Vanilla Sky [Archive] - Movie Forums

Holden Pike

12-12-01, 10:05 PM

I don't think Cruise has ever done all that much to slip from. I actually think the guy can act, but he so rarely chooses roles that call for it.

Since Jerry Maguire he's only been in Eyes Wide Shut, Magnolia, Mission: Impossible 2 and now Vanilla Sky, followed by Minority Report in the first half of next year. Eyes Wide Shut took close to two solid years to shoot, so that ate up his time for most of 1997 and 1998.

The only performances I really respect Cruise for are Eyes Wide Shut, Magnolia, Rain Man, The Color of Money and Born on the Fourth of July. The rest has been varying degrees of fluff, either in what was required acting-wise and/or the overall film. His worst stuff, Days of Thunder, Cocktail, Far and Away, is just downright embarassing. And I find most of his blockbusters, stuff like Interview with the Vampire, Top Gun, and both Mission: Impossibles, to be dull Hollywood dreck.

But to each their own. I actually have pretty high expectations for Crowe's Vanilla Sky re-make and think it'll be a good challenge for Cruise, one I suspect he'll be up to.

Guy

12-12-01, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by Holden Pike
I don't think Cruise has ever done all that much to slip from. I actually think the guy can act, but he so rarely chooses roles that call for it.

Since Jerry Maguire he's only been in Eyes Wide Shut, Magnolia, Mission: Impossible 2 and now Vanilla Sky, followed by Minority Report in the first half of next year. Eyes Wide Shut took close to two solid years to shoot, so that ate up his time for most of 1997 and 1998.

The only performances I really respect Cruise for are Eyes Wide Shut, Magnolia, Rain Man, The Color of Money and Born on the Fourth of July. The rest has been varying degrees of fluff, either in what was required acting-wise and/or the overall film. His worst stuff, Days of Thunder, Cocktail, Far and Away, is just downright embarassing. And I find most of his blockbusters, stuff like Interview with the Vampire, Top Gun, and both Mission: Impossibles, to be dull Hollywood dreck.

But to each their own. I actually have pretty high expectations for Crowe's Vanilla Sky re-make and think it'll be a good challenge for Cruise, one I suspect he'll be up to.

how about jerry maguire? I thought that's one of his best performances

Holden Pike

12-12-01, 10:29 PM

I have some problems with Jerry Maguire, which I think is incredibly overrated. Cruise is fine in it I guess, but I wouldn't rank it with his very best work as an actor. I'd put it in that second tier, with The Firm and A Few Good Men. Not bad stuff from Cruise acting-wise, immesurably better than Cocktail and Days of Thunder, but not all he's capable of.

I definitely think Jerry Maguire is Cameron Crowe's weakest film (yes, I even like Singles much more). And whaddayaknow, it's by far his most successful too.

sadesdrk

12-12-01, 11:03 PM

I think he's come a long way. He could've have fallen by the wayside, in the sea of talentless, good-looking men, pool. He's hung in there though. I respect the guy, I find his career looking more and more promising each year.

spudracer

12-12-01, 11:23 PM

My dad watches Top Gun all the time, so I've grown to like it. My mom, loves Rain Man, so that movie is a fav of mine as well.

Cruise is a mediocre actor, so you can only expect mediocre things from him.

sadesdrk

12-12-01, 11:32 PM

He was perfect in A Few Good Men.

redbaron

12-14-01, 03:16 AM

While neither of them are great actresses, I'd rather see Jaime Pressly in Not Another Teen Movie this weekend over Penelope Cruz in Vanilla Sky. Cruz annoys the hell out of me and is reason enough for me NOT to see this movie. I'd rather laugh my *** off with Not Another Teen Movie and see Pressly in a tight cheerleader outfit.

sadesdrk

12-14-01, 03:23 AM

Any reason, with merit, why you don't like Cruz? I've got a few...do you? Or were you just lookin' for an outlet to talk about teens in cheerleading outfits?

Timing

12-14-01, 05:05 PM

So anyone see it yet? Looks like I won't be able to get to the theater today. :bawling: I thought the Royal Tenenbaums opened today but it's not playing. Grrr....

OG-

12-14-01, 09:12 PM

Saw it today.

I. Am. Speechless.

I am with out speach. The movie was brilliant. It was beautiful. It was warm. It was fuzzy. It was creepy. It was loving. It was hatefull. It was perfect.

I will say nothing more, see it with a clear state of mind, and you will be happy for the rest of the day.

I sat in my friend Grants car for 45 minutes after the movie, eating checkers and listening to soundtrack (I bought it immediately afterwards) and just remembering the movie. I strongly, and I can't stress strongly enough, consider this to be one of, if not the, best movies of all time. If your still reading this your obviously a fool for you should be reaching for your keys and on the way to buy your ticket.

To put it simply enough; WOW!

The Silver Bullet

12-14-01, 09:29 PM

Sigh.

Anyone know when it's released in Australia?

OG, Oscar wise, what are you thinking?

OG-

12-14-01, 09:36 PM

Deffinetely nods all over the place. Best Screenplay adaption, possibly best actor (Cruise did a good job). Lee did an excellent job as always. Best Picture nom no doubt. It truly deserves it, IMO.

I thought Requiem For a Dream was quite possibly the best movie I have ever seen, but now I'm not so sure anymore.

Yoda

12-14-01, 10:03 PM

I haven't seen "Vanilla Sky," but I don't think anything will convince me that it deserves a "Best Adapted Screenplay" nod over Harry Potter...let alone LOTR, in all it's guaranteed glory.

Holden Pike

12-14-01, 10:14 PM

I liked Vanilla Sky, but I have to raise my purist head and admit the original Spanish film was better, even with a smaller budget and no wall-to-wall pop music.

Crowe did an admirable job in adapting the movie, wisely not changing ANY of the substantial details. There are cosmetic changes, but even a relatively few of those. I still don't think the movie needed to be re-made in any way, but Crowe did it as well as can be done.

As for Oscars, the only thing you can tell for sure is that you can never tell. I don't know that the Hollywood establishment will "get" the movie enough to raise it to the level of Oscar nominee. After all, this is the same voting body that just gave the top honor to frippin' Gladiator in March. Taxing their brains and going out on a limb is not what they're collectively known for. Cameron Crowe will likely get the screenplay nomination, and Tom Cruise as actor has a very good shot, but otherwise I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. But time will tell.

