Own the rights?
134 out of 194 people found the following review useful: An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind, 25 December 2008 Author: pmdawn from Rio de Janeiro
It's very easy to understand why people hate this movie.Blindness is directed by acclaimed film-maker Fernando Meirelles, with a story based on a novel by award-winning writer Jose Saramago. It stars Julianne Moore and Gael Garcia Bernal. What could go wrong? Well, this is one the most depressing movies I've seen in recent years. Don't be fooled, the genre of this movie is Horror, albeit done in an ultra-realistic way, much like the Brazilian movie wave of the 70/80's - gritty, violent, dirty, and ultimately hopeless. However it's not a horror movie in the common sense. It's not scary because it has ugly monsters. It's not frightening because there is a lot of gore and blood. What freaks me (and others) out over this movie, is that it tells a story that could happen, and actually, is happening. If one can't see that, then one is as blind as the characters in the film.The movie is technically brilliant, with great acting and top-notch effects. The story takes place in a non-specific city, but some of it was clearly filmed in São Paulo. The movie poses the question, "what if suddenly everyone in the world became blind"? This is a practical question as much as a metaphorical one.I don't think this movie can be "enjoyed". The violence is suggested rather than seen (which IMHO makes it scarier). It can, however, be appreciated, as its shocking nature is nothing more than a wake-up call for humanity.Having said that, Meirelles took a huge risk (the novel was considered to be un-filmable) with this film, and the result was a lynch-mob reaction from both critics and audiences. I wonder how this will impact Meirelles' future works.I will dare to suggest that, if this had been filmed in Spanish or Portuguese, it might have been hailed as a cult movie. As it is, it's too alienating for audiences that are used to happy endings and fake-violence, or people who watch movies solely to pass the time.This one is for 'hardcore' movie fans - don't watch it if you're depressed or sad. And it offers the viewers very little in the way of comfort. However, it's so well-executed and disturbing, that you can't help but agree that their goal was reached. Unfortunately, the marketing and the names involved with 'Blindness' misled many viewers who otherwise would never dream of watching this.It's not a perfect film by any means, though. The music (specially in one crucial scene) just feels out of place sometimes. And If you can't picture yourself as a blind person, some things may not make a lot of sense, too. There is a scene however in which one of the characters sings a very popular song in a slightly different way - one you are not likely to forget anytime soon.Approach with caution, and preferrably, alone. You don't want to lose any friends or potential dates. But I also think that to miss out on this movie is like losing a chance to watch one of the most thought-provoking films of this year.7/10
154 out of 235 people found the following review useful: Blandness, 14 September 2008 Author: debblyst from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
As an admirer of Saramago's masterpiece and Fernando Meirelles's exciting talent, I went to see "Blindness" with a pure heart but modest expectations; we all know how movie adaptations of great literature can be disappointing. But I wasn't prepared for the formal and philosophical nada that is "Blindness" -- it could very well be entitled "Blandness" instead.The problems start from the opening credits: after the names of a dozen international production companies comes the hype tag "A Very Independent Production". Following this tongue-in-cheek "manifesto", the opening scene -- of the first man turning blind inside his car -- belies it all: it looks alarmingly like an ad for the new Fiat Punto (Fiat is one of the film's backers). It's a shameless piece of merchandise placement that immediately distracts you from what's supposed to be a harrowing scene; you pay attention to the car, not the man (excruciatingly played by Yusuke Iseya, in the film's worst performance). The "very independent production" has more than a share of compromises, including the terribly contrived Japanese couple, who seem to belong to another film, and who are there to satisfy the Japanese co-producers and market. Or the timid, squeezed-in "action" flashes (cars crashing, planes exploding) to satisfy "action" lovers (NOT the public for "Blindness"). Or the debatable decision to film in English an author who brought new heights to Portuguese-language prose, in order to employ American stars and accommodate