Un ciel couleur vanille

Director Cameron Crowe strikes gold with an intelligent, erotic and frustrating romantic drama. This is one of those love or hate movies. I absolutely love it. Tom Cruise plays David Aames, a multi-millionaire that seems to have the whole world by the tail. Inheriting leadership of a multi-faceted publishing business at such a young age has not endeared him with the seven member board of directors. His womanizing is legendary and subject to much speculation. He is stalked by an obsessive lover(Cameron Diaz)and his life soon becomes very scrambled when he meets an attractive Penelope Cruz at his birthday party. The Diaz character gets fed up with competing for lover boy's affection and decides to commit suicide by driving off of a bridge with him in the car. Aames is left disfigured and charged with murder.

Whirlwind flashback sequences accompanied with a tremendous soundtrack pace this mind wrecking, nerve snarling, and confusing, but interesting piece of storytelling. Cruise is totally in control of his talents. This is one of his best performances. Miss Cruz is adequate and highly overrated. The perky, gorgeous Diaz is sexy and haunting. Kurt Russell is compassionate and strong as Dr. McCabe. Jason Lee is underrated and deserves kudos for his part as the best friend of the egotistical lead character that seems to always be there to be s**it on and humiliated.

The star studded soundtrack features music by R.E.M., Peter Gabriel, Jeff Buckley, Nancy Wilson, Bob Dylan and the haunting movie theme song "Vanilla Sky" by Sir Paul McCartney. This project also features the singing debut of Miss Diaz singing "I Fall Apart" written by Cameron Crowe and Nancy Wilson.

Like this one or not; understand this one or not...this movie will give you something to contemplate and more than enough to talk about.

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.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

From the point of view of pure cinema, it is quite impossible to make any review of this film: `Vanilla sky' is the carbon copy of the Spanish film `Abre los ojos,' translated practically verbatim, and with the only difference of a higher percentage of in-your-face special effects (including the typical never-ending fall from a building) that, if they don't add anything to the film, they certainly add a lot to the budget of Digital Domain, the company responsible for most of the special effects. What is left for us to do is to reflect on the meaning of such an operation. We can't honestly call it a remake because of the temporal closeness of its antecedent (Abre los ojos was released in 1997), and of the consequent lack of the `cultural distance' necessary to any reinterpretation operation. We can't call it an homage to a genre (a la Brain de Palma in `Blow Out,' just to make an example) because the referent is too specific, and the carbon copy quality of `Vanilla Sky' too evident.

So, what is left? The producers, obviously, believed that the story would appeal to the American public, for otherwise they wouldn't have spent a considerable amount of money filming it but, in this case, wouldn't have been simpler to release the original in AMC theaters around the country? The only explanation I can find, one that is rather insulting for the American public, is the following. Hollywood producers believe that the mainstream spectator will not see a film unless it falls completely within the expected (and very restricted, Hollywood canons). So, the setting has to be a familiar American setting (New York instead of Madrid) and there has to be the usual sprinkle of known American actors (Tom Cruise). But, most important, the dialog has an undefinable Hollywood quality: just the mix of witty, sad, and sugary to which Hollywood films have accustomed the American public.

This film, in other words, is an explicit insult: Hollywood is telling us that they got us so use to their style of crap that the only way for us to go see a film is to make it into crap.

What is truly sad is that they might be right: Vanilla Sky was a discrete success. On the other hand (and I quote Barnum paraphrasing Mencken): `Nobody ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the American public.'

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.

This movie was so divisive. People either loved it or despised it. You can either accept the ending or you can't. The movie really makes you think and wonder, "what's going on?" You are not always supposed to know what is going on. A lot of people do not want to have to think too much lol. Great movie, good soundtrack. I love rarely when movies change the way you listen to a song. Good Vibrations by the Beach Boys came across in the moment as so eerie, I still think of that now when i hear it. It is a movie that is definitely worth watching.