I'd grade the original Open Your Eyes (1997) an A-, and Vanilla Sky (2001) a B.

Steve

12-15-01, 12:18 PM

WOW! :eek: :eek:

I saw this movie at 7:20 last night, and was blown the f--k away. Then I watched it again at 9:40. I couldn't say a word. Only this morning can I even think clearly again - I dreamt about it all night. It is a revelation, a masterpiece, one of the most beautiful, experiences I can remember having. This is a movie everybody should see twice - first to be blown away, second to be heartbroken. I love it so much. I would NEVER have expected Vanilla Sky to be made by a Hollywood studio...this movie spits in the face of Hollywood assembly-line crap like The Mummy Returns, & requires so much more emotional involvement than the garbage infesting the multiplexes. Last night after the second showing, a woman outside the theater called it "icky". I wanted to scream at her and shout in her face and shake her by her shoulders. Movies like Vanilla Sky are why I love the movies.

Yoda

12-15-01, 01:26 PM

You love the movie, great...more power to you. Congratulations on finding someone you enjoy so much...but don't start talking smack about mindless action flicks, as if they're worthless, because they're not. "The Mummy Returns" was pure action and adventure. That's what it promised, and it delivered on that promise. It's not crap. An "assembly line" is not always a bad thing, either.

Timing

12-15-01, 01:42 PM

Yeah... what he said. :cool:

mecurdius

12-15-01, 04:54 PM

a damn good movie.

definatley best actress cameron diaz.

spoilerz: do not read if havnt seen this movie or i will cause inrepairible damage to your soul

the reason i didnt really like the end is it was to open for possibility, i mean it was great ending, but what really happened?
DONT READ I SWEAR IF U HAVN'T SEEN THIS!
i think that he was in a coma until the accident an woke up at the very end. OR everything they said happened in the ilicit dream actually did OR he died in the very end.

Yoda

12-15-01, 04:56 PM

I edited your post to include the spoilers tag...please use it next time, it's the best way to display them. I think I caught some of the spoiler anyway, but I'll live. :)

Holden Pike

12-15-01, 05:55 PM

Mecurdius...

The ending wasn't all that open to possibility. He had to choose, whether to continue the dream with a patch that would supposedly fix the nightmare aspects of his subconscious, or be thawed out in the 'present' (which is far into the future) to start a new but 'real' life. When he jumps off the roof that means he chooses reality over a dream, a "patched" one or not. He didn't die, he lived.

The "Tech Support" is telling him nothing but truths. He isn't a lie or a dream. Or at least I don't think he's supposed to be. In the context of the movie we realize of course everything could conceivably be a dream, but unlike all the other post-accident scenarios he experiences, the cryonic lucid dream is the only one that doesn't have gaps of logic and time in it.

The last line over darkness after the fall, "Open your eyes" is not Sofia or Julie's voice. So either it's a simple little ironic wink at the end that he would be brought out of his lucid dream and frozen state with the same words as his dreamlives, or he's "waking" to yet another dream with a completely different girl and his nightmare is continuing.

Either way, I don't think he's "dead", unless you really want to stretch the interpretation and make his "dreams" his afterlife. The implication of the ending, as is, is that he chooses an uncertain life in a world he doesn't know rather than continue variations on this one.

I don't think there's any evidence in the film to support that the "Tech Suport" was also a dream. It can be interpreted that way, but I don't think that's what the film is asking you to do.

This is all explained fairly clearly in the movie, though since I've seen the original film so many times I already knew and formed an understanding of what was happeneing before it happened. But thinking back a few years, I'm sure I "got it" the first time I watched Open Your Eyes too.

Anyway, it's worth seeing again to figure it out for yourself.

Yoda

12-15-01, 05:59 PM

Hope you don't mind, Holden: I had to edit your bbCode there. It doesn't allow for nested bbCode, I don't think. The apostrophe was causing problems, so I had to take it out. You can try the italics again, though...they might have been inconsequential. All this post editing has spoiled a little bit of it for me, I think. Could you tell me if the below is basically correct?

I didn't read the spoilers on purpose (it just happens), but I caught enough to discern that there's some issue as to whether or not he dies at the end. Is this true?

Holden Pike

12-15-01, 06:03 PM

Yeah, OK, I get how the "spoilers" work now, ignore my latest PM. I should've guessed it wouldn't allow for anything fancy in that little tagline.

And Commish, the ending is more complicated than what you're asking above. The answer is yes, kind of, but that's only part of it.

OG-

12-15-01, 06:54 PM

I am frecking beaming from this movie. I keep listening to the soundtrack and remember it, basking in its glory. I'm gonna have to go see it again tonight.

However, it makes me sad that TWT read part of the spoiler, for this is a movie that should have NOTHING about it spoiled. God I love this movie. If this could be physically manifested into a person, I'd make love to it for it is one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen.:)

Steve

12-15-01, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by TWTCommish
You love the movie, great...more power to you. Congratulations on finding someone you enjoy so much...but don't start talking smack about mindless action flicks, as if they're worthless, because they're not. "The Mummy Returns" was pure action and adventure. That's what it promised, and it delivered on that promise. It's not crap. An "assembly line" is not always a bad thing, either.

By assembly line, I mean turning out the same thing, over and over. For me, "assembly line" movies are a very bad thing - what's the point of even going if you're going to see the exact same thing over and over? 'S all I meant.

And sure, mindless action movies can be fun, BUT only when they bring something new to the table. I've seen enough people shot in the head by a crusading hero (who is NEVER shot himself) to last my lifetime. Same thing for winning-team sports movies. However, show me a movie with pretty pictures that doesn't trump itself up, like Tomb Raider, and I can like it. Or a "sports" movie that's not about winning, but about feelings, like He Got Game.

OG-

12-15-01, 07:14 PM

Who cares? Vanilla Sky= my new lover!:)

Yoda

12-15-01, 07:18 PM

By assembly line, I mean turning out the same thing, over and over. For me, "assembly line" movies are a very bad thing - what's the point of even going if you're going to see the exact same thing over and over? 'S all I meant.
It's not the exact same thing. It's just something similar. Sometimes that hits the spot just right. "Rush Hour 2" was pretty much just "Rush Hour" all over again, with a few more cool Chan tricks. That does not automatically make it a bad movie. I must disagree with the notion that a movie has to be anything near significantly original to be good.

