I went to watch Vanilla Sky with my dad at the movie theatre when I was living in the States. I was 12 back then, and it did not really register with me, but I remember my dad praising it as one of the few Hollywood productions worth its salt he had seen since our move, and he was usually very critical. That is the only thing that stuck with me, along with Tom Cruise's disfigured face.

What was also interesting was the film's commercial success despite polarising professional critics. It is a psychological thriller that blends romance, mystery, and science fiction. It is a remake of the 1997 Spanish film Open Your Eyes.

The movie would have eventually become a distant memory if not for my closest friend in the UK, who is obsessed with it. This obsession enticed me to rewatch it.

It hit differently with life experience.

It starts with David Aames (Tom Cruise), a wealthy and charismatic New York City publishing magnate with a playboy lifestyle. He has a casual relationship with Julie (Cameron Diaz). Still, he begins falling for Sofia (Penelope Cruz), a woman he meets at a party thanks to his best and only friend Brian, who he is about to publish.

Julie is jealous of David's interest in Sofia. After stalking David, Julia offers him a ride and drives them off a bridge in a murder-suicide attempt. Julie dies, and David is left disfigured.

David spirals into depression, as despite his wealth, plastic surgery cannot restore his face, so he decides to commit suicide to partake in the cryogenic experience, where, once dead, he could live the lucid dream of the life he wanted but could not achieve.

The movie switches between the real world and the fantasy David puts himself in, which can be very confusing. There, he dates Sofia and lives the life he wishes. Still, through technical issues, it turns to hallucinations, and he eventually murders the woman he loves because he confused her with Julie.

The movie is a great metaphor between the character's wished subjective reality and the objective reality of the world, where he is eventually offered to choose between the desire to live in that lucid dream or face the real world where he will be resuscitated in the future.

Two significant themes worth mentioning are the idea of the sweet and the sour and the polarisation of the types of women that the typical playboy will face.

Brian, despite having the best intentions towards David, envies him; however, on a car ride between the both of them, he mentions at the beginning of the movie that "one day you will know what love truly is, it is the sour and the sweet, and I know sour, which allows me to appreciate the sweet". This prompts David to admit he is sleeping with Julie, Brian's "dream girl", and Brian follows up with "Julie Gianni is your fuck buddy!?!".

‍

‍

What Brian dreams of is just some side dish to his successful friend. To add insult to injury, Brian later brings a "friend" to David's home party to see himself being completely ignored. As a good friend does, Brian eclipses himself to allow them both to hit off together. This is where David starts getting complicit with Sofia to avoid Julie, who managed to sneak into the party.

Brian decides to get drunk after being AMOGED by his best friend and is about to say his leave to David: "Why do you have to hit on Sofia?", "I dig her, and I have never said this to you about any girl, but she could be, could be the girl of my fucking dreams." Eventually, he stops his Frank Sinatra King Sad moment by saying to David, "We are bros.". He admitted defeat in the sourness, closing in with: "You will never know the exquisite pain of the guy who goes home alone because, without the bitter baby, the sweet ain't as sweet. Have a good time".

‍

David eventually goes to Sofia's flat; they exchange random facts about themselves. He is mesmerised by her. Sofia represents everything David wants but feels he lacks – authenticity, kindness, stability and genuine love. Unlike Julie, whose relationship with him is possessive and chaotic, Sofia is presented as pure, compassionate, and untainted by the superficiality of David's world. For David, Sofia is not just a person but a symbol of hope and salvation from his broken and disfigured life. He clings to her to reclaim his identity and humanity, idealising her far beyond her actual qualities.

David is essentially narcissistic and has a deep need for validation, which Sofia provides. Sofia's interest in him reinforces David's self-worth, especially after his accident, which leaves him physically and emotionally scarred. She becomes the antidote to his fears of rejection and inadequacy. David projects his dreams and fantasies onto Sofia, seeing her as a muse or a "perfect woman" who could complete him rather than acknowledging her as a fully realised individual.

When David enters the "Lucid Dream", his subconscious amplifies his idealised version of Sofia, blending memories and fantasies into a vision of her as his ultimate soulmate. This idealisation becomes increasingly problematic as the simulation begins to glitch. The disconnect between reality and David's fabricated perfection of Sofia highlights how unattainable and unsustainable his ideals were.

Sofia's role in David's life is not just about romantic love; she represents his quest for redemption and the need to reconnect with his true self. However, by idealising her, he avoids confronting his flaws and responsibilities.

David's mesmerising idealisation of Sofia underscores one of the movie's key themes: the dangers of living in a fantasy, the importance of facing reality, and imperfections. David's idealisation of Sofia reflects his yearning for something real in his superficiality and a tragic flaw that blinds him to the complexity of actual relationships. Ultimately, his journey in the film involves letting go of these illusions and learning to face life and love with authenticity and vulnerability.

On the other side, Julie is seen as a symbol of Lust and Consequence.

It is about physical attraction over emotional connection: David's relationship with Julie is rooted in casual, no-strings-attached physical intimacy. She represents a hedonistic, impulsive side of his life – once focused on immediate gratification rather than meaningful connection.

Julie embodies the qualities of the "femme fatale". While passionate and seductive, her intense emotional investment in David is overwhelming and destructive. Her darker side becomes evident in her jealousy and manipulative behaviour.

Julie is emotionally and physically attached to David, but her feelings are unreciprocated. She invests herself in him in ways he does not acknowledge or value, creating an imbalanced dynamic. For David, Julie is a convenience, someone who fills a temporary void but isn't integral to his life. This disregard fuels her insecurity and desperation, leading her to drastic actions.

Julie represents the dangerous, uncontrollable aspects of human desire and emotional dependency:

Her unrestrained passion through her love for David borders on obsession, illustrating how unreciprocated passion can lead to instability. For David, Julie is a cautionary figure. His casual treatment of their relationship reveals his selfishness, and her tragic response forces him to confront the consequences of his actions.

The car crash orchestrated by Julie is the ultimate manifestation of her archetype: a moment where unchecked passion and jealousy collide with David's detached indifference. Her suicide and his disfigurement signify the fallout of living recklessly, both emotionally and physically. Through Julie, David is forced to grapple with mortality, vulnerability and the pain of consequences, themes that haunt him throughout the movie.

Julie is unpredictable and uncontrollable, contrasting sharply with David's desire to control his environment and relationships. She represents chaos, forcing David to face a side of his life that he would rather ignore.

Julie's obsessive love mirrors David's flaws, inability to form deep emotional bonds, narcissism, and superficiality. She is a darker reflection of his inner chaos. The car crash allowed David to see his character's ugliness from the outside, something he did not want to acknowledge when he had his female alter ego in Julie.

Julie represents the shadow side of David's desires and the darker consequences of living a self-indulgent, emotionally detached life. Where Sofia is the archetype of redemption and idealised love, Julie embodies chaos, consequence, and the dangers of casual selfishness. Their relationship underscores the duality of love and lust, the consequences of emotional neglect, and the perils of failing to take responsibility for one's actions.

Or, as Julie said just preceding the murder-suicide attempt:

"There is something that bothers me. Why did you tell Brian I was your fuck buddy?"
"I did not tell him that"
"When did you stop caring, David?"
"About what?"
"About the consequences of the promises that you have made."
"Promises?"
"Yes, the promises."
"Promises. Get the Fuck out…what are you talking about?"
"Do you understand how hard it is to pretend to be your buddy, David? I love you, I fucking love you […] you fucked me 4 times the other night, David, you have been inside me, I swallowed your cum, that means something".

‍

‍

Sofia and Julie represent the sweet and the sour, as well as the light and the shadow sides of life. But Brian's quote is more profound than that. It underscores the idea that life's value lies in its seemingly insignificant, fleeting moments—the joys, struggles, and connections that give it texture and meaning.

Later in the movie, the Tech Support in David's lucid dream eventually repeats Brian's previous words to David: "The sweet is never as sweet without the sour". It emphasises the duality of human experience: joy and happiness (the sweet) are only meaningful because they contrast with pain and suffering (the sour). The positive experiences lose their impact and depth without the challenges and darker moments.

David's journey exemplifies the truth of these statements, as his life oscillates between extremes of sweetness (pleasure, love, and beauty) and sourness (pain, regret, and isolation).

The all-sweet illusion of the beginning is explained by David's privileged life filled with wealth, freedom and indulgence, but it is shallow and devoid of true meaning. He takes relationships and even his own self-worth for granted. Without experiencing "the sour", David fails to appreciate the value of what he has. His relationships are superficial, and his happiness feels hollow because it lacks contrast or adversity.

The car crash with Julie introduces the sour into David's life, shattering his perfect illusion. He faces physical disfigurement, emotional pain, and a crumbling sense of identity. The suffering forces David to confront his own flaws, insecurities, and the fragility of his former life. In the darkness, he begins to yearn for something real and meaningful.

The lucid dream is a manufactured sweetness. In the dream world created by the cryogenic company, David experiences an idealised, "all-sweet" existence where his face is healed, and he is in love with Sofia. However, this artificial perfection begins to unravel, revealing its emptiness. Without the sour, the sweetness of his dream lacks authenticity and emotional resonance. The glitches in the simulation symbolise his subconscious rejection of a life devoid of struggle and imperfection.

David eventually chooses to awaken from the Lucid Dream, even though it means returning to an uncertain and painful reality. This decision reflects his acceptance of life's sweet and sour duality. By embracing reality, with all its imperfections and hardships, David demonstrates his growth and understanding that life's value lies in the interplay between joy and suffering.

The "sweet and sour" philosophy captures the essence of David's transformation. His journey teaches him that life is meaningful because of its contrasts. Only by experiencing pain, loss and imperfection can he truly appreciate love, beauty, and the small, profound moments that make life worth living.

For all the bad criticism Vanilla Sky has received, Critics have failed to realise that the movie is intentionally dense, a meditation on trauma and mental escape. It is not meant to be simple; its complexity mirrors the complexity of human memory and the subconscious. Critics have just shown their superficiality, and now I understand why this movie, although having only discussed the two themes of the polarisation in the women's imagery of the typical player's experience and the "sweet and sour" philosophy, why my overly critical father remembered it as one of the best he saw during our 2 years stay in the United States.

‍