Interesting, but Crowe doesn't live up to his potential.

Rating: 7/10 (16 December 2001)

I don't want to give anything away, because this film certainly is thought provoking. There were parts I really enjoyed and parts, I felt, left something to be desired.
Cameron Crowe proved that he was a worthy film maker with "Jerry Maguire" and that he was an exceptional film maker with the astonishingly good "Almost Famous". That said, "Vanilla Sky" just didn't measure up. At times I felt the acting was sub-par (with the exception of Cameron Diaz, who is always good), and that the film didn't know what it wanted to be. Is it a romance, a mystery, or a science fiction film?
I think part of the problem stems from the fact that this was not really Cameron Crowe's movie, unlike "Say Anything", "Jerry Maguire" and "Almost Famous". Instead it was a remake of a 1997 film, which I haven't seen but understand to be quite good (why would a film maker want to remake a film which is only four years old?). His earlier projects were films about people. That is what is so wonderful about them. With the release of "Almost Famous" it seemed that no one was better a putting real life on the screen than Cameron Crowe. "Vanilla Sky" however, is not about people, and this is most likely where it falls short. There was no Cameron Crowe within the film, unlike "Almost Famous", which is all Cameron Crowe. All of the world's best art comes from within the artist, this film came from within the guy who directed "The Others".
With all of that in mind (and I realize it is a lot), "Vanilla Sky" is not a bad movie. As a Crowe fan, my expectations were naturally quite high, and the film didn't live up to them. However, I certainly suggest that you go see it, and draw your own conclusions. I gave it a 7 out of 10. The film is visually beautiful (not to mention the cast) and it will serve as a good conversational piece, if nothing else.