And sure, mindless action movies can be fun, BUT only when they bring something new to the table. I've seen enough people shot in the head by a crusading hero (who is NEVER shot himself) to last my lifetime. Same thing for winning-team sports movies. However, show me a movie with pretty pictures that doesn't trump itself up, like Tomb Raider, and I can like it. Or a "sports" movie that's not about winning, but about feelings, like He Got Game.
"He Got Game" was no sports movie, IMO.

Steve

12-15-01, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by TWTCommish

It's not the exact same thing. It's just something similar. Sometimes that hits the spot just right. "Rush Hour 2" was pretty much just "Rush Hour" all over again, with a few more cool Chan tricks. That does not automatically make it a bad movie. I must disagree with the notion that a movie has to be anything near significantly original to be good.

"He Got Game" was no sports movie, IMO.

I guess I see the difference between us - I like movies that attempt originality much more than movies content to live into cliches and overworn plot mechanisms. I'm not saying that you don't like original movies, of course, but you don't seem to get tired of watching things that aren't original. I do. Neither of us is right, or maybe we're both right. I don't know.

He Got Game - fair point.

Yoda

12-15-01, 07:31 PM

Oh, I can get tired of them. Movies that have nothing but gunfights bore me. Why? Not because gunfights have been done before, so much as because gunfights almost always bore me...they have as long as I can remember. In one way, some of these movies that try to make you think can be said to be unoriginal...some are just there to mess with you...which isn't very original, IMO. I'm not saying "Vanilla Sky" is like that (I haven't seen it yet), but true originality is pretty hard to find, even in films that seem to offer something new, IMO. I imagine that 99% of the movies in wide release are something old updated and mixed with something somewhat new.

OG-

12-15-01, 07:36 PM

Well I'm going to go see it again right now, you better get Mark to go Steve!

But my friend Cody is taking me, and he's not the bestestes driver ever, so I hope I don't die. But I'm taking the risk, Vanilla Sky is worth it.:D

Timing

12-15-01, 07:40 PM

Well, well, saw the movie today. Hardly the best movie I've seen this month much less this year or any year.

It was like an episode of the Outer Limits disguised as a motion picture. We had a perfectly fine love story/mystery thing going on and then we sink into a weirdo sci-fi movie.
Soundtrack was great though, it really rocked. I can't recall seeing Penelope Cruz in much but I really dug her. Something else that bugged me about the movie was some of the cussing early in the movie. F-buddy and F'ed me 4 times. I thought that was pretty crude and not necessary for this movie.

I guess a few observations, when Cruise gets his faced fixed I knew there was something screwed up. Fixing that mess is not possible. Also, there is a scene where Cruz and Cruise are walking down a snowy street and on the left there is an old VW van and on the right a really really old car. That was another tip that something goofy was going on.

Steve

12-15-01, 07:41 PM

Well, Vanilla Sky isn't original, I guess. I haven't seen the movie it was based on yet, and I don't know how much it stole from it, but if it's a remake obviously it won't be completely original. But then again, it's not like any other movie I've seen before, and especially not like any other Hollywood movie in recent memory, except maybe A.I.. I see too many Hollywood movies that immediately jump into a sea of cliches; Vanilla Sky isn't like that. For me, it connected.

Yoda

12-15-01, 07:56 PM

Timing: please use the spoilers tag...it's much more efficient, and as the tag is expanded, you'll be glad you did, most likely. :) I understand, Steve: it just hit the right spot with you. I can appreciate that...maybe my deal is that MOVIES hit the right spot with me, and I don't mind seeing the same thing slightly modified as a result. I honestly can't say.

Holden Pike

12-15-01, 08:09 PM

Steve, Vanilla Sky is a straight re-make of Open Your Eyes (1997, Spain). I mean COMPLETELY straight. Nothing important is changed at all. There are cosmetic changes, such as the main character's occupation and moving the setting to Manhattan, but otherwise it is very much the same film. Crowe changed almost nothing. Penelope Cruz even played the same role of Sofia in the original.

Yoda

12-15-01, 08:34 PM

However, it makes me sad that TWT read part of the spoiler, for this is a movie that should have NOTHING about it spoiled.
Don't feel bad, I don't plan to see it in the theater, and I'm not terribly excited about seeing it at all. I may throw in the towel now that I've already got a basic idea about it all, and just read all the spoilers. My mind's already all set for certain types of twists anyway.

Guy

12-15-01, 11:02 PM

I saw it tonight.. real good stuff.. I'd nominate it for Best Cinematography, Best Actor (Leading), and best adapted screenplay ... depending on how the other contenders this month turn out it should get some best picture consideration!

I'm still confused as to what happened.

so cameron diaz drove him off the bridge, she died and he scarred his face? So how come some shots showed Diaz with a scarred face?.. also, in his 'dream world' he killed Sophia (Cruz) thinking it was Julie (Diaz), and that is why he's charged for murder? was his face scarred at all in the dream world or what? was anyone as confused as I am at the end? i have to read more about it

Yoda

12-15-01, 11:05 PM

People, people: PLEASE use the spoiler tag...that's what it's there for. :)

OG-

12-15-01, 11:22 PM

Well, got shafted tonight. First time ever from the movie theater I always rely on. You know what Hoyts Cinema 14 of Manassas "EAT MY ******* ****!!!!"

Oh well, Saw Shallow Hal, not too bad. But I feel empty having not seen Vanilla Sky again.:(

Hey, how do you use spoiler tags so I can talk about Vanilla Sky?

Yoda

12-15-01, 11:26 PM

Like this (curly braces in place of brackets):

{spoilers=Movie Name}The butler did it.{/spoilers}

Oh, and as much as it ticks you off, I don't blame them for enforcing the restrictions...they're getting cracked down on heavily, I imagine, and until we have a more advanced rating system in place, it's the only way they can reasonably do things.

Holden Pike

12-15-01, 11:42 PM

Guy...

I don't remember any shots where tha Cameron Diaz character's face was scarred. Do you mean in the photos the Kurt Russell character showed him? That was after he tied her up and beat her, asking what had happened to Sofia.

Basically everything up to the point where David Aames falls asleep drunk in the street, the night he met them at the club and fears Sofia and Brian (Jason Lee) have met together romantically, everything up to that point is "real", it happened. Everything that happens after that point in the timeline is false, it only happened in his dreams.

