Critics’ reviews

Vanilla Sky (2001)

12 reviews from 12 publications. Critics’ score 55: 4 positive, 4 mixed, 4 negative.

Back to our review of Vanilla Sky

55
Positive
4
Mixed
4
Negative
4

The critics split three ways on Vanilla Sky, and the middling overall number comes from that split rather than from any shared lukewarmness. Where praise lands, it lands on the surface: John Toll’s camerawork, the club scene, the empty Times Square and Cameron Crowe’s use of pop music are all picked out. Cameron Diaz is the performance most often singled out, with Jason Lee mentioned as a smaller pleasure. Several reviews also credit the film with ambition, calling it an audacious, puzzle-like construction that asks the viewer to keep up.

The reservation most reviews share is the comparison with its Spanish source. Most critics find the remake softer, less suspenseful and less provocative than the original, and some find it plainly confusing. The Guardian calls it cumbersome and bombastic, and Eye for Film finds the shifting realities tiresome because the rules keep changing. Tom Cruise draws some complaint for lack of depth. The spread is wide, from warm to hostile.

Total Film
25 February 2002 · ★★★★ · Total Film
80

The review praises the film as an intelligent, thrilling psychodrama that successfully reworks the original. It singles out Cameron Crowe’s deft blend of pop-culture touches with the strong story structure, while noting occasional pacing and exposition issues.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
14 December 2001 · ★★★/4 · Roger Ebert
75

Ebert gives the film a positive but qualified verdict. He praises its audacious, puzzle-like construction, while finding it short on time for its characters.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Angie Errigo
70*

Errigo finds the film ambitious, unsettling and emotionally engaging, though it demands close attention. She particularly praises its visual design, strong performances and evocative use of music.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
18 May 2002 · ★★★½ · Ed Gonzalez
70

Gonzalez finds the film a reductive, self-centered pop-culture thriller that is less compelling than its source. He praises Crowe’s mise-en-scène and John Toll’s camerawork, especially in the club scene.

Read the full review →
Screen Daily
9 December 2001 · Emanuel Levy
64*

The review's verdict cannot be determined from the accessible page. No praised or criticized element is visible in the paywall shell.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
14 December 2001 · A.O. Scott
64*

The accessible page does not reveal the critic’s verdict. Its article text is blocked, so no specific praise or complaint can be verified.

Read the full review →
Time Out
· TCh
63*

The page presents the film as a very straight remake of the Spanish-language original. Its metadata suggests the original merits another viewing, but the critic’s full verdict and specific praise or complaint are unavailable.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★ · Jason Caro
40

Caro finds the remake glossy but disappointing, faulting it for losing the original’s psychological suspense. He singles out Jason Lee’s amusing performance and Cameron Diaz’s lively turn as pleasures.

Read the full review →
Variety
9 December 2001 · Todd McCarthy
35*

McCarthy finds the film lively and well made but ultimately muddled and less provocative than its source. He praises the cast and craftsmanship, while criticizing the softened characterizations and excessive musical references.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
25 January 2002 · Peter Bradshaw
20*

Bradshaw finds the film cumbersome, bombastic and less distinctive than its Spanish predecessor. He objects to its pseudo-futuristic ideas and treats it as a poor Hollywood remake.

Read the full review →
Den of Geek
27 January 2010 · Carley Tauchert
60*

Tauchert gives the film a mixed but somewhat appreciative retrospective, finding it an ambitious and visually effective remake that has gained a cult following. She singles out Cameron Diaz’s performance and the empty Times Square scene for praise, while criticizing Tom Cruise’s limited depth and the film’s close copying of its source.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
22 December 2001 · Angus Wolfe Murray
10*

The critic finds the film confusing and ultimately tiresome. He objects that its shifting realities abandon the rules needed to make the central conceit work.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate