cruise simply walks around and flashes his annoying smile.

Then Penelope Cruz comes into the picture, and suddenly we're thrown into a confusing mess of a story. Is Cameron Diaz really dead? Is Penelope Cruz actually Cameron Diaz? Did Tom Cruise kill somebody? Did the Phantom of the Opera loan his mask to Tom Cruise? Did Kurt Russell suddenly forget his daughter's names? (If you think these questions are confusing, they're ACTUAL questions posed by the if you think they sound dumb then you must agree to stay away from this film!) The plot literally folds in on itself numerous times, but when it finally offers an answer to all the confusion, you just want to throw your popcorn at the screen and yell obscenities at the writers. The "explanation"--if you can call it that--is completely absurd.

Then we have the acting. I've never been so annoyed with Tom Cruise before in my life. He needs to stop playing over confident characters who are suddenly challenged a la Jerry McGuire, Maverick, etc.... After the accident that disfigures his face, Tom's acting takes a nosedive into bizarroland. Wearing a latex mask, he stalks around nightclubs, muttering about regaining his life, blah blah blah.... He must have had his eyes wide shut when he received this script. Then we have Penelope Cruz.... If she said "Open your Eyes!" one more time, I would have left the theatre. Her character was a cardboard figure that you couldn't possibly understand, and it never seemed clear why Cruise was so madly in love with her character. She seemed strange and stale to me. And Cameron "do you believe in God" Diaz....maybe it was just the writing, but her character was so filled with "crazy girlfriend" stereotypes--right down to the stalking scene at the party--that I cringed every time I saw her.

I could go on and on about the inappropriate soundtrack--why Radiohead and REM appear in a movie like this is beyond me--and they horrible editing (so quick and incomprehensible...Look! There's Cameron Diaz's face saying Boo! There's Penelope Cruz in a wedding dress on the bed! Did you miss that? Oh who cares!!!). Bottom line--if this review made no sense to you, then you have a small perception of what the film's like. Stay away from this movie!!!
32 out of 63 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Tommy Bolden23 July 2012
vanilla sky is one of the worst movies i have ever seen and I watched batman and robin and I watched hellraiser 5 and i have watched spider man 3. This movie is crap for the first time in my movie watching experience i can say i was honestly confused. I cant tell you what was going on i watched this movie three times and every time the confusion got worse and worse. Who is tom cruise really in love with Cameron diaz or the other girl. Is Kurt Russel real or not. I don't know what is going on. I don't even know why i even reviewed this im so confused about what i watched that i don't know how to review it. Someone please explain this movie to me.
17 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Good movie but suffers from the same minor problems as the original.
Boba_Fett113821 October 2005
The original "Abre los ojos" was a great but not perfect movie. It had a bit of a dragging beginning and especially middle-part. Unfortunately this remake suffers from the same problem and is even a bit worse with its dragging parts. In the first hour and an halve it's still mainly unclear where the movie is heading to and makes perhaps a bit of a pointless impression. Just like in the original, the ending compensates for this even though the ending for this movie isn't build up as a good and executed as in the original was the case.

Yes, it's a pointless remake. "Abre los ojos" is perfectly watchable for everyone. You don't have to be a fan of European cinema to enjoy that movie. The original is also just a tiny bit better but that doesn't mean that "Vanilla Sky" itself is a bad movie on its own. It has some great acting performances from Tom Cruise and especially Cameron Diaz in it. Quite honestly, I have never seen Diaz acting better in any other movie. Other well know actors in this movie are Penélope Cruz (who reprises her role from the original but she isn't halve as good in this movie as she was in the original.), Kurt Russell, Noah Taylor, Jason Lee and Timothy Spall with who Cruise later teamed up again for "The Last Samurai".

The atmosphere is good. New York is the perfect background for the movie its story. The story is good and surprising enough for everyone to enjoy even though at times it tries too hard to be confusing.

