Did anyone else think that David should had been played by..

[deleted]

I totally agree I just watched this film again after a while of not seeing it and I totally agree Carrey as well would of been a good choice and I know why you think that as well. The person that responded about it prior is an idiot.

OMG. I loved Eternal Sunshine and Truman Show but LOL at Jim Carrey handling this. He can do serious, but not THIS serious.

What a lovely way to burn...

Jim Carrey is a good actor, but he would not fit the role. The character is a playboy, narcisstic fratboy type in the beginning. Jim Carrey couldn't play the narcisstic part like Tom Cruise. Also, Jim Carrey does not have the look. David Aames is suppose to be extremely good looking, which is what makes the scenes with the mask so much more dramatic.

I loved Jim Carrey in both Truman and Eternal Sunshine, great movies.
You know, it's a little sad that he doesn't play more serious characters, as I actually think he's much better in dramas than he is in comedies.
As for the question, I think Tom (who bought the rights for the American version of the original, "Abre los ojos") not only had the choice to play the role himself because he owned the story, but somehow I feel that he knew he was just about perfect for the role, and I tend to agree: this is probably my favourite Tom Cruise movie of all the ones that he's made. Why? for several reasons: he's believable, he doesn't play a hero and, also because the whole thing "just works" really well.
Another reason for Jim not playing this role is that he'd already played a character with a mask (his funniest comedy in my opinion).
As for "Whodat_4", your replies provided little other than unnecessary rudeness, which is not welcome here.

... anyone but Tom Cruise.

So many potentially good movies have been spoiled by the fact they star Tom Cruise or otherwise good movies taken down a notch because they have Tom Cruise in the lead.

I am neutral about Jim Carrey. He is usually a bad actor in that he overacts too much like Jerry Lewis did in his old flicks, but he has managed to make some really good movies despite this, some rather remarkable ones.

As for doing Vanilla Sky instead of Tom Cruise - nah. I don't see him doing this in a way in which people could relate personally. The roles he has performed well are very unusual characters which don't require an audience to feel they could be in the same shoes, even Truman was an unusual character given the circumstances. His role in Spotless Mind could give an audience personal relevance. Feel free to post a retort about my failure to type the full title to Spotless Mind with petulant derision, lol. Not sure if he could pull it off again, though. Kudos if he does.

But even if he could, Jim Carrey just isn't the pretty face needed to reflect the magnitude of vanity within this story's character. He's supposed to be a beautiful man, which is no insult to Carrey's appearance, but it's like saying Jennifer Aniston would have made a better Lara Croft than Angelina Jolie.

I hope this explains why I don't agree Jim Carrey would have done better than Tom Cruise. It's just an opinion without bias of hate or love. If you are a Jim Carrey Lover don't be offended. Stop the hate, lol.

Jim Carey in this role would never have occurred to me, but YES, I think this movie would have been better if it had been played by almost anyone but Tom Cruise. He just couldn't quite carry it off.

And your English is really very good for a non-native English speaker. Ignore the haters.

Coulson has a plan.