Vanilla Sky | Abre Los Ojos

[JCPhoenix]

I saw Abre Los Ojos before I saw Vanilla Sky and at the time I saw Vanilla Sky, I felt they were both equally good with their own strengths. (8/10 for both at the time)

As time passed by though, and at this point in time, I believe Vanilla Sky is a misunderstood masterpiece of cinema that blows Abre Los Ojos out of the water.

Vanilla Sky is a lot less conventional than Abre Los Ojos, using a much brighter and vivid palette that has an almost relaxed feeling at times that is very in contrast with the normal thriller (while Abre Los Ojos uses a dark and tense atmosphere).

People are right - Vanilla Sky does use many of the same lines to a certain extent. But what Crowe adds himself to the experience is incredible. Abre Los Ojos was a very good thriller with a somewhat clunky ending. To this day, I don't understand why people complained about Vanilla Sky's ending when it was taken almost directly from Abre Los Ojos. True, Crowe does a bit more explaining, but that scene in the elevator is so moving I can excuse that (though I must say I absolutely love the scene in the original with the police shooting and wish they kept it in Vanilla Sky).

Crowe also adds clues to Vanilla Sky - many subtle references and clues that all connect together much better than Abre Los Ojos did. It is also a lot more ambiguous and open to interpretation.

But where Crowe excels in Vanilla Sky is again what he excels at normally. Character-work. Abre Los Ojos was a good mystery-thriller. Vanilla Sky is a moving drama. And there's the difference. Too many people complain about the mystery - I don't even think Vanilla Sky is about figuring out the mystery. Crowe's not interested in dark turns. He's not interested in creeping an audience out. He never has been. It's about the personal moments in the main character's life. It's about capturing a mood, like Virgin Suicides, like Lost in Translation.

"Little things. There's nothing bigger, is there." That's probably my most memorable line from any Crowe movie because it captures the essence of Crowe's films. They're not about the story or the surprises. They're about the people. They resonate emotionally with you. Abre Los Ojos was a cool little flick for figuring out what was going on. But Crowe took that concept and turned it into a drama that made you feel for the characters. That haunts you. The accumulated effect is devastating. The movie is exactly like living a lucid dream and he captures that better than Amenabar could.

Vanilla Sky is every bit a Cameron Crowe movie. Amenabar may have given the concept life but Crowe gave it its heart.

Vanilla Sky (9/10) inches its way up in my mind every day and has since the first day I saw it.

[chinton]

Thank you thank you thank you. I simply did not undertsnad critics who loved Abre Los Ojos and then complained about the length of the ending of Vanilla Sky. Its the same thing.


I also agree with full heartedly that Vanilla Sky is a much more moving drama.

The simple fact is that in both films we end in tragedy. It was only in Vanilla Sky that I actually felt this tragedy. I was really moved by the film. Its a masterpiece

[Joshmo]

Without a doubt Vanilla Sky is the better film...and Cruz did a better job in the remake then she did in the original as well.

On a side note...The Ring is also a much better film than Ringu...

...and being that I hated Grudge, and being that the same director is from the first, I have no desire to see the original.

[Buck Turgidson]

I disagree, wholeheartedly. I found it cheap, pretentious, garish, obvious and badly cast in two pivotal roles (the always dreadful Cruise and the howlingly bad, Razzie-level scenery chewing of that creepy skank Diaz.)

I was also really offended by the pre-release hype that made it seem like VS was a fabulous new groundbreaking story, when it was a remake of a film less than five years old. The only time that was acknowledged, grudgingly and flintily at that, was after the fact.

A waste of Crowe's valuable time and effort, just like his previous film with Cruise.

[Asokan]

To me, both movies are pretty much the same. In both films you're asked to sympathise with a guy who is a rich, arrogant prick who gets all the girls. And I just couldn't do that. So both movies left me cold.

True, Crowe's flick is more vivid and a bit more daring, especially regarding Cameron Diaz: "When you eat somebody's cum, you make a commitment." Woohooo. Some crazy bitch.

[Buck Turgidson]

Worst, stupidest and just all around most horrible line in all of movie history.

She's not qualified to be a bride for Manos.

[Hannibal21]

I can't say that I agree either. Although since my last viewing of VANILLA SKY, I have warmed up to it a whole lot more, I still don't think it's on par with ABRE LOS OJOS.

ABRE LOS OJOS accomplished what it pretty much set out to be, an atmospheric, tense mystery thriller. VANILLA SKY had some very good moments and solid work from its supporting cast (Cameron Diaz was surprisingly effective in her role), but at times I felt as if though it tried too hard to be a humanistic, moving drama picture, and ended up looking pretentious. Penelope Cruz, who gave the best performance of 1997 in ABRE LOS OJOS imo, was nothing short of ANNOYING here while Tom Cruise overacted to the 10th degree, his most unconvincing performance to date. At least Eduardo Noriega made me sympathize with his character despite his potentially dislikable qualities with a much more subtle and endearing performance.

[chinton]

I actually thought both Cruise gave grea t performances and Cruz was much better here than in Abre. I thought Abre was interesting and made a fascianting thriller but I never got into the human aspects of the story. In Vanilla Sky I was really hit by the cumulative tragedy of the story