because everybody keeps saying how better this version is from Vanilla Sky. i thought this movie looked cheap. there were parts that i liked more than Vanilla Sky and parts that i liked of Vanilla Sky more than in this. the ending in Vanilla Sky was a lot more emotional. i liked this movie but it wasn't that wonderful.
share[deleted]
this movie just proves that penelope cruz does NOT know how to act. the only reason she was unbelievably good in vanilla sky was because of the director. although i give the original props for the storyline, it was horribly acted, edited and directed.
shareI beg to differ imdbmoto.
Actually Penélope Cruz in 1997 wasn't a popular person at all. She was just another Spanish actress. She got where she is now because of her talent, believe it or not. So in my eyes she has always been "unbelievably good".
It's not her fault they only give her "Hot Carnita" parts in Hollywood which tbh they don't let the actress shine as she should. So before judging, just think why all latin looking actresses are given the same parts in hollywood.
I recommend you watch her in "Todo sobre mi madre"(1999) and "Non ti muovere"(2004), where actually the actress is given a proper part with something to express other than her sexual appetite...
--
Segmentation fault. Core dumped.
"this movie just proves that penelope cruz does NOT know how to act."
You've obviously never seen Volver.
In terms of budget,definitely Vanilla Sky had more with $68 million compared to Abre Los Ojos which only had 2 million EUR or close to $ 2 million when comparing during exchange rate back in 1997 when the movie was shown.So in terms of production value,Vanilla Sky was far more superior compared to Abre Los Ojos.
But in terms of originality,direction,story and acting was concerned,Abre Los Ojos was a lot better.Besides,I find Eduardo Noriega's acting as Cesar more subtle and convincing compared to that of Tom Cruise's acting as David Aames.Also,Penelope Cruz was a lot better in the original film compared to the remake.
Foreign movies are generally cheap, because most countries are relatively poor by U.S. standards, and have less money for movies. That can show in production values.
However, I found this film more emotionally honest than the remake. And therefore better overall. I also liked the lead far more than Tom Cruise. (It should really be a younger guy in his 20's, to capture the full shock of losing one's looks young.)
Penelope Cruz always sucks, but that's a constant here.
[deleted]
I agree that Penelope Cruz has been awful in everything I've seen her in and Yes that also includes Almodovar's film's which he seems to have a hard on for her for some reason, obviously not for her acting. I believe she's one of the reasons why some of his films seem to not do as well as they could. I don't think it's any surprise that Talk to Her was his best film and I'm pretty sure an absent Penelope assured that.
I thought her work in both versions of this film were equally bland and uneventful. She's basically Spain's version of an American actress with a pretty face ala Jessica Biel or Scarlet Jo that when given a solid script and story can pass for an actress but when she really has to come up with her own she falls a bit short.
And I don't even think she's that hot either, I think Paz Vega is much hotter and I even think she's a better actress, she just hasn't gotten the roles that Penelope has been fortunate to get.
Oh, and I agree OP, I don't think you missed much at all. In fact, I started a separate related thread asking for more detailed opinions.
~What if this is as good as it gets?!~