In his dream scenarios yes, he is being held for murdering Sofia, who he kept confusing with Julie Gianni. But no, he didn't really kill either one of them. Julie died in the car accident, and he never saw Sofia again after the club.

David's face was really scarred in the accident. In his dream worlds it is sometimes repaired, sometimes not, but in "reality" what happened is he went home and became increasingly depressed, eventually comitting suicide by taking pills. Before he killed himself he hired the cryonics company. His body was found in time to freeze him, place him in a state of suspended animation. His face is still badly scarred and he's probably full of poison too, but he's frozen.

In this frozen state he has paid extra to have the "lucid dream" option, which when it works properly gives the suspended person the illusion that their life has continued onward. Because of the guilt and pain in his subconscious mind, guilt over how he treated Julie and the desicion he made that prevented him from having what potentially could have been a wonderful relationship with Sofia, his lucid dream has turned into a nightmare, one where he is on trial for killing Sofia/Julie.

In the end, one of the faces he's seen throughout his dreams is revealed to be "Tech Support", part of a program that can interact with him during his lucid dream apart from any script David is playing for himself. When the "Tech Support" finally confronts him and takes him to the roof, he explains the situation. It is over one-hundred years in the future now. There are technologies avilable that will really repair the physical damage from the car accident (and his subsequent suicide attempt).

He is given two options. One is he can stay in the lucid dreamworld, with a promise that the program will work better now, it won't be a nightmare, and he'll have no memory of the nightmares - basically he can have the Sofia he always dreamed of, without the negatives. It will seem real, but it will only be a dream. The second option is to come out of the lucid dream program, be healed in the present (which is far into the future), and have a chance at new experiences and a 'reality' that is unknown. Rather than stay, he jumps off the roof, signaling that he is done with the program and wants to return to reality, even though Sofia won't be there.

Again, all of this is explained in the ending. Watch it again (or go rent the original film, Open Your Eyes).

OG-

12-15-01, 11:50 PM

It's exactly as Holden said. He simply extended his life because he couldn't face the truth. Anything in the movie, past the crash, that changed was a figment of his immagination. Anything before was real. In the end, he chooses to be reawakened in real life.

Chris, I see why they did it, but I'm still just as angry.:furious: I did have a good laugh out of making fun of them though:

Chic at the counter:"It is the policy of Hoyts to NEVER sell tickets to an R rated movie to a person under the age of 17"

Me:"Really?"(pulled out my ticket stub from last night, and the last 5 movies I've seen, all rated R)

She got really embarassed, and just goes: "Look I'm really sorry, but please don't give me any ****, its just my job."

At that point I felt sorry, but still!!! I was pissed!!!:furious:

Holden Pike

12-15-01, 11:55 PM

OG, you were denied access to an R-rated film? Back in the go-go '80s, I don't think my friends and I were EVER turned away. I walked up and bought a ticket for To Live & Die in L.A. when I was fifteen, man...and that movie was fairly hard-core for its day. It's probably why I'm so screwed up now.
:D

Must have ben parental complaints recently at that location, Boy-o. But I think that's also what you get for livin' in conservative By-God-Virginia. It sucks bein' a kid sometimes. But hey, look at it this way: this is the last time in your life you'll be able to fondle sixteen-year-old girls without the penalty of jail. Live it up while you can, my brutha.
;D

And it all becomes clear now: you just want to see a movie with me so I can get you tickets to R-rated flicks, yeah? OK, but I am NOT buying you guys cigarettes and beer.
;)

OG-

12-16-01, 12:01 AM

Yea. It was the first time I've ever been turned away at the theater. I've been denied buying movies, like Ghost Dog and Requiem For a Dream, all from the same person though. Usually the theater is very cool about, I look older than I am (16), but tonight they weren't being too hip about it.:(

But hey, look at it this way: this is the last time in your life you'll be able to fondle sixteen-year-old girls without the penalty of jail. Live it up while you can, my brutha.
;) True. True.:p

Lol, nah thats not the reason Holden.:p I just need an excuse to go into D.C. with someone other than Steve and Mark!:D

Guy

12-16-01, 12:02 AM

how come in the beginning, sophia is saying open your eyes when he hasn't met her yet? then cruise gets in his car and new york is completely empty.. what's that all about? is that saying that he was dreaming the whole time?

Holden Pike

12-16-01, 12:11 AM

GUY, put those kinds of comments in [SPOILER] tags! As was already explained once in the thread, to make those spoiler boxes appear, do it like this...

[ spoilers=Vanilla Sky ]
Type out the comment.
[ /spoilers ]

Do it just like I have above, the only difference is don't put a space between the brackets and the words inside them.

*Good. Looks like you've got the hang of it now. :yup:

As was discussed a bit earlier in the thread...

You can interpret the very, very end of the movie - the dark screen after he jumps and the line "Open your eyes" - as meaning even the "Tech Support" guy was only a dream, that no matter what he does, in a Groundhog Day kind of way he'll keep waking up in this dream no matter what, whether it is a lucid dream he paid for or just what his mind is doing to him.

I don't think that interpretation is supported in the film, but you CAN look at it that way if you want. But then EVERYthing could be a dream, even the accident and his life before he met Sofia. I don't think that's what the film is saying.

Guy

12-16-01, 12:20 AM

how about the beginning though, where it is showing overhead shots of new york then penelope cruz's voice says open your eyes and tom cruise (who doesn't even know her yet) wakes up and goes through his routine to see New York empty -- then wakes up again.

Holden Pike

12-16-01, 12:36 AM

I think that's making it a little more complicated than necessary, or even logical...

Right, well we see Kurt Russell's character and that interrogation room well before the accident too. The context of that opening sequence with the empty streets is he's telling the court-appointed shrink (Russell) about his dreams. But Russell and the upcoming murder trial are part of that dream too, David just doesn't know it yet. Unlike some of the other sequences, the empty streets is obviously a dream.

Waking up to basically the same series of events again, but this time with people and the stuff with his job and the birthday party, that doesn't mean that it too is all a dream. Like the last line of the film, you CAN interpret it that way. But if EVERYthing in the movie is a dream, there is no beginning, no characters, and who is dreaming this anyway? If you take the position that every single part is a dream, including the stuff that happens in the timeline before the car accident, then we never ever see any reality, and we never know who is dreaming. What would the point of that be? It doesn't make sense, from a narrative point-of-view.