the international market. Worst of all, we know now that Meirelles decided to re-cut the film six times since Cannes, after test audiences were "disgusted" with "graphic" scenes. Now, how can you keep your vision (oops) trying to please everybody? Can't. The film never finds a tone, wavering between the novel's apocalyptic, sarcastic allegory of society's prejudices, cruelty, ridicule and flawed power systems, and clumsy attempts to insert sci-fi thriller touches and invest on "plot". Well, Saramago's novel is a masterpiece NOT because of the plot but for the exquisite prose and caustic politico-philosophical insights.It would be easy to blame the film's failure solely on Don McKellar's schematic adaptation that resembles a first draft, riddled with bad dialog and pedestrian ideas, plus a narrator (Danny Glover's character) that confusingly comes in halfway into the film. But the problems are all around: César Charlone's visual gimmicks soon get tiresome (the blurring "white blindness" ultimately drains the film of all life; it takes away the visual as well as the emotional edge); Marco Antonio Guimarães's music is abysmally bland; Daniel Rezende (the superb editor of "City of God") never finds a compelling rhythm, alternating chopped scenes with unnecessary longueurs (e.g.the embarrassing "cute dog" sequence). Art director Tulé Peak nails the claustrophobic squalor of the quarantine facility, but the garbage-filled streets often look suspiciously composed.The actors seem lost, and that's a shock considering Meirelles's former films (remember how "City of God" had all-around brilliant performances?). Though they're supposed to play stereotypes (doctor, wife, whore, etc), they lack the transformations that are the crux of the novel -- how they work out their humanity in extreme mondo cane conditions. Mark Ruffalo, of whining voice and gutless face, looks like a boy who's lost his mommy rather than a dedicated ophthalmologist who slowly sinks into depression because he's impotent to help others or himself. Danny Glover plays a weather-beaten one-eyed old man incongruously sporting a supermegawhite Beverly Hills dental job that renders him impossible to believe in. The Japanese couple struggle with ludicrous scenes and dialog. Alice Braga is strong and sexy, but her character's complexities never surface, especially the nature of her relationships with the young boy and the doctor. Maury Chaykin's repellent character is underwritten and under-explored, and he turns to overacting for attention. Don McKellar's thief is an embarrassment and Sandra Oh's cameo is a waste.Julianne Moore spends the first half hour repeating her role of the depressed/misunderstood wife in "The Hours" (cake-baking included). She fails to convey the bewilderment as to the "why" she's the only one to keep her eyesight, but she's good when she gets into action, though she could take a break from her de rigueur slow-motion crying scene, with that weird thing she does curling her mouth upside down (my friend said "Oh, no, it's coming!"). The best performance comes from Gael García Bernal playing the amoral, jackass opportunist: he makes the most unbelievable character (how about his rise to power? And gun? And ammo?) come to life -- in his scenes, we recognize Meirelles's naughty, un-PC sense of humor.Above all, it's Meirelles (director, co-producer and responsible for the final cut) who disappoints; his customary assertive film-making flounders in hesitation here. Perhaps he felt the burden of trying to remain too faithful to the novel of a Nobel-winner who's still alive. Perhaps he felt crushed by the brooding material; Meirelles is best when he can let irony and humor show (as in "Domésticas" and "City of God"). Though some people complain about the "graphic" sex/rape scenes, they're actually almost bashful (at least after the re-cuts). The novel's corrosiveness asked for an uncompromising, irrepressible director of Buñuel's lineage -- if there was one -- to do it full justice (the characters' passiveness/impotence recall "Exterminating Angel"). In this our time, Béla Tarr could've made it gloriously bleak; Lars von Trier could've turned it into a shattering, sardonic horror, if he got back into his splendid "Kingdom"/"Zentropa" shape."Blindness" is not bad at all -- it's just insipid and frustrating. Maybe Meirelles should do next a Portuguese-speaking Brazilian film again and re-fuel his soul with his own culture, language and themes. Brazilian cinema needs him badly; abroad, he's just one more talented, competent "foreign" director, and these multinational ventures often turn out muddled or impersonal (think Kassovitz, Susanne Bier, Hirschbiegel...). He can do much better, and we deserve much better from him.