It's a good movie but you're still better of watching the original. Are the many difference between this movie its story and that of the original? Hardly, both movies are very similar with the story, sequences and even dialog. Still "Abre los ojos" is a better movie because it builds up the story and characters better and has a better, more powerful and surprising executed ending.

25 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Attractive Cast In A Shallow Film
Theo Robertson30 April 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I`ve never seen the Spanish movie ABRE LOS OJOS on which VANILLA SKY is based but do recall that everyone who has seen the original European movie destest this Hollywood remake . I will be honest in saying that I absolutely loved this version first time I saw it . In fact it came close to beating BLACK HAWK DOWN as my second favourite release from 2001 ( FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING being my outstanding favourite movie from that year ) but then when I saw it a second time I was far less impressed


Because the plot twist at the end this is not a movie that stands up to repeated viewing . In many ways it`s like watching a whodunnit where you know fine well who the murderer is which means all the suspense of working out what`s happening to Tom Cruise`s character has totally evaporated , it`s to all intents and purposes a one trick pony . It should also be pointed out that by 2001 the premise of this movie was starting to go stale since the central idea of TOTAL RECALL and THE MATRIX and its sequels have similar ideas , and watching it again I do get the impression that it`s a rather shallow film despite - Or because of - the director putting in a large amount of pop culture into the proceedings . I should also point out Tom Cruise seems to have a problem playing such a bitter and twisted character , yeah he was a revelation in BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY but can`t seem able to inject enough anger onto his on screen performance here

But no doubt a lot of women hired this on video simply because it starred Cruise . It`s not really fair that one man can be so good looking especially since the only film star this reviewer resembles is Gollum from THE TWO TOWERS . I can`t help also noticing that most of the comments from people who hate this movie are male . I honestly believe this comes down to wives watching this on video in the comfort of their home , dragging their husband to bed as soon as the closing credits start , making wild passionate love and screaming " TOM " at that most intimate climatic moment . Well Ive got a question for you ladies - Who do you think your husband was fantasizing about during that mind blowing sex session ? Was it Penelope Cruz or was it Cameron Diaz ?
15 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Yet another pointless remake.
ian-ward311 April 2005
If English speaking cinema-goers could learn how to read subtitles, we would be spared having to watch remakes of films that were made perfectly well in the first place. There is nothing particularly wrong with Crowe's version, and if it had been an original piece of work I would be hailing it as a challenging, left-field, atypical Hollywood product. However, comparison has to made with Amenabar's film, which in my opinion is superior in almost all aspects. The main protagonist of "abre los ojos", Cesar, is an unlikable character, whom it is difficult to warm to. Contrast this with Cruise's David, all of whose actions have some reason other than his being a spoilt playboy. Crowe, who is a filmmaker I admire, has lost all the ambiguity, and a good deal of the mystery, of the Spanish original. He spells out everything,as if a multiplex crowd could not be expected to draw its own conclusions, or even leave the theatre without any conclusion. I would compare this to "Donnie Darko", where the movie seemed so much better before everything was clarified on the DVD release. So my wish for Hollywood is to stop plundering other nations' film archives, and for English speakers to overcome their prejudices against movies in other languages.
29 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Raspberry Sky
Matthew_Capitano27 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
A plethora of fundamentally bumbling mistakes by director/writer Cameron Crowe destroys this remake of a Spanish film called "Abre Los Ojos", earning the film one big *RASPBERRY*.

Ridiculous casting, technical errors, and a general sloppiness in script and continuity, seemed not to bother Crowe - in fact, that appeared to be his plan here... to 'flip-flop' the storyline constantly, supposedly to keep the viewer 'guessing'. I don't know what the hell else he could have been trying to do. It sure wasn't to make a believable, or even coherent film. The overly familiar Kurt Russell as an enigmatic psychiatrist?... pffft. Crowe telegraphs all his punches, inconsistent as they are, with no basis for reality concerning the 'flip-flopping' element in the movie.

A total waste of time.
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews