The psychological thriller «Vanilla sky»
I will tell at once — I liked the film. I even was glad that that the script was original (with remarks, of course, but all the same) unusual and not silly at all. Ah, Cameron Crowe is a good guy, -I thought, that he made such an interesting film. And these infinite stupid scripts and tearful melodramas blistered very much. They are simple to a disgrace…However it was quickly enough to found out (and I for some reason expected it) that «Vanilla sky» is a remake of the Spanish film of 1997 «Open your eyes» by Alehandro Amenabar, where same Penelope Kruz plays, that is interesting. The people who have seen both films, assert that Crowe made a remake with Amenabar practically one in one –if not to pay into the attention that, of course, he changed names of heroes and here and there the copied dialogues. Well and also «Vanilla sky» in comparison with the original was a little Americanized, in the sense that bigger emphasis is made on a melodramatic component — love and mutual relations of protagonists, and also more attention is given to the main character who in “ Vanilla sky» is played by Tom Cruise (actually, it is not only the main actor in this film, but also the owner of the rights to a remake and one of producers). There is a question: whether it is necessary to praise a remake for the interesting script? And the question, meanwhile, is uneasy. One side, when it concerns the films which have been made under the same literary reference. Well, for example, about English and Soviet «Sherlock Holmes». Here it is clear that it is a question of two absolutely various works of art. But another side when the remake is made actually in the same from a film instead of from the script or a literary work. After all! Americans often do remakes of another's films — French, Spanish, Italian ones, — and almost always simply an original film is taken and a copy with the American actors is simply made. Is it necessary to praise the artist who has made a successful copy with da Vinci «Dzhokonda»? Or is it necessary to praise da Vinci all the same? Those who saw the both films, tell that all elegance of the script, unexpectedness of subject courses, stylishness and the film charm are from Amenabar. I don't have reasons for them not to trust, but also I can't confirm this fact, because, alas, yet I haven’t seen «Open your eyes» (though I will make necessarily it). Therefore I will not praise «Vanilla sky» for the script, we will talk about the game of actors and how it was put. But at first let's speak very shortly about a plot. Shortly — because in the film rather much is constructed on enough unexpected subject courses so to retell them is no use not to spoil the future pleasure for you. Therefore it is very shortly… David Ames (Tom Cruise) is the successor of a very rich person, the founder of the whole publishing empire. After the death of the father David didn't begin to run the company, preferring to conduct life of the rich idler, and all power over firm was passed to so-called «seven gnomes» — councilors of directors. David had data that «seven gnomes» want to try to deprive of his possibility to influence company affairs, however at present it doesn't bother David very much.
David has a friend — the girl Julie Gianni (Cameron Diaz), however David doesn't have deep feelings though he sleeps with her. Once on David's birthday his friend Bryan Shelbi (Jason Lee) brings his girlfriend Sofia Serrano (Penelope Kruz), Devid falls in love with Sofia at first sight and twists love with her. Julie for which mutual relations with David mean much more, than she shows, so she worries very much because of it.
I am summarizing. It is quite possible to look. But it is better — on the big screen. First, this picture it is better to look without distracting. You will distract — you will lose a thread and at all you won't understand, in what all sense. Secondly, there quite is, on what to look from purely visual point of view, especially last scenes with that vanilla sky. Thirdly… However, it is enough and first two arguments, as far as I understand…
Р S. By the way, a rare occurence, when opinions about the film are absolutely different. From «a full sediment» to «the best film of the year». So don't miss chance to give the vote.