Mr. Cruise meets Spirituality

Rating: 1/10 (26 December 2005)

The only two things I have heard about this movie in advance is that features lucid dreaming and that it's a remake from an European original. I haven't seen the original Spanish version yet, so I cannot compare these.
Beginning of the movie is very promising, since it opens with an stunning wake-dream sequence (Tom Cruise driving & running on completely empty Times Square!). The big problem dealing dreaming in the story is that the main character's dreams aren't conscious  he actually has a big problem with his dreaming and real life  he cannot separate the two. He doesn't know if he's dreaming  when he's dreaming  thus ignoring the basic premise of lucid dreaming  which actually means: being aware of yourself being in dreaming. So much for the lucid dreaming part  this one has to be dismissed  somebody didn't do the proper homework on that.
Second problem of the movie is the main character embodied in Mr. Cruise (who also co-produced the movie). His acting has never been more superficial, it gets painfully funny when he displays himself as rich, self-confident, prolific and sexual superhero without - even a slightest amount of irony. He plays this part so serious & intense that it gets absurd already at the very beginnings. Unintentional the viewer starts to ask himself: is this Mr. Cruise only playing himself  an superstar and fanatic Scientologist? Mr. Cruise is hanging so stiff on his performance and sticks unbelievably hard & intense on convincing the viewers of his superpowers that on the end very strong doubts come up: could be he's impotent in reality? Could be the rumors about his homosexuality are true? If you can deal with the above facts go for the plot. The story reveals itself in multiple layers. There is an indefinably amount of parallel time sequences. The audience actually never knows what is real or what is just been a dream  since our hero cannot distinguish his dreaming from real life (I hope this point is not 100% autobiographical, but who knows). The story somehow promises to reveal itself in the far future, but it just gets stacked over and over with new layers of questions and doubts. Usually there would be some suspense created upon this permanent pending state, yet Vanilla Sky just gets boring over time and manages to make you angry.
The largest psychological flaw is: our hero goes through some significant personal dramas (car accident, loss of a friend, loss of physical beauty, loss of personal integrity...etc.) yet Mr. Cruise' performance doesn't significantly change during that. There is no personal disintegration to feel  only to see. Actually the acting flaws terribly during the mask scenes (he wears a mask that covers his face) and especially during the disfigured face scenes (really heavy makeup), because Mr. Cruise acts angry and loud, just like he always does, when he's fit. A person going through all that drama would significantly change in their body language, but Mr. Cruise obviously cannot leave his body acting (habits).
There are two breaks in the rhythm which somehow dissolve the dense layers of reality/fiction/dreaming, these breaks annihilate the tension and kill the film. The first break are the shrink sequences (played by Mr. Kurt Russel, who looks completely out of place here), these scenes are ruined by Mr. Cruise' dull display of self-pity and heavily exaggerated body talk. Also Mr. Russel works mechanic, the only thing missing is seeing him peeking on his wrist watch and saying  okay, I'm finally done, now give me the check. The second much more significant break is both visual and conceptual  when the whole movie turns into something what looks like some sci-fi allegory  yet again it isn't allegoric, because it tries to explain the whole thing (the last 20 minutes). The movie is by far to long (140 min).
It's not a cheap movie. The soundtrack alone must have cost a fortune (Paul McCartney composed a theme). Speaking about music  the songs are good, but the way they are used are trying to cache either weak acting (P. Cruz) or bold performance (Mr. Cruise). It gets very schmaltzy & kitschy when those unequal two appear together in a love scene, even the best songs look cheap then, like mixed by an amateur filmmaker. There are some interesting special effects, but the best things are real (Times Square scene). The best performance in the long list of stars is surprisingly done by Cameron Diaz. At the beginning she acts shallow and arrogant  just like a mirror of Mr. Cruise, but later on she grows (over the level of this movie) and delivers remarkably stunning performance (the car scene).
If you take this movie serious you will probably be strongly disappointed, there are simply too many flaws. If you look at it as light entertainment, you will be frustrated even more  with only one exception: if you like open end movies that drive nowhere. Vanilly Sky won't dazzle your mind, it will only stress your patience & intelligence.