201 out of 338 people found the following review useful: Intense, slow, gritty, powerful and methodic, 4 October 2008 Author: ToddWebb from Washington, DC
I expected an over-the-top action flick, a-la Mad Max style or I Am Legend style. This movie was much slower, much dirtier, and more real. It was more like the BOOK "I Am Legend." The point of the flick was the human element and not the action. It was great.Having said that, I should have waited to rent it. The audience sitting around me was not intelligent enough to appreciate it -- nor intelligent enough to shut up during the movie. Their chattiness seemed to be born out of boredom. Shame.I wondered how the movie would end. And at 2 hours long I had plenty of time to think about it. I could not guess it. Perhaps someone smarter, or who thinks in more obvious terms could have guessed it. But I was surprised by it. And it really leaves you thinking. That is, if you were thinking during the movie up to that point.This movie is dirty to watch and will leave you feeling dirty. In a very adult, intelligent, thought-provoking manner. I write few reviews. This movie moved me to write a review.
97 out of 171 people found the following review useful: Fair adaptation of a complex novel, 12 October 2008 Author: Aluísio Parondi (nem.freud.explica@gmail.com) from Winooski, Vermont, USA
"If it can be written, or thought, it can be filmed", said the great Stanley Kubrick, who adapted most of his films from novels and turned them into his own films, rather than being too literal (or faithful, if you prefer) to the source material (and often turning authors and fans of the adapted novels crazy – Stephen King, anyone?). I agree with his statement. No literary work is "unfilmable" – which doesn't necessarily mean any literary work, good or bad, can be turned into a good movie. However, in spite of a few flaws, "Blindness" is a very efficient adaptation of a brilliant (and very complex) novel by Portuguese author José Saramago, "Ensaio Sobre a Cegueira" (literally, "Essay About Blindness"), and doesn't deserve all the bad reviews it's been getting.The negative reaction towards the film doesn't surprise me at all, though. Fernando Meirelles, after getting world acclaim with his neoclassic "City of God", made a very successful transition to an international project with the beautiful "The Constant Gardener". His sophomore English project is very daring and dark, uneasy to watch at times, but also compelling and thought-provoking.César Charlone's exquisite cinematography sets the tone for the story of an unexplained "white blindness" epidemic. It's also a huge asset to have such a phenomenal actress like Julianne Moore to play the film's heroine: as always, she has a strong presence and is extremely expressive, making everyone believe and feel for her character's cross of being the only one who can see in a chaotic quarantine, where people have to submit to violence and rape in order to survive.My only major complaint is about the uneven first 20 minutes or so: some sequences seem a little disjointed and the acting somewhat amateurish, but once the first act is done the film finds its own pace and strength. Roger Ebert called it "one of the most unpleasant, not to say unendurable, films" he's ever seen. For a start, it would be stupid to assume a film with such a dark premise would be uplifting (and if Ebert had the slightest knowledge about the material it's based on, he'd realize what he was up for), so his comment is unintelligent and atrocious like the majority of everything he's ever written (but he's a widely popular Pulitzer-winning film critic, so unfortunately lots of people trust his opinion before going to see a movie). Even though I still prefer the outstanding novel to the film, I admire director Fernando Meirelles and writer Don McKellar's adaptation for what it is: smart, daring and respectful to its source material, without being overtly faithful or afraid of taking risks. And Saramago himself approved the film, so who are we to criticize? The man knows what he's talking about; if you want to see it for yourself, read his novel now and then compare it to this film, appreciating it not as a literary work, but as the good piece of cinema it is. 8/10.
59 out of 103 people found the following review useful: huge disappointment, 31 October 2008 Author: viscommie from United States
this movie stunk. and not just due to the fact that one sighted person was responsible for cleaning up after many blind, naked, filthy persons. i loved the preview-- loved the concept. the concept which was NEVER properly portrayed in the film. this movie didn't even make sense-- spoiler-- the FIRST thing they do is toss a DOCTOR into an unsupervised institution? no testing? no studies or research? no guidance? ridiculous. and the idea-- spoiler-- that a sighted person, the ONLY sighted person would NOT use that to her advantage, what the hell? rape me for food? really? then screw me out of said rations? (no pun intended) ridiculous. it was stupid, wasteful, non-entertaining drivel. please do not waste your time.
