Not much of a mind bender

Rating: Null/10 (17 December 2001)

Cameron Crowe's latest film was my most eagerly anticipated release of the holiday season, so I went into the theatre on Saturday expecting big things. Was I satisfied? Sort of..kind of...maybe...
Good Things: The acting is superb all-around. In fact, this might be the best performance of Cruise's career; he's developed an amazing amount of maturity as an actor since the heartthrob days of "Risky Business". "Vanilla Sky" also proves that "Eyes Wide Shut" wasn't a fluke; Cruise has a dark side that he's willing to explore on film. Cruz and Diaz are both excellent (the chemistry between Cruise and Cruz is fantastic, their relationship is very believable). Even somewhat under-used actors like Jason Lee, Kurt Russell and Noah Taylor play their parts very well. This is a Cameron Crowe film, so obviously the soundtrack is perfect. Also, this was one of the most beautifully photographed films I can recall seeing, considering it takes place in an urban environment. Cinematographer John Toll has had success in the past working with landscapes in "Legends of the Fall" and "Braveheart", but his eye is perfectly suited for New York City. There's a shot of an empty Times Square that's nothing short of breathtaking.

Enough superlatives, time for the bad stuff.
*SPOILERS*
It seems that goal of Crowe and Co. in making "Vanilla Sky" was to create a surrealist journey of self-discovery. If that was the case, they came up short. First, the surrealism. "Vanilla Sky" has lots of juicy twists and turns, which lead you to believe that it's going somewhere interesting, and it does, only to pull itself back from the brink of true surrealism. "Mulholland Drive" is the best movie of the year, and it too explores the nature of dreams vs. reality in a surrealist setting, but unlike Crowe, David Lynch is absolutely unapologetic about his film's weirdness. Everything in "Vanilla Sky" is explained in the last 10 minutes by "tech support", one of the laziest narrative conventions I've ever seen. Everything, right down to the title of the film. Some might claim that this isn't your typical Hollywood movie, but I beg to differ. Only in Hollywood are audiences assumed to be so dumb that they can't figure out ANYTHING on their own. Not only is everything explained, the ending makes half the movie irrelevent. Twists and turns that seemed so interesting are rendered meaningless.
Second, there's the self discovery. Cruise's character, David, is as shallow as they come, and early in the film, Jason Lee's character says something about "experiencing the bitter to appreciate the sweet." Nice foreshadowing. Surely David will lose everything, but come to appreciate certain things as a result, right? Well he loses everything, but when the time comes for his ultimate decision, David's choice doesn't show any growth at all. He must choose between living in a dream world where everything is perfect, or living in reality. Except in reality, they have the technology to fix his mangled face! If his damaged face represents his loss, what is he giving up by choosing reality!?
*END SPOILERS*
"Vanilla Sky" is a nice change of pace for Crowe, but can't compare to his earlier romantic/comedic/dramatic character studies like "Say Anything" and "Jerry Maguire". This film is a tentative first step into a darker side of filmmaking for the director, and it shows a lot of promise. Maybe he didn't get it right this time, but in a little while we'll surely see Cameron Crowe's brooding masterpiece.