User Reviews

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 anything....in 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.

Despite this film being fantastic...excellent directing, great score, superb supporting cast and yet again massively underated performance from Tom Cruise, from a love story point of view, it's probably the saddest film Ive ever seen. True heartbreak. I honestly don't think I could have woken from the dream His loss has no depth...😪

A reasonably intelligent psychological examination of the nature of love, lust and life in general. Experienced movie goers get clued in to the kind of film we're watching right from the opening when Cruise cruises around a deserted New York. In some ways this was probably a mistake since, although a lot of what happens seems to make no sequential sense, we already know to distrust what we see. This detracts from the emotional involvement required to get the maximum impact. I personally didn't even believe that Sophia was remotely real and was quite surprised to discover that she did, in fact, exist.

Stories of this nature are more satisfyingly terrifying when the ultimate basis of the main character's experience is psychological. Unwilling to go all the way, the makers of this movie draw the tooth of insanity by creating a pseudo-science fiction explanation for all that has gone before. As is frequently the case when people not fully versed in the genre attempt science fiction, this story has a gaping logical hole in it, which need be plugged only with a single line of explanatory dialogue which was not forthcoming. We are all familiar with the concept of cryogenic freezing of a corpse after death, with the idea of being revived in the distant future when the battle against death itself has been won by our descendants. But this film takes the idea one step further - that you can spend your "death" living out a fantasy - a "Lucid Dream". What they completely fail to explain is how exactly a dead person, a corpse with a dead brain, which is being deep frozen in order to cease all activity and the changes wrought by time to enable revival centuries hence; how such a dead body, then, is supposed to *experience* the said Lucid Dream. Such an ability represents a victory against death even better than physical revival would be. You wouldn't even wait to die in order to experience a perfect life from whatever moment you wish, you'd pay large amounts of money to experience such a thing without dying. So why bother with the antiquated idea of cryogenic freezing of the corpse after death (necessitating Aames to have undertaken a suicide that was impossible to believe in, knowing the character) when he could simply have decided to get frozen and live a better life?

Tom Cruise is very good as the man who sees a different kind of life possible through the sight and brief encounter with Sophia, and later excellent as a man dealing with the solitary life of a disfigured man. However, Penélope Cruz is considerably less adept at displaying exactly what it is supposed to be that Cruise is falling in love with, although this is really down to her part being underwritten.

To the user whose comment asked for a response to his theory that the whole thing was an examination of David Aames fear and rejection of his own love for Julie (Cameron Diaz's character), I'm afraid that user has been blinded by the fact that the woman is played by Cameron Diaz. There is absolutely nothing in the film or in her performance to suggest that she is anything but the villainess of the piece, the ultimately suicidal, violently obsessive stalker that she is intended to be. Diaz plays the part very well and courageously, and any attempt to see her character as being any better than she is supposed to be is basically a detrimental opinion of her performance.

Rewatched Vanilla Sky after 15 years. I recall not liking it the first time but since I was a young college student, maybe I just didn't "get it." It has also been getting heavily pushed for some reason on Amazon so I figured I'd give it another try.

Well... What an ultimate narcissistic circle jerk god aweful film!!! Be rich enough to forget about your problems, even if your inner mind wants to murder people! My opinion stands. Good job, younger me. The only redeeming quality is a very young and under utilized Michael Shannon.

I truly wish I could jump off of a building and reset my brain, just like our lead nepo baby, so I could forget the past 136 minutes of my life.

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.

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

***** POSSIBLE SPOILER *****

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 ?

This film is absolutely mind-blowing fantastic.

I originally watched the Spanish "Abre Los Ojos" with English subtitles. I feel the plot came together better at the end of the Spanish film for some reason.

But with Vanilla Sky, it felt more human and relatable.

In a world where everyone's goal seems to be to seek happiness (be rich, in love, hedonistic pleasures), what about if you were really given that option with modern future technology to put your brain into a permanent dream-state to enjoy those things. There is something about real life, the sourness with the sweetness, that is irreplaceable.

Abre Los Ojos made me really appreciate the plot and the concept that the world can be dream-like where you choose everything that is happening.

But Vanilla Sky made me appreciate more the need for authenticity of real life. Somehow a magical life where you are the star of the show and have everything seems to lack meaning.

This film is so superb that words fail me. Please watch it.

It's a film that makes you feel good for being alive no matter what is going on in your life, like waking up from a nightmare.

I am a big fan of Cameron Crowe. Liked "Say Anything"; liked "Jerry Maguire" a lot; love "Almost Famous". I was really prepared to like "Vanilla Sky".

And what's not too like? Good performances all around, unsurprising from Kurt Russell and Penelope Cruz, but a little surprising from Tom Cruise and amazing from Cameron Diaz. I thought her métier was only comedy. I was wrong.

The film looks great.

Good special effects and sound.

So--what's the problem? Why only a 5? The first problem is that the film feels about 1/3 too long. After all, groping, even with pretty people like Cruise and Cruz and Diaz, is basically tedious. (I wonder when directors will learn that most sex scenes are in fact very boring. We've been (over)doing this since the 60s. Enough.) Nearly all scenes drag on too long. Of course, I believe that this might well be a strategy to give a dreamlike quality to the film. For this reviewer, it didn't work.

The second problem is that the dialogue (usually a strength in Crowe's films) sometime just rings false. Take Julie's dialogue just before she rams her car into a bridge to try and kill herself and David. To me, this ranting about "Your body makes a promise" and "You were inside me four times" (I will not quote the last line, since this is a family site) sounds like a ludicrous cross between Oprah, "Desperate Housewives" on a bad day, and a particularly inept porn movie.

The third, simply, is the structure of the plot. This is far from the first time we have seen this same plot; for instance, "Jacob's Ladder" (in my mind a very bad movie indeed) is nearly identical from a structural point of view. For a plot of this type to succeed, the writer needs to very carefully slip clues along the way so that the audience reaction to the final revelations is a mix of "Cool!" and "Why didn't I see that coming?" (Best example I know is "Unbreakable".) The fourth, I admit, may be idiosyncratic. Crowe's usual technique of weaving pop songs on the soundtrack just does not seem to jell with the material as well as it does in other films.

Net this all together and you have a film that feels too long, sometimes sounds silly, have a soundtrack that is not always well matched to the action, and where the structure and resolution of the plot don't work well. Do not get me wrong--I think the final sequence from the elevator to the end is far and away the best thing in the film.

A miss, a palpable miss. I wish that I could like it better--but I can't.