When will the madness end?? *WARNING, CONTAINS SPOILERS OF VANILLA SKY AND ABRE LOS OJOS*

Rating: Null/10 (17 January 2003)

I'm sorry but I have to say Abre Los Ojos, is far, far superior to Vanilla Sky. Vanilla Sky at times, feels like a shot by shot remake. Okay sure theres the extra plot lines about the seven dwarfs, and Sofia is not a mime in Vanilla Sky, but really it just has a stupid amount of similarities. Some of the camera shots appear to have been cut and pasted from Abre Los Ojos into Vanilla Sky.
The Hollywood mentality behind remakes, blows me away. Why must they do it? How can a director do a remake and not feel like they are merely a leach ripping off someone else's film. Its the same with 'The Ring'. Its not original, the cleverness has worn off, so why must they do it? I believe Crowe is an extremely talented director, and some of his direction in this film is good, but really is it his at all? Is the inspiration the same when you're recreating a film, that is not even five years old when you start filming it?? Why could he have not pooled his talents and his resources into an original screenplay. Why a remake which is inferior in many ways to the original source?
The acting for one, is extremely up and down. Tom Cruise should never be allowed to make another movie after this. Okay, maybe I am being a bit harsh, but his star power isn't enough to make his performance strong. He appears muddled, and burdened by the intensity of a man torn by his nightmare. And what about Penelope Cruz? Was her inclusion in this film, merely a novelty, since she played the same role in the original? Thats what it feels like because after about ten minutes, you wish she was the one in the car instead of Cameron Diaz. Diaz is good for her brief spell, Lee shows he is one of the most underrated actors in the rotting Hollywood industry, and Russel is strong in his role.
Abre Los Ojos on the other hand, has strong performances all round, particualarly from Eduardo Noriega, and Chete Lera. The bit parts in Abre Los Ojos, such as the representative of the Cryogenic company, are better as well. Vanilla Sky's counterpart of the Cryo rep, is like some sort of joke. A weedy little man with some sort of voice disorder - like a wisp, and a nice beatles-esqe haircut. I don't think he could EVER convince me to buy anything, let alone immortality.
The cinematography I briefly metioned before. Occasionally it feels like you are watching Abre Los Ojos, because of the similarities in atmosphere and lighting. However, to it's credit, Vanilla Sky does have some amazing photography. A good example is the panorama shots over New York city, which Crowe describes as giving the feeling of a spirit falling. However the endings Cinematography is baffling to say the least. Why the sky is the colour it is, is beyond me. I am guessing its meant to be mystical, spiritual, and dreamlike?? How about tacky, fake, and hideous. That sums it up a bit better I think.
Vanilla Sky, is not a good film. However in saying that, it is far from the worst film of the year, and chances are if you haven't seen Abre Los Ojos, or you don't care that Hollywood is sucking the life out of an innovative, brilliant, SPANISH, film, you may enjoy it. It certainly is frustrating to see such a clever, original thriller, suddenly turned into this dramatic attempt at arthouse (i think?? hell i couldn't even come close to defining it, its so messy). Hopefully Hollywood will stop this whole remake trend, and leave the originals the way they are. If you can't handle subtitles, then go rent something monosyllabic. Chances are theres a new Julia Roberts flick coming out sometime soon. Hell, why not catch a bit of Richard Gere while you're at it?
4/10