Talking To The Screen
Vanilla Sky :2001
This was a fairly talked about movie when it came out last year. It was destined to be. It
had beautiful star power. Tom Cruise was hot off his divorce from Nicole Kidman.
Cameron Diaz was, and is of this writing still, it the prime of her career. Penelope Cruz
is slowly blossoming into a looker with true box-office draw. And for the population that
has been hibernating for the past twenty years, Kurt Russell has a large supporting role. It
is even based on a popular and critically acclaimed Argentinean film, ?Abre Los Ojos?
which also starred Penelope Cruz. Finally, it?s directed by Cameron Crowe whose last
project was the award winning (and very enjoyable) ?Almost Famous?.
Where did it all go wrong?
I?d love to say it went wrong from the get go. Sadly, this isn?t so. The movie starts off wonderfully engaging. Tom Cruise plays David Aames, a young hot shot journalist with the world on a string. He has a beautiful lover in Julie, played by Cameron Diaz. And a great best friend in the perennial best friend, Brian (Jason Lee). At his birthday party, he meets Sofia (Penelope Cruz). He is instantly intoxicated by her, and they spend the whole night together. No sex, mind you. They spend the night falling in love. The next morning, leaving Sofia?s apartment, David is confronted by Julie. While driving from Sofia?s home, David and Julie get into a car crash. When David awakes, his world is completely surreal. He can?t tell his lovers apart, and conspiracies play in his mind constantly.
?Vanilla Sky? is wonderful until it starts to explain its gimmick. For the bulk of the film, the viewer follows David. We get to see his hallucinations, experience his paranoia, his neuroses. The subjective camera that is so popular these days (?Mullholland Dr., Memento, Usual Suspects, etc.) is in full effect, and it?s captivating.
Moreover, the film is really pleasant to look at. The camera work around New York City casts rays of Upper West Side elegance on the drama. The stars are charming. As ever, Cameron Crowe delivers an amazingly hip soundtrack featuring too many superstar acts to list.
Then, it?s all destroyed in the explication. In ?The Usual Suspects?, the gimmick is given away in an amazing sequence with Detective Kujan looking over his cork board. In ?Memento?, the closest thing you get to an explanation lasts no more than one scene. In both films, the ?oh my....? scene is short and sweet and leaves the viewer retracing his or her steps for the next day or two. In ?Vanilla Sky? the explication lasts for twenty five minutes. Nearly half and hour! Not only was I frustrated with the explanation in itself, the amount of time that it took to tell was infuriating. Frankly, it completely ruined an otherwise solid movie.
If you must see ?Vanilla Sky?, stop it with twenty minutes left. It only gets worse after that. Enjoy making up your own ending. Or leaving it without one. Either way, you?ll have a more effective and memorable film than the one Cameron Crowe delivers.
Where did it all go wrong?
I?d love to say it went wrong from the get go. Sadly, this isn?t so. The movie starts off wonderfully engaging. Tom Cruise plays David Aames, a young hot shot journalist with the world on a string. He has a beautiful lover in Julie, played by Cameron Diaz. And a great best friend in the perennial best friend, Brian (Jason Lee). At his birthday party, he meets Sofia (Penelope Cruz). He is instantly intoxicated by her, and they spend the whole night together. No sex, mind you. They spend the night falling in love. The next morning, leaving Sofia?s apartment, David is confronted by Julie. While driving from Sofia?s home, David and Julie get into a car crash. When David awakes, his world is completely surreal. He can?t tell his lovers apart, and conspiracies play in his mind constantly.
?Vanilla Sky? is wonderful until it starts to explain its gimmick. For the bulk of the film, the viewer follows David. We get to see his hallucinations, experience his paranoia, his neuroses. The subjective camera that is so popular these days (?Mullholland Dr., Memento, Usual Suspects, etc.) is in full effect, and it?s captivating.
Moreover, the film is really pleasant to look at. The camera work around New York City casts rays of Upper West Side elegance on the drama. The stars are charming. As ever, Cameron Crowe delivers an amazingly hip soundtrack featuring too many superstar acts to list.
Then, it?s all destroyed in the explication. In ?The Usual Suspects?, the gimmick is given away in an amazing sequence with Detective Kujan looking over his cork board. In ?Memento?, the closest thing you get to an explanation lasts no more than one scene. In both films, the ?oh my....? scene is short and sweet and leaves the viewer retracing his or her steps for the next day or two. In ?Vanilla Sky? the explication lasts for twenty five minutes. Nearly half and hour! Not only was I frustrated with the explanation in itself, the amount of time that it took to tell was infuriating. Frankly, it completely ruined an otherwise solid movie.
If you must see ?Vanilla Sky?, stop it with twenty minutes left. It only gets worse after that. Enjoy making up your own ending. Or leaving it without one. Either way, you?ll have a more effective and memorable film than the one Cameron Crowe delivers.