The movie has an internal logic, just follow it and go where it takes you.

Guy

12-16-01, 12:50 AM

another thing.. the elevator guy said they met 100 years earlier.. that would mean david was living his 'dream' life for about 100 years or so, but how is that possible if the dream murder and his self discovery was definately not many years after the accident.

Holden Pike

12-16-01, 01:04 AM

This is an easy one...

Because he's been dreaming, obviously, and the same rules of time and space do not apply.

In his head, very little time has passed. But in real time, for many, many years he has wrestled with these same themes over and over again, but always without fully remembering his suicide or the contract to extend his life via cryonics.

The timeline in reality is this...
David wakes up with Julie Gianni, he goes to work, he has the party and meets Sofia, he takes Sofia home and falls in love with her without consumating physically, Julie meets him in the morning, he gets in the car, they crash, Julie dies and David lives though scarred in his face and arm, David is depressed and withdraws from the business and life, he meets Sofia and Brian at the club, he passes out in the street. It isn't ever said exactly when finds the company on the internet he then goes to Life Extension, but he does so sometime after the incident at the club. He signs the contract, he and the fat lawyer fight for control of the company, they win, David is still depressed about losing the opportunity with Sofia, his frustration that there isn't currently a medical procedure that will repair him, and his continuing guilt over Julie's death. So, he takes pills and tries to kill himself. He is taken to the cryonics institute in a coma, they freeze him and start the dream programs.

We are told the splice from reality to his dream was put in after falling asleep drunk in the street. Stuff really happened to him after that (most importantly signing the contract and his suicide attempt), but because of the program he isn't supposed to remember those types of things, thus the splice. He doesn't remember them for many years, until these events and his subconscious start invading the dreams and turning hem into nightmares.

Over one-hundred years pass in real time before he finally works all of this out in his lucid dreaming. When he finally does, he is given a choice to continue with dreams or be brought back to an uncertain reality where he can be finally cured physically. He chooses life. The end.

EVERYTHING else that happens is a dream.

Got it?

RoadRunner

12-20-01, 01:52 PM

It will be nice to get the DVD and here what Crowe has to say about all of it. I really liked the commentary by the guy who did The 6th Sense and Unbreakable.

Yoda

12-20-01, 01:56 PM

M. Night Shymalan is the dude, I believe, and yeah, I like the tone of his films, and the meaning behind them. The "Unbreakable" DVD is awesome.

ryanpaige

12-23-01, 02:31 AM

Saw it today and didn't like it as much as I had hoped I would.

While the style was somewhat more original than we often see, the story itself wasn't what I would call original (not even accounting for the fact that it is a remake). Didn't find the ending to be all that unpredictable, either. I guess I just expected more. I also felt some scenes dragged a little bit, especially the scene on the roof.

What was the significance, if any, of the Inspection Sticker on Cruise's Mustang having the date 2/30/01? Or was that just one of those things that gets stuck in that doesn't mean anything

I thought Tom Cruise did a very good acting job, and I liked Penelope Cruz more than I expect to. Jason Lee was greatness, of course. I can't quibble with any of the acting performances, and the movie was stylistically and cinematically very well done. I just found the story a little too much like several things I've seen before.

The Silver Bullet

12-28-01, 07:16 PM

Well, I too have seen it.

What are with the bad reviews? No one got it, of course. Oscars? No. Why? No "contemporary" people will get it. Is this fair? No, no it wasn't. Why? Because it was an extremley brilliant look at a way to make a film.

Everything makes sense, and I get it, and so I won't join in the "explain this" stuff....

The highlight, was of course, the soundtrack. Crowe is a genius with his music. The scene in the L.E lobby with "Good Vibrations" playing -- that was gold, and could have been the end of the film in my own opinion. I was expecting it to end and I would have loved it. They through Taylor in there just to make the people who like nicer endings which explain stuff there. If it had ended in the lobby I would have been pleased to guess about what happened for days. The music and the composition between it and the images are always a seemingly easy thing for Crowe, and this film was no exception.

I normally hate Cruise, but he did well for me. I am not a fan of Cruz, just everything about her makes me want to vomit. But not here. She did well, and won hearts -- of course the show belongs to Diaz and Lee acting wise, but I don't think otherwise. The acting was very understated. It wasn't THAT important to the film. It was about what conclusions you were making in your own mind the entire time.

The moment it ended, the woman behind me said -- really loudly -- "What the hell?!". But I sat there a moment and then walked out with the impression that I had scene a few different short films about the one story that peiced together to create something that both left you confused, but not confused. Each section of the film had it's own genre and feel [which some have hated] but it gave to me, a moasaic feel, walking through an art gallery, seeing a bunch of different paintings of the same man done in different styles, one for each stage of his life -- a bunch of seemingly different pictures of the same man, that told a story.

That is what "Vanilla Sky" was for me.

Yoda

12-28-01, 09:04 PM

Still haven't seen this. I took the plunge and let a friend tell me a bit about the ending. Sounds absolutely ridiculous. :D

ryanpaige

12-29-01, 02:35 AM

Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
What are with the bad reviews? No one got it, of course. Oscars? No. Why? No "contemporary" people will get it. Is this fair? No, no it wasn't. Why? Because it was an extremley brilliant look at a way to make a film.

Everything makes sense, and I get it, and so I won't join in the "explain this" stuff....

I got it just fine. People can understand it just fine and still not like it. It made perfect sense to me (other than the question about the non-existant date on the inspection sticker, but that may well mean nothing at all). I just didn't like it.

Yoda

12-29-01, 04:27 AM

I agree, Ryan: why is it that, everytime some supposedly "deep," involving film comes along, there are always those who like it, and say that all who didn't like it must "need everything fed to them" or "didn't get it." I'll sum up my thoughts on such movies for ya'll, though (the spoilers below are POTENTIAL...I haven't seen the movie):

if there's some big twist that makes sense, well, great...but it's truly a cop-out if a film builds up to a conclusion for over 90 minutes, and just pulls something out of a magic hat to tie up all plot holes with a "ha, it was all a dream!" type of explanation, then more often than not, I'm going to be p*ssed.

Holden Pike

12-29-01, 11:24 AM

As you properly said, Commish, you haven't seen the movie. The ending is not a "cop out", the entire film is constructed meticulously.