31 out of 49 people found the following review useful: Perhaps a bit too laboured and bleak but well shot and grippingly depressing in the detail and sweep of the story, 23 January 2009 Author: bob the moo from Birmingham, UK
Blindness managed to slip past me without me even noticing it when it came out recently and when it was selected by others to be my Saturday night viewing in favour of another film (which was "not really a Saturday night thing") I assumed that Blindness must be a thriller/horror where disease threatens mankind. I figured I knew where it would go and what it would do - I was wrong. The film opens with the first man going blind and causing traffic problems and introduces us, via him, to an eye-doctor and his suburban, cheerfully comfortable wife. When he goes blind, he is collected by the military and taken into quarantine along with his wife, who pretends to have gone blind. From here we find inside the camp, shut off from the rest of the world and the various wards go quickly from a handful of people up to the place filled to capacity.The meaning is obvious as our focus on this world is very much meant to be a microcosm of the rest of the world and a look at what happens to day-to-day humanity and morals when the senses of society and control are stripped away. It is no surprise that the only way is down from this point and the film shows us "humanity" stripped away to be replaced by mob rule, self-interest, exploitation, murder, rape and so on - it is a brutal and unrelenting experience but one that is, sadly, quite convincing. This makes up the vast majority of the film and it is hard going. In terms of message there is only one point but it is not one that is made and then moved on from, but rather a descent that has to be experienced and it is here that the film works really well. The downwards spiral is gripping even though the feel of the film is one of a quiet, slow pace.In a reverse of most films like this, Blindness starts with a tight focus and saves the bigger picture for the end. I liked this approach because it allowed me to get caught up in the smaller group without worrying too much about the rest of the world, only to show me later – doing it the other way makes for a good opening but then also feels a bit of a step backwards to then focus on a small group. The effects of the wider world are impressive even if they are quite as convincing as the despair we had just witnessed inside the camp, but personally I found the visual delivery within the camp to be of much more interest. Here we have some great cinematography which helps to make the film feel fresh and engaging as it prevents the viewer sitting back and watching from afar but rather makes our eyes part of the presentation rather than a passive part of it. The visual style is particularly important in some of the harder scenes as we are not actually shown that much but simply left to squirm as we see enough to make the rest happen in our heads. It is not unfair to say that the visual style does rather cover some weaknesses in the material by aiding the sense of engagement with the viewer.The cast are mixed because of the material but mostly are good. Moore is impressive with an unlikely character who doesn't totally make logical sense but who doesn't allow you to think about that too much. The change in her character is well done and she does well as, literally, our eyes in the film. Ruffalo is perhaps less striking as a performance because he does his character well – his character being weaker and more liberal within the context that changes Moore so much. Braga is also good in her part and fits in well with smaller turns from Bernal and several others who I did not know. Ironically I found two of the more famous faces to be distracting. I didn't see the point of Sandra Oh being here but she is not as distracting as Danny Glover, although this is not really his fault. His material has interest and his performance is OK but he is almost an afterthought and doesn't fit in with the rest of the film, ending up as more of a distraction than anything else.Blindness is far from a fun experience and I can understand why some have hated it. Nor is it a brilliantly complex film, since it is essentially a journey into one point, with other threads not really that well done (Glover's stuff in particular). However it is intense and engaging with a great visual style to it. Watch it as an experience and, when choosing who you see it with, please bear in mind that it is a grim and uncomfortable affair throughout.
16 out of 21 people found the following review useful: Tosca, 3 October 2009 Author: tedg (tedg@FilmsFolded.com) from Virginia Beach
Sometimes I wonder. At times, it seems that we all have some shared cinematic values — that some art can reach us all. Sure, we usually sacrifice depth in the process, but that's a small enough occasional price for the joy of laughing with a crowd. It is no small part of the experience, that shared dark room with no remote control. So when I see a movie like this, I wonder why it doesn't fit the niche. It is extraordinarily well done. The eye is used to convey not only narrative movement — as usually is desired — but situated group emotion as well. It does this in a straightforward, effective way. It is high cinema, but not requiring deciphering. Some visual episodes here simply took my breath away. They worked, all of them that I got, because Julianne understood what they were and how to support them. The story has allegorical elements about society and family, humanness and knowing. I would have preferred that they be more subtle, more Chinese. But they worked. You could see the balance, the perfect weighing of values, the texture from a Nobel-level writer. So this should have been embraced by everyone. High visual art with accessible vocabulary and visceral effect. Obvious allegory, but with rich immediate motion. Several unexpected turns. But for some reason it wasn't. As I knew this going in, it became a sort of parallel context that was carried along. This was absolutely pummeled by the newspaper writers, not critics really; just reporters of a supposed banal zeitgeist. Viewers on IMDb were not so savage, but this, like "Children of Men" did not get the exposure it deserved. The business about goodness grown from being forced to live on the periphery of dangerous tribe simply did not carry from "City of God" to here, though the similarities are striking.So I wonder whether it is me that is blind here, in celebrating this, or the other way.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
35 out of 60 people found the following review useful: In a crisis moral breaks, really?, 19 November 2008 Author: viewer10000 from Germany
The whole point this movie focuses on is that in a time of crisis people fall back into an animal like behavior. As soon as society goes "blind" and there is no imposed law and order everyone will go crazy.I think that this is simply not true. I think that this overly simplified.I have seen many comments of people that seem to like the movie and that insult people criticizing the film as being dump/ignorant/arrogant/not capable of getting the point/ etc. From what I get the people think that the movie makes a valid social point and transports some kind of valuable insight into human nature. If that is what you like about the film, I really don't get why behaving in an uncivilized manner just as supposedly criticized in the movie and calling people names.I just think this film spends far too much time on making a point, that I don't think is valid in the first place. Even worse, some scenes like the first encounter with the armed guards appear unrealistic and focus too much on artificially creating this atmosphere of panic. I am really convinced that the people around me will not turn into wild beasts on the first trouble in sight. And I am awfully sorry for those of you that live in an environment that makes you think this movie is realistic and carries a true message.Save your money, there are far better movies.
31 out of 53 people found the following review useful: Major disappointment, 7 October 2008 Author: jeccles1 from United States
I wanted to like this film and had great expectations, yet by the end of the movie I was annoyed at the entire production. Plot holes of some degree are to be expected in any movie, but the ones in Blindness were so gaping that they became major distractions.The point is made at the start that Ward 1 would be the best to be in because they were closest to the supplies, yet despite that and despite the fact that they have the only sighted person in the building who can see the deliveries coming, they end up with nothing.The Julianne Moore character leading the lambs to the slaughter so to speak (women exchanged for food) was absurd. Her walking up to the "dictator" with a metal pipe and smashing him in the head would have been the obvious move. He has a gun. So? And the idea that just because the "dictator" had a man who was already blind on his team, they had a great advantage, is absurd as well. I work with blind people daily. Their blindness does not give them magical powers. They have a degree of increased sensitivity with other senses, but still walk into walls and head the wrong way pretty often, so while they would have an advantage in that they had no adjustments to make when the affliction hit the world, that's about all.In the end, I was reminded of "Children of Men", another film which had great promise but ultimately disappointed. At least that movie started out great however. "Blindness" just meandered around, and did so for a long, long time as well. "Day of the Triffids", an old sci-fi movie, gave a better take on the possibilities of such an epidemic.
10 out of 13 people found the following review useful: Opens your eyes for something you don't want to see, 15 August 2009 Author: guynaba
The movie has its merits. It brings you into the story, making you feel all the emotions felt by the characters, and in my opinion this is why some people didn't like it; it opens your eyes for things that nobody wants to see. I'm not saying that a disease like this one could happen, but others may come, and that's a reality.The movie makes you feel extremely uncomfortable; I caught myself thinking about leaving the room sometimes. The atmosphere that Fernando Meireles built is so heavy and dark (even thought the whole movie is full of bright colors) that it makes you feel something like depression, sadness, and you keep thinking in the movie after it has finished. The acting helped a lot in this aspect; all the actors did their best to give a perfect sense of reality.If you want just to spend some time watching a good apocalyptic movie, this is not the one. It may be considered as "cult" in someway, by the fact that you don't watch it to get entertained, but to reflect about it.If I had to grade this movie based on how I felt during it, I would give it a 0, but I have to say that, above everything, it is a great movie.8/10
Add another review
