Handsome womanizer C?esar is disfigured in a car wreck, and as he attempts to pick up the pieces of his life, bizarre situations and events seem to occur as a result of his accident.
Genre: Foreign Film – Spanish/misc SA
Rating: R
Release Date: 18-DEC-2001
Media Type: DVDImagine if an actor’s director like Eric Rohmer–whose films consist almost entirely of conversation between pairs or small groups of people–made a film that incorporated elements from movies like Dark City, eXistenZ, The Thirteenth Floor, The Truman Show, and Total Recall. The result might resemble Alejandro Amenabar’s remarkable second feature, Open Your Eyes, which favors ideas over effects and offers twist upon twist with mind-warping agility. This film rewards multiple viewings, pushing the viewer toward one perception of reality, then switching to another until reality itself is called into question. Melodrama, love story, and psychological thriller combine with a dash of science fiction, forming a plot that is both disorienting and deceptively precise.
Set in Madrid, the story defies description, but this much can be revealed: young, handsome Cesar (Eduardo Noriega) is vain, rich, charming, and–following a botched suicide-murder scheme by a jilted lover–horribly disfigured. He’d fallen in love with Sofia (Penélope Cruz) but is now an embittered husk of his former self, stuck in a “psychiatric penitentiary” on a murder charge and hiding behind an expressionless mask. His reality has crumbled, but as the film’s agenda is gradually revealed, we realize that there are other factors in play. Exposing that agenda would be a criminal offense against those who haven’t seen the film; suffice it to say that Open Your Eyes takes you into the twilight zone and beyond, and does so cleverly enough to prompt Tom Cruise to produce and star in an English-language remake, Vanilla Sky. The 2001 remake, directed by Cameron Crowe, costars Cameron Diaz and Penélope Cruz, who reprises her original role. –Jeff Shannon
Buy “Open Your Eyes” For Only $4.88
Related Blogs
- Related Blogs on Eyes
March 20, 2010
#1
This movie was captivating and interesting for the first 3/4ths of it. It is a psychological thriller/mystery and you obviously want to find out the big explanation at the end that resolves all your questions. Well, the ending was so incredibly far-fetched and crazy that I can’t believe that anyone who read the WHOLE script actually wanted to work on this movie. It ends up being a stupid “sci-fi” type ending. So, if you want to get all into a movie, only to have them resolve it with the most ridiculous scenario possible, buy this one!! ….or….DON’T.
March 20, 2010
#2
I didn’t like this film. It started out with a rich handsome playboy/ladies man getting horribly disfigured in an automobile accident (actually a suicide by a mentally imbalanced woman friend). I thought the film would deal with his post-disfigurement adjustment and life experiences. I suppose this would have been like countless other films dealing with a person’s adjustment after terrible disfigurement. However, this film heads in an entirely different direction. This is where it drops the ball and becomes too confusing. It was a nice try, but no cigar. Apparently, the character has been frozen for 150 years by using cryogenics, and he has very confusing dreams. One never knows what is real and what is a dream. This could have been a good film because it has basically a good sci-fi premise. But the film seems to get lost and does not carry through cohesively. Much too confusing to be enjoyable. Apparently, Vanilla Sky is a good remake. I haven’t seen that film yet. Hopefully it is more masterfully handled than this one.
March 20, 2010
#3
A very disappointing film. Disappointing on many levels. As you can tell already, this is a very critical review and if you wish to avoid so-called ‘spoilers’ then do not read any further; however, if you wish to avoid wasting two hours on an ultimately empty cinematic experience, then read on for an account of the whole dreary mess.
*
That waking reality can be difficult to differentiate from a dream is not a new idea. The ancient Greeks dwelt upon this notion; Eastern religions ponder its ramifications; Rene Descartes made much of it; countless science fiction writers have used it for their own purposes. Unfortunately, the director here has nothing to add to what has been said before. In fact, he chooses to ignore the wisdom of his predescessors and actually says very little indeed. If you have seen the film, then ask yourself what thoughts did it provoke aside from the most basic question of how to distinguish dream from reality – it gives you no conceptual tools with which to think further upon this subject. In terms of ideas, it is a very empty film. Indeed, it is interesting that even the positive reviews of this film do not elaborate any of the alleged ‘ideas’, merely gesturing, yet again, towards the ‘mind-twisting’ effects of the blur between dream and the real.
*
It is also empty on an emotional level. The characters’ behaviour is either poorly or simplistically motivated. The narcissistic lead male is disfigured and his reaction is to become angry and bitter. The Penelope Cruz character is seduced by good looks and money, and then is repulsed by physical disfigurement. The so-called ‘best friend’ consistently enacts the role of a subservient ‘loser’, with no development. None of this is nuanced, the characters do not develop, and the plot twists not because of the characters’ motivations, but seemingly of its own accord – it is very close to being very boring, as it is difficult to care for anyone in this film. Do you learn anything about friendship, or about love, by watching this: no – if you keep watching at all it could well be to find out the technical details of how the ‘surprise’ plot pieces together.
*
The acting is pretty rudimentary. Again, this largely stems from a lack of complex motivation inherent in the characters. It is very much a case of one emotion being displayed at a time – I’m not surprised that this appealed to Tom Cruise as he brings this kind of shallowness to virtually every role he plays.
*
The look of the film is that of a typical Hollywood big budget thriller. The actors are good looking, their characters are rich and so can drive flash cars and inhabit swanky homes, and interactions with others are stereotypical and stupid (the interview with a panel of plastic surgeons is laughable, taking place in a huge minimalist office seemingly at the top of a skyscraper; ditto the ‘gritty’ interaction with the ‘caring’ psychiatrist). It is nothing that you haven’t seen before and that you will no doubt see again, ad nauseam.
*
Amenabar is grossly over-rated. His films offer little in the way of ideas and even less in terms of insight into human interaction.
March 20, 2010
#4
This movie is too ambitious, tries to say too much but with lack of real substance. The script seems to have been written by a teenager, raised by MTV culture. Certainly, Amenabar was very amused by his abilities as a writer, but only people with very little intelligence may find this film amusing.
March 20, 2010
#5
UNFORTUNATELY, I SAW VANILLA SKY FIRST THEN THIS ONE SO TO ME, THE REMAKE WAS MORE EXCITING. I WOULD WAIT FOR VSKY AND BUT THAT ONE.