A twist without a plot

Rating: 4/10 (27 December 2001)

"Vanilla Sky" is not an easy film to like, an art film disguised as an event film. I'd argue that a project like this is the sort of thing that SHOULD be what we consider an 'event,' because it's actually interesting. Whatever your opinion of this film is, it's worth a discussion.

Being a star is about many things--recognizability, mystery, attraction, but probably most of all, trust. That is, audiences feel 'safe' going to a Tom Cruise film--any Tom Cruise film. When will people ever learn? Consider three of Cruise's last four films, "Magnolia," "Eyes Wide Shut," and now "Vanilla Sky." None of the trio are exactly audience pleasers (personally, I hated "Mission: Impossible 2"). They're odd, intricate pieces featuring odd, intricate characters. Like "Eyes Wide Shut," "Sky" comes wrapped in a nice package. The former: Stanley Kubrick's last film and another pairing of wife Nicole Kidman; the latter: Camerons Crowe and Diaz, plus the (arguably) rising Penelope Cruz. With this kind of star power, many filmgoers willingly enter "Sky" knowing next to nothing about what they're in for. They're usually the first ones to hurl their super-size buckets of popcorn at the screen in anguish halfway through.
No popcorn became airborne at the screening I attended. There was, however, a couple near me who insisted on talking to each other through the entire second half of the movie. Normally this would annoy me a great deal. 'This better start making sense real fast,' the girl would say to her companion. He would try to explain what was going on perhaps not realizing we could hear every word of it. In this particular instance, I can't say I blame this girl, whoever she was. Personally, I've never asked myself 'what the heck is going on?' more in a film than I did during "Vanilla Sky." The only incentive to keep watching was Cruise, who gives one of his best performances. As for the story, all is revealed eventually, but it takes a major test of patience to get there.
This is the point for me where having seen Alejandro Amenabar's "Open Your Eyes" would have been helpful, but I'll do my best. Having seen his really, really great film "The Others," however, will do for now. It provides the example I need to illustrate my point. "Others" is recognizable as a ghost story and makes sense, whether you know what's REALLY going on or not. You understand the themes that are being presented. Depending on how observant you are, you may even be able to predict the ending before Amenabar pulls the rug out from under you.
Based on Amanabar's own criteria, "Vanilla Sky" stinks. People watch movies to be entertained, to see a story, for two hours give or take. They don't go to have nonsense hurled at them for two hours and then have that nonsense explained to them for the last fifteen minutes in a bunch of exposition by talking heads. There's no rug to pull out because Crowe forgets to even put one under you. The only possibility of enjoying this would be on a second viewing. That should never be the case. Of course, next I'll actually see the film "Sky" is based on, which supposedly is all but a carbon copy of it, and I like it. No matter how similar the two films are, they are still two different films, made in different countries by different directors, with different actors (except Cruz).
Wanting to make an avant-garde, thinking piece is noble, but Crowe, who had always been reliable, bricks this one. File "Vanilla Sky" under interesting,' fascinating,' ambitious,' but not good.'

Grade: C-