i just watched this movie for the first time and would like clarification about the end-of-the-story message–what was it, exactly? Plz don’t tell me it was as simple as, “in order for you to really live a happy life you must face your greatest fear.” Surely it was something more profound than that, eh???
My take on this, as posted to a “deleted scenes/alternate endings” thread about a year ago.
The “moral” of this ending is in agreement with the inconceivably deep and complex philosophical observations of The Matrix: self-delusion is bad, for no particular reason. Which, in addition to being a rather pointless statement, had precisely jack-all to do with the rest of the movie. Definitely should have done without it, IMO.
Weird, am just now watching this movie for the first time on Bravo, was flipping through the channels and basically just stopped on it. It looks like it might have been enjoyable but I missed easily the first 60% of the movie.
Well, I watched it last night, start to finish, and I’m severely disappointed.
Another “we’re screwing with reality” movie (and before the movies, there were stories and TV shows and comic books). Whether the cause is dreaming or virtual reality or hallucination or mental problems, it’s basically the same situation, and I didn’t see anything terrifically original or compelling about this particular incarnation to hustify the big fuss.
tech Support!
I wanna see the version of the film where Tech Support is outsourced to India or China.
Tom Cruise finds himself in a life that more and more comes to resemble a Bollywood musical when the local techs try to fine-tune his dreams.
I guess I was hoping it was alluding more in the context of cryopreservation, which some people might argue is “screwing with reality” [nature]… with current cutting edge science oocyte and embryo freezing, the future human reproduction (and cloning) implications are profound.
Tom Cruise was the lead actor, but he also produced this movie, and given his Church of Scientology beliefs, I presumed the various hints throughout the film were based upon “cryonics” (or cryopreservation). Just view Wikipedia’s breakdown of Scientology, you can fill-in the script/main points, down the line.
Ditto to Roland Orzabal who appreciates ambiguous endings. Coincidentally, however, that too, is also in line with one of the central Scientology beliefs, “What is true is what is true for you. No beliefs should be enforced as “true” on anyone” … yadda yadda yadda.
Interesting. I saw this flick a while ago, and I remember thinking that only a superficial Hollywood movie star would consider this twat to be truly deep & meaningful. I kept imagining Tom Cruise reading the screenplay and wondering to himself: “What an utterly, wrenchingly deep story! What would it be like to be less than the ideal of physical perfection & beauty?” I didn’t factor in the Scientology angle.
Well, I doubt that the similarities had much to do with Cruise. The film is, as Director Cameron Crowe calls it, a “cover version” of the Spanish Language film Abre los ojos. And while Crowe and Cruise are good friends, I imagine Crowe is more concerned with making a good film than converting anyone over to Scentology.
I love Vanilla Sky, but I admit my appreciation grew after listening to Crowe on the DVD commentary.
Pash
It’s a horrible, horrible version of a wonderful film.
One which sadly still stars Penelope Cruz, but is much, much better than Vanilla Sky.
Abre Los Ojos http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0125659/
Written and directed by Alejandro Amenábar, it’s an entirely classier, better acted, better directed and better plotted movie, which is more coherent and actually IS deep.
Watch it and forget the Cruise/Crowe travesty.