I wouldn't say that anyone who doesn't like Vanilla Sky didn't "get" it. But I would say people who yell out "What the Hell?!?" when the credits roll, no, they probably did not "get" it.

The flick explains itself very clearly at the end, I'm not sure why so many audiences are confounded by it.

Yoda

12-29-01, 01:30 PM

Well, I'm not going to fully judge "Vanilly Sky" if I haven't seen it, but if what I've heard is true, then it does, indeed, sound like a very frustrating ending. I wouldn't say that someone yelling "What the hell?" doesn't get it, either; they may not, but just as likely, I think, would be that they simply couldn't believe that they'd try to pass that off as an ending. Someone yelled "What the hell?" (or something similar...I forget the specifics) at the end of "Hannibal," even though I'm sure they "got it" well enough.

Holden Pike

12-29-01, 04:01 PM

Again, you haven't seen it, so perhaps you don't really know what you're talking about?

The ending is NOT a cop-out. You're just going to have to trust me on that until you actually see it for yourself. This isn't Boxing Helena, this is more akin to Memento. That screen goes black at the end and many people not used to non-linear, complex narratives are gong to say "What the Hell?", especially if they came in expecting to see Jerry Maguire 2. The ending is the most satisfying part of the film, because it is intricately and specifically built to, emotionally, thematically and in the careful plotting.

But you can keep making guesses and assumptions about something you haven't seen if you like.

Yoda

12-29-01, 04:04 PM

You're not listening. I said that, if what I've heard is CORRECT, then I don't think I'll like it. I am not issuing any kind of definitive judgement here. If what I've heard is true, and accurate, then I'm very likely to dislike this film. If not, well, then maybe I won't. Maybe, in your mind, I did actually accuse "Vanilla Sky" of having a "cop out" ending, but the fact of the matter is that, when talking about these things, I used a small, yet crucial word: if.

Holden Pike

12-29-01, 04:12 PM

Don't know who or what these sources are for your "hearing" Vanilla Sky has a cop-out ending, but I'd say they are definitely INcorrect. Since you obviously don't care about having the ending spoiled for you at this point, ask these sources what specifically happens in the film, why they think it is a "cop-out". I can give you lots of specifics for why it isn't.

Even easier perhaps, read through this thread, including all the spoilers. The structure and many of the specifics are discussed. Read them all, not just that the word dream somehow goes with the ending, and make a little more informed judgement yourself.

But really, until you see it - either the original Spanish movie or Crowe's flick, you probably shouldn't say one way or the other what the ending is or isn't, even in speculation based on what you've "heard".

Yoda

12-29-01, 07:52 PM

Again, you're not listening. :) No friend of mine said it was a cop-out: that's my opinion, IF their description is accurate. Since we last, uh, "discussed" the ending, I've talked to someone who's seen it, and let him spoil a few things for me. When I find the time, I'll probably go through the spoilers here in more detail.

But really, until you see it - either the original Spanish movie or Crowe's flick, you probably shouldn't say one way or the other what the ending is or isn't, even in speculation based on what you've "heard".
I didn't say what the ending is, seeing as I haven't seen it. I've said that, if it's like what I've heard from those who have seen it, I doubt I'll like it. What part of that do you not understand? I'll repeat myself: I've passed no final or definitive judgement on this movie, BUT, unless I've been misinformed as to what its like, and how it ends, I don't think I'll enjoy it. It's a shame, too, because the trailers had me convinced that it'd be good. Hopefully that will prove to be the case, but I'm not holding my breath.

Read them all, not just that the word dream somehow goes with the ending, and make a little more informed judgement yourself.
To put it bluntly, you've no idea what I've heard about the movie, or how informed I may or may not be. There is absolutely nothing wrong, illogical, or unfair about what I've said.

Guy

12-29-01, 08:24 PM

i dont think the ending was as important as the journey he made and what he learned on it. is the ending that important?

ryanpaige

01-01-02, 03:15 PM

I agree with Holden that the movie probably could've been better had it ended when Holden was saying. We would've still got the explanation of what had happened (not exactly everything, but we get the gist of what has happened), but it having it be more vague. I think that would've made it a better movie, though I still wouldn't be that big of a fan of it.

Jozie

01-10-02, 11:09 PM

Hi --
I liked this a lot while I was seeing it, but it sort of didn't
"travel well." Looking back, I didn't think is was as hot. Nice to
look at and interesting as it went along but when you got to
The ending, it was . . . okay, but . . . come on. Kind of a cop-out,
I thought.
Love,
Jozie

The Silver Bullet

01-10-02, 11:42 PM

I think it's utterly hilarious, that an explanation that I personally think didn't need to be there [I would have given anything to see that film end in the lobby with "Good Vibrations" playing] was there for the purpose of helping people understand it -- and these are the same people are calling it a cop out ending.

And if they had left it ENTIRELY up to them to decide with no "Tech Support" ending, they would be complaining even more, calling it pretentious bull ***** or something.

Why can't people be satisfied with questions....

Yoda

01-11-02, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
Why can't people be satisfied with questions....
Because people don't usually like paying $8 just to be asked a question. :) They also don't like being revved up to an ending that doesn't meet the level of hype beforehand. I'm not saying "Vanilla Sky" is like that...but I don't see why there's anything wrong with someone being upset with an ending that they don't like...be it a "cop-out" ending (in short, any ending that takes an easy way out...that isn't clever...though I wish I could explain it better), or one that just doesn't make much sense (like POTA).

The Silver Bullet

01-11-02, 01:21 AM

I'm not saying there's wrong with disliking an ending -- I personally feel the ending to "Romeo and Juliet" was a bit sour [that was a joke, people.] and I hate POTA's ending.

It just gets me that such a large proportion of people don't like being asked a question and made to think. I think the reason "Vanilla Sky" has been lauded by critics is because people [critics included] have become so braindead in this world [not calling anyone here braindead] that "entertainment" is about hanging one's brains up as they enter a theatre, or cinema, or concert, or CD shop, or when one turns on the TV.

I think the intellectual stimulation and the way the film forces people to think again didn't go down well, and that's sad, I think that we've come to needing nothing but fodder.

As stated, why can't people be satisfied with questions....

Guy

01-11-02, 09:09 PM

I can't believe this film is being so poorly received!

