MovieChat Forums > Abre los ojos (1997) Discussion > Am I the only one who liked vanilla sky ...

Am I the only one who liked vanilla sky better?

posted 15 years ago by BernardoLima
14 replies | jump to latest

I watched abre los ojos today.One month or so after watching Vanilla Sky and I gotta say I prefer Vanilla Sky by far. In fact, Vanilla Sky is one of my favorite movies of all time and although I can see (as well) the originality in this movie I find Vanilla Sky to be a much more accomplished movie.

I don't really like the cliches and the values we often see in hollywood films but in this case I think hollywood gave a much needed treatment/makeover to this film.

I thought that Tom cruise was way better then Noriega, although noriega did a good job showcasing emotions like anxiety,confusion and desperation, Cruise seemed to have a lot more charisma.Also the vanilla sky's soundtrack was immensely better and the locations a whole lot prettier. Cameron Diaz was more believable as the crazy stoker then Najwa Nimri and even Penelope cruz did a much better job the second time around. I mean..even the main character's best friend was a much more interesting and charismatic character in the remake.

I also thought that the scene in vanilla sky where the psychiatrist is asked the name of his daughter was quite telling and fitted the movie and the context of that scene and was a bit surprised to see that scene missing in the original.

Anyway for what I've seen I'm probably the only one who prefers the remake but I felt like sharing my opinion.

[–] D_vd_B 15 years ago

While I respect your opinion, I must say that I disagree with all of them.

Noriega seemed much better than Cruise; his portrayal seemed much more fitting and less wooden. Cruise might have more charisma, but he played it within his own limited capabilities.

The soundtrack for vanilla sky was much weaker. It felt more like a collection of more popular songs to sell the movie to a bigger audience. The Abre Los Ojos soundtrack succesfully hit the darker spots, while in vanilla sky it just underlined what was supposed to be sad.

The locations of Abre los ojos were great! It felt real and dark. It might not be as pretty (pretty as in "I would like to live there") but it sure worked a lot better.

Cameron Diaz vs Najwa Nimri...I think Nimri was more believable. Her resembling towards Cruz made it also more interesting.

Cruz vs Cruz...well she was pretty and sweet in both. When she spoke spanish it just felt better (but this might be due that I just liked this version more).

The best friend role was more fitting in abre los ojos, mainly because we see it from the point of view of Cesar, who never seems to be a caring person for anyone except himself and ofcourse the obsession with Sofia he develops. The friend is just an object in his eyes, someone to keep him company; not someone he really cared for.

About the psychiatrist....no opion there :P

If you do enjoy Vanilla Sky more, I respect that(as we should all). But I cannot agree. And I doubt you are the only one who likes the remake better, although I never met one personally.

[–] Stratego 15 years ago

RudolfhetRendier, I have to agree with your post.

I personally think people who like the remake better are probably just too much used to Hollywood movies. It's not that I'M not, but I won't let it affect my judgement.

[–] BernardoLima 15 years ago

the thing is,stratego, I really dislike all that hollywood bs you know? all the clichés,the blockbusters, all of it. I usually enjoy much more indies for instance but in this case I really like what hollywood did here.

Maybe most people liked abre los ojos more because they saw it first.

[–] Stratego 15 years ago

"Maybe most people liked abre los ojos more because they saw it first."

Since you saw Vanilla Sky first, I could say the same about people who like Vanilla Sky better. Which makes no sense whatsoever and isn't true. I know people who saw Vanilla Sky first and still prefer Abre los ojos, you can probably also read this in some reviews on this site. And I hope you don't mean that people who like Abre los ojos better are a different kind of people who are unwilling to admit that the other version of a movie is better than the version they saw first. I COULD say the same about people who saw Vanilla Sky first and liked that better, but that would be very childish.

Ofcourse everybody has a different taste, but I find it difficult to understand that people find Vanilla Sky BETTER, especially since very few critics share that opinion.

"I really dislike all that hollywood bs you know? all the clichés,the blockbusters, all of it. I usually enjoy much more indies for instance but in this case I really like what hollywood did here."

I really think you're one of the few exceptions among the people who prefer Vanilla Sky. I'll just assume that you are aware that of the movies they call 'indies' these days, only few are actually real independent movies. Little Miss Sunshine and Juno are perfect examples of Hollywood trash they try to market as indies.

[–] BernardoLima 15 years ago

first of all you completely misread what I wrote.

in regard to the indies subject ofcourse I'm not talking about little miss sunshine and juno..those are not indies...at all.

I'm talking about movies like:

"in search of a midnight kiss"
"lymelife"
"In The middle of nowhere"
"shrink"
"garden party"
"management"

and so on...

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Stratego 15 years ago

I DO form my own opinion, do you honestly think I based my opinion about those movies on the opinion of critics? I never said that I liked Abre los ojos better because of what critics said.

But critics do (or are supposed to) have more knowledge than the rest of us about how movies are made and if they are well made. I mean, I could enjoy a Steven Seagal movie, but that doesn't mean it's well made. But when can we say a movie is bad or good? A movie is probably bad when a majority of the audience thinks a movie is bad. Now, I don't know if a majority thinks Vanilla Sky is bad, but a lot of people do think it's a bad movie. But you're right, that doesn't mean you should think it's bad when you actually think it isn't.

"It's like saying you don't like the red colour because your best friend in pre-school doesn't either."

Than I could just as well say that just because you liked Vanilla Sky better, it doesn't mean it's a better movie. And there are a lot of people on this board proclaiming Vanilla Sky is better, while I seriously doubt they've even seen Abre los ojos. And I just fail to see why it would be better, the critics don't offer any explanation either. That's my opinion, so deal with it.

"And for what it's worth it seems to me that the mass of people who claim to like Abre Los Ojos better do so to win 'indie' points amongst friends."

That's utter crap, you do not know those people, so don't be so prejudiced. Have you ever considered that most of the people who prefer Abre los ojos are foreigners who are already used to subtitles? This remark makes everything you've said worthless.

And I was not talking to you, so no need to act so insulted just because I think Vanilla Sky sucked.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Stratego 15 years ago

Yeah right, MY sh!tty attitude. My first post was directed at someone who's opinion I shared and my second was an answer to someone who said:

"Maybe most people liked abre los ojos more because they saw it first."

You're apparently so sensitive, you replied to a post that wasn't directed to you. And you don't know me, so don't go assume ridiculous things about me.

"Ohhhh nooo, if the critics didn't offer any explanation to why Vanilla Sky would be better then it CANT be, obviously."

I never said that. I merely said I didn't understand why people think it's BETTER (I wasn't talking about people who just liked it) and that I haven't read a review that gave reasons why it was better.

"And believe me, I wasn't insulted because you think Vanilla Sky sucked."

Sure you weren't.

"And for the record, all internet debates, without exception, are entirely futile, there's no point debating anything online."

Then don't.

[–] jblunt 15 years ago

KVolchok:

No, I don't think you are the only one who preferred Vanilla Sky. Some people may have preferred Tom Cruise's depiction of an egotistical man whose charismatic personality hides something more sinister. These people may have even liked the more explicit psychoanalytical references in the remake. For instance, David's dreamscape consists of things (objects) that he has assigned meaning to his life.The title itself refers to his mother's favorite painting. As such, David appropriated the painting as the background (context) to his own dreamscape. This implies that his mother was a very important person to him.

What seems really interesting in Vanilla Sky is the most of David's objects seem appropriated from pop culture, from the music David may have listened to the the movies he may have seen. As such, David's dreamscape may not tell us much about him, as about the effect of popular culture on his subconscious and how pop culture "distorts" his interpretation of reality (as reflected in his dreams). The original movie, as "dark" as it is, does not explore the relationship between the psyche and popular culture. Some people may prefer Vanilla Sky because it at least attempts that exploration.

Beauty may be only skin deep, but arrogance and stupidity go down to the bone.

[–] therealdjcamm 15 years ago

I agree, i prefer Vanilla Sky...

Firstly, both films are 95% the same so you can't hate Vanilla Sky that much if you like Open Your Eyes

Secondly, even though the original is obviously original in its conception, the way it is presented is better in Vanilla sky, it is far more intense, the love, the madness and the use of popular culture thrusts the audiance further into beliving the idea of a dream world.

Thirdly, despite the fact the ending of Open Your Eyes has more twists and turns and is less predictable, Vanilla Sky is more emotional and for me this in this instant is more important. Both films are lined with a twisting and turning plot but to only unleash the true madness at the end is not in my opinion the best idea. Vanilla Sky ends with the focus on the steady realisation rarther than the truth being revealed in a not very good dramatic climax, the audiance is allowed to come to terms with the situation and has a chance to comprehend such a truth.

Finally, the fact that you have to read subtitles doesnt help, i know this is kind of below the belt when disliking a film but it doesnt make it any less true. For spanish speaking people i'm sure its the opposite case. Just that asan overall cinematic experiance, Vanilla sky is in my eyes more emotional and meaningful and thats also why i like it more.

Of course this is just my opinion. I respect other peoples opinions that Open Your Eyes is better so i expect others to respect my opinion. I'm at no loss for liking Vanilla Sky more, each to their own as they say...

[–] bill_kilgore 15 years ago

I think both movies are great. Each has a different mood, though. ALO is darker and more depressing while VS is more emotional. The reason is that in ALO, from the beginning there is no chance of a relationship between Cesar and Sofia but in VS it's very much possible that David and Sofia could have become a couple.

So from that standpoint it's clear that the story of David is more tragic and sad than that of Cesar, because David actually lost the chance to be with someone who could have been the one great (and perhaps first) love of his life. Cesar suffers no such loss because Sofia was never interested in him.

[–] Diss 15 years ago

I like them both equally. But I like Abre better because we get to see more of the beautiful Penelope. I do agree about his best friend. The friend is better in Vanilla. And Cameron Diaz is better as the crazy ex girlfriend.

[–] ravenking81 14 years ago

No, I prefer VS too.

Mystical explanations are considered deep; the truth is, they are not even shallow.
Nietzsche