A number of the viewers actually didn't get it

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/theatrical/B00005JKMX/customer-reviews/qid=1010797546/ref=sr_11_0_1/104-6702327-9109566

It's so much better than is given credit for. I guess some people are scared to think in a film or watch something besides the usual 'She's All That"

Yoda

01-11-02, 09:15 PM

I resent that: why is it that anyone who doesn't dig a film with an odd ending, or a weird storyline in general, just doesn't "get it"? Who's fault is it that they didn't get it; theirs, for being stupid to some degree, or the film's, for making a film that so many people do not "get"? Why is it that anyone who doesn't like things like that just "doesn't like to think" or "wants it spoonfed to them"? I really hate that general attitude.

I've read most of the details of the plot of the movie, and I don't think I'd like it. Does that mean I don't like to think? Does that mean I don't like films that leave me with questions? Hell no. If "A.I." had ended 20 minutes earlier, I would've hailed it as a very good movie...even though it would've left me with plenty of questions, and plenty to think about.

You like it? Great. Others don't? That should be great, too. It doesn't mean they're stupid, don't get it, or don't like to think. Maybe they just have different taste...or maybe the movie is at fault. Oh, and very few people liked "She's All That," especially if we're talking about movie critics. :)

The Silver Bullet

01-11-02, 09:32 PM

I'm unsure if most of that was aimed at me or not; I tried extremley hard to write a fair thing about the majority of people, an attitude [not the mainstream one, either] that the ENTIRE world is beginning to take, that entertainment has to be nothingness.

I think you're write in a respect though, Chris. It's very hard not to be hypocritical. The thing is, people who don't like movies go and say a heap of stuff, and usually try to convince others likewise -- when people disagree [and you've done this yourself defending LOTR:FOTR] people who like the movie seem to come out as just as bad. There lies the rub -- in defending something, and especially in telling others not to force their views upon others, we are forcing ours upon them. I think the REAL problem is, no one can seem to understand any more that their opinion is THEIRS. They may share it, but it's theirs. Everyone should be like, "really you didn't like that, I liked it. Oh well." But we're not, we feel we have to convince a be right -- therein lies the biggest attitude problem that belongs to absoloutley everyone -- I have to be right, people must agree with me. My opinion is right, and we're all wrong in thinking that, it's just ours.

Does that make sense, Chris, if not just tell me and I'll try again.

Guy

01-11-02, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by TWTCommish
I resent that: why is it that anyone who doesn't dig a film with an odd ending, or a weird storyline in general, just doesn't "get it"? Who's fault is it that they didn't get it; theirs, for being stupid to some degree, or the film's, for making a film that so many people do not "get"? Why is it that anyone who doesn't like things like that just "doesn't like to think" or "wants it spoonfed to them"? I really hate that general attitude.

I've read most of the details of the plot of the movie, and I don't think I'd like it. Does that mean I don't like to think? Does that mean I don't like films that leave me with questions? Hell no. If "A.I." had ended 20 minutes earlier, I would've hailed it as a very good movie...even though it would've left me with plenty of questions, and plenty to think about.

You like it? Great. Others don't? That should be great, too. It doesn't mean they're stupid, don't get it, or don't like to think. Maybe they just have different taste...or maybe the movie is at fault. Oh, and very few people liked "She's All That," especially if we're talking about movie critics. :)

yeah, you're right. I was talking about some of those reviewers on amazon.com who said 'i saw this with my girlfriend, it sucked, worst movie ever. way too confusing', things like that. I agree that you can get a film and not like it.

Here's some excerpts from the reviews from different people (yeah, I'm bored so sue me :cool: )

"you tell a tale so ridiculus that no one can really explain it to someone else. Vanilla Sky is an abomination. "

"This movie just got too confusing"

"This movie is impossible to explain, let alone understand. "

"The plot was all over the place and it made no sense. "

Yoda

01-11-02, 11:47 PM

Yo. :)

Silver: actually, my little rant was spurred by Guy's post. My bad..I should've quoted him. That would've made it clear. I do think you're right, for the most part: we all act a little hypocritical...though I honestly don't mind someone disagreeing with me. There are times, however, where a person's opinion borders on being factually incorrect...like if they criticize a movie for not explaining something, when in fact it did explain it, and they weren't paying attention. :)

Those are the types of opinions I usually end up arguing with. They don't get too far, really, because they are a mix of logic/fact (you can logically show someone, in some cases, that their reasons for not liking a movie don't make sense), and emotion/opinion. And yes, it is difficult to see something from another person's perspective sometimes. 99% of the time it's a cinch for me, I think...but now and then a movie like POTA, or LOTR: FOTR comes along, and I can't even fathom anyone disagreeing with me concerning it. :D

Guy: yeah, some of the reviews were short, and didn't explain the gripe much. Maybe they're busy...or lazy. :)

Steve

01-12-02, 02:45 AM

Originally posted by TWTCommish
There are times, however, where a person's opinion borders on being factually incorrect...like if they criticize a movie for not explaining something, when in fact it did explain it, and they weren't paying attention. :)

Hmm...Sounds familiar :) :confused:

Anyway, TWT, it wasn't 'all a dream.' And the ending is in no way a cop-out...It works on the level everyone has been talking about, but it also illustrates one of the bigger 'points' the movie had to make: the things you own end up owning you (Thank you, Chuck Palahniuk, Tyler, and David Fincher. :)).

Nobody has even talked about the comments this movie makes about American society and consumerism in general. David is a character whose entire life has been defined by what he owns. He wakes up sweating from a dream where he runs through an empty Times Square, and the flashing billboards and advertisements are all he sees.

When he talks about "the little things", he realizes that it's the small, happy moments, the feelings he's had, that really matter - not the car he owns, not his apartment, not his job. The irony of it is that this realization took 150 years, and on an even deeper level of irony, it was basically sold to him. They sold him the illusion of happiness his entire life - the Lucid Dream is just an extension of this.

When David goes back into the world, he's saying 'f--k you' to everybody - he realizes that a life that's run by what he's bought (the Lucid Dream) isn't a life he can ever truly be happy in. He wants those little moments, those real feelings. And that's what i think it's REALLY about.

I don't think that made much sense, since I'm wicked tired. But tell me what you think, of what I think. I wanna know if I missed anything, if i'm completely f--king wrong.

Yoda

01-12-02, 03:00 AM

Sound familiar? Wha? I don't remember criticizing a movie just because I missed something crucial, though naturally, if the movie makes it something that's far too easy to miss, that's one thing. Anyway, you may be right about the movie's true message -- I don't really know. Could be...but even if that is the case, I don't think it's any excuse to have a story that may not make sense (again, I'm speaking hypothetically here). That's not an excuse for it.

michaelcorleone

08-26-07, 07:10 PM

"My dreams are a cruel joke. They taunt me. Even in my dreams I'm an idiot who knows he's about to wake up to reality. If I could only avoid sleep. But I can't. I try to tell myself what to dream. I try to dream that I am flying. Something free. It never works..."
http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/paramount_pictures/vanilla_sky/tom_cruise/vanilla3.jpg

I've seen this film several times now. As a fan of Tom Cruise's work, I truly enjoy it. I think it's a very unique, satisfying and moody movie. There are some true moments of brilliance in it, as well as some minor slip-ups. I just gave it a third viewing, so I wanted to reply to a thread about it. :D

http://baristanet.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/vanilla_sky.jpg
-This unconventional, dreamlike film experience grabbed me from beginning to heartbreaking finish. Brave, inventive and very moving, Crowe's experimental science-fiction venture benefits from terrific performances and a memorable, moody soundtrack. Totally riveting.-

Thursday Next

08-27-07, 08:14 AM

I still haven't seen this film. I'm not sure I can quite see the point of a remake which doesn't really add anything to the original film. From what I've heard it's pretty much a straight remake. It even has one of the same actresses. Just in a different language. Surely if that is all you want you just watch Open Your Eyes with American dubbing? Perhaps I'm being harsh and should give it a chance, after all, I did enjoy The Departed (although that added things to Infernal Affairs to make it a slightly more well rounded film).

pdwood

08-28-07, 10:11 PM

I found Vanilla Sky to be very engaging.

But that might have something to do with the fact that as I was 3/4 through the movie, the cinema projector died, and I was unable to see the remainder of the movie for quite some time. The suspense was pretty intense.

I'm not sure if I would have been as intrigues if I had seen it straight through; nonetheless, I liked it.

Pyro Tramp

08-28-07, 10:15 PM

Horrible film, one of the worst i've seen. Sat an exam and wrote about it, slating it as a remake and general film. Absolute pap.

michaelcorleone

08-29-07, 12:44 AM

Horrible film, one of the worst i've seen. Sat an exam and wrote about it, slating it as a remake and general film. Absolute pap.

What didn't you like about it?

Pyro Tramp

08-29-07, 07:29 AM

What didn't you like about it?

It's blatant and shameless direct copying of Open Your Eyes and worsening. The whole exposition at the end, the Hollywood-ising of Cruise's character for some examples.

michaelcorleone

08-29-07, 03:20 PM

It's blatant and shameless direct copying of Open Your Eyes and worsening. The whole exposition at the end, the Hollywood-ising of Cruise's character for some examples.

Fair enough. I haven't seen Open Your Eyes yet, so maybe that's why I enjoyed it so much. I did like the fact that Cruise's character was a rich playboy though - I thought it offered an interesting twist to an otherwise familiar protagonist. The end was a bit off for me too, I must admit, but it was still a great film experience overall.

P-S-21

09-18-07, 12:58 PM

Vanilla Sky stars Tom Cruise.
I still haven't watched this movie though. :)

Sedai

09-18-07, 01:19 PM

I like Vanilla Sky a whole lot, some parts of it are better than the original, IMO. I liked the original a whole lot too, though...

adidasss

09-18-07, 02:15 PM

What parts are better than the original?

Pyro Tramp

09-19-07, 08:58 AM

Fair enough. I haven't seen Open Your Eyes yet, so maybe that's why I enjoyed it so much. I did like the fact that Cruise's character was a rich playboy though - I thought it offered an interesting twist to an otherwise familiar protagonist. The end was a bit off for me too, I must admit, but it was still a great film experience overall.

They made him a far less selfish character, the surgery was for pain, not for his vanity and Cruise wasn't even as deformed. They add the role of the Father to try and explain his characters flaws thus make him sympathetic; Cruise's star ego seemingly won't let him play an unlikeable character that might damage his image, which of course is meant to be one of the major themes of the film. The twist was hinted at through out the film, and instead of seemlessly interweaving the science fiction and romance for a twist, they handle the two badly alluding to both throughout and making neither amount to anything; one of the things i really liked in the original was the psychiatrist role and how we shift into empathising with him as he embodies the role of the audience, but Russell was a unlikeable and distanced character. Things like that ruined it.

It's a massive case of Hollywood stealing a film and recycling it without credit or real respect for the original and adding a Hollywood gloss that removes any ambiguity, from character or plot. All they add are American pop culture references. And IOpen Your Eyes didn't even need a remake, it's not got many cultural or national links to Spain and it's even shot in a very Hollywood style. They include Cruz in exactly the same role- further showing the idiocy and many acts of copying verbatim in the remake, and she doesn't even get a boobies out.

One of the films i really hate.

Sedai, what's better then?

HyperEeel

09-26-07, 03:11 PM

I haven't watched it, mainly because I expected that I would hate it for the exact reasons you mention Pyro Tramp.

Abre Los Ojos very much impressed me, when i watched it i had no idea it was what Vanilla Sky was based on which was a film several people had been telling me was "amazing" and "brilliant".

igor_is_fugly

09-03-09, 08:30 PM

I'm watching this right now and wanted to chat about it. I've seen both this and Abre Los Ojos and was actually surprised to find that I like Vanilla Sky better. I thought Sofia was much more lovable and Cameron Diaz's Julie was a more frighteningly relatable psycho. Im always astounded by how well developed every character in Cameron Crowe's movies are, no matter how little screen time they have. He's a master of creating those "little moments," that give all of his films a wonderfully rich and personal feel. Plus the soundtrack! One of my all time favorites. And I love Jason Lee. And Kurt Russell. For shame pyro, I didnt think it was possible to think him "unlikeable"! And I thought Tom Cruise definitely had some unlikable moments- the club? I didn't get the feeling that he was trying to protect his image. And I like the death scenes much better in Vanilla Sky. And the love scene. And I love Crowe's inclusion of all the pop culture and how embedded into our subconscious it is. I'll stop now but yea...Love this movie:D