Blindness

[Lazy Boy]

http://www.sofos.com/blog/blindnessposter.jpg

Directed by Fernando Meirelles

Written by Don McKellar, based on the novel by Jose Saramago

Genre: Drama

http://www.lookforward.com.au/uploads/20080416/d5270136-0a87-47c2-af2f-9a2af587a78c/blindness.jpg

Tagline: In a world gone blind, what if you were the only person who could see?

Plot: A doctor's wife becomes the only person with the ability to see in a town where everyone is struck with a mysterious case of sudden blindness. She feigns illness in order to take care of her husband as her surrounding community breaks down into chaos and disorder. (imdb.com)

http://www.videodetective.com/photos/1241/05213642_.jpg

Starring: Julianne Moore, Mark Ruffalo, Alice Braga, Danny Glover, Gael Garcia Bernal

Rated R for violence including sexual assaults, language and sexuality/nudity

Runtime: 120 minutes

Meirelles is a talented director, and this looks like a good dystopian allegory. I've heard it was trimmed of some things when shown recently at Toronto (i.e. a narration by Glover) so maybe this will be an economically lean picture.

Edit: is this thread too early? When exactly is the film coming out, I've heard the 19th in limited, but I've also read the 26th.

[Tayzlor]

It sounded promising up until the scathing reviews out of Cannes. Meirelles is too great of a director to not check up on his work but does he have a voice, I mean, something to warrant "a film by Fernando Meirelles"? That implies him to be the sole creative force behind the enterprise and not a director with certain stylistic tendencies. I do get the sense that he would be perfectly content to work within Hollywood, much like the overrated "Three Amigos" of Mexico.

But to all the sophisticated and so-called critics from Cannes, I think the key word may be allegory. But then I haven't seen the movie.

Maybe I should read the book first? I'm not terribly familiar with books not initially written in the English language but I heard it's a classic of sorts. Maybe you've read it, Lazy Boy.

[Bourne101]

It looks fantastic, but the reviews have been quite mixed. I guess I'll just have to see for myself. I'm looking forward to it.

[Lazy Boy]

Maybe I should read the book first? I'm not terribly familiar with books not initially written in the English language but I heard it's a classic of sorts. Maybe you've read it, Lazy Boy.

Never knew it was a book until I checked the credits, simply thought it was an entirely original screenplay by McKellar. I'm sure I'll find a copy of it soon, packaged in time with a front cover depicting the movie poster, credits in small font on the back below the story description.

[Tweek]

It ticks me right off that they're not releasing it using Descriptive Video Service theatrically. Hopefully on DVD, eh? If Daredevil can do it--:mad:

[Moviefan1234]

I'm looking forward to BLINDNESS, but the mixed reviews have me very concerned.

[Reigh Kaufman]

It's a tough book to read - there is, deliberately, no real punctuation, and no real sense of place or time - but it is a good read for those who are able to get past some of the stylistic choices of the writer. I would say, comparatively, that it is like 'The Road' - the narrative sometimes irritates you to the point where you want to stop reading altogether, but it is worth it if you persevere.

As a movie, though, it is extremely filmic. My concern is that there are some unpleasant scenes which - like a modern day 'Lord of the Flies' - will not translate to the cinema simply because the emotion of the characters comes from the fact that they cannot see, and therefore Julieanne Moore will have to be the audiences eyes. How can we feel the emotions of the other characters if the witness is someone else? How do you film their horror when you can only see it from someone else's perspective? It's an interesting challenge.

Judging from the trailer, the director has decided to blur the frames or fill it with blinding white light (as the blindness is described in the novel). This in itself will bother people - leeching colour can often make a film look and feel soulless.

It will be divisive, in my opinion, but he can do it. I am concerned by the reviews, yet I still think that there is potential here.

[Strider]

Supposedly, Fernando Meirelles cut down Blindness from 160 minutes to two hours. That kind of worries me, but not as much as the mixed reaction from Cannes. I'm really looking forward to the film nevertheless, and I hope it's great, because I'm such a fan of Meirelles' work.

Edit: is this thread too early? When exactly is the film coming out, I've heard the 19th in limited, but I've also read the 26th.

It's limited release run starts on the 19th and continues until October 3rd, which is its wide release date.

Strider

[Tayzlor]

Thanks for the information on the novel, I may actually try to read that before the movie comes out (along with reading "The Road" and "Reservation Road" before their respective movies).

I hadn't heard of Meirelles cutting down the film so drastically. Is there more to this? Was he just snipping off a working print and had all intentions of paring it down to such a length? Perhaps in response to the negative reaction to the narration (maybe a necessity since the film was cut down) he added in more footage?

[ilovemovies]

I can't wait to see this! It looks fantastic and incredibly gripping. One of my most anticipated movies of the rest of the year for sure!

[unspoken]

He said that they got rushed for Cannes. They wanted a later slot to have more time to finish, and ended up with opening day.

[Strider]

I hadn't heard of Meirelles cutting down the film so drastically. Is there more to this? Was he just snipping off a working print and had all intentions of paring it down to such a length? Perhaps in response to the negative reaction to the narration (maybe a necessity since the film was cut down) he added in more footage?

Check this link out:

http://cinemascopian.com/2008/02/04/fernando-meirelles-on-editing-blindness/

It seems the 160-minute version was just a very rough cut and Meirelles didn't want "to waste so much of the viewers' precious time." In the link above, Meirelles says his goal is to "throw forty minutes away" and "turn the fat into muscle." He wrote all this prior to Cannes.

It's nothing to worry about then -- I'm relieved.

Strider

[blankpage]

Looks pretty great. I was midly interested, but I saw a brand new spankin trailer in front of "Burn After Reading", and I immediately got excited. This looks very promising...

[Bourne101]

I saw that trailer in front of Burn After Reading too and it was great. I am looking forward to this.

[Lawgick]

Will definitely be seeing this.

[Jig Saw 123]

It looks amazing. :eek:

[Lazy Boy]

Some footage of Jose Saramago's reaction after watching the film:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XzBkM_LdAk

[Tayzlor]

Blindsided...that's the most moving thing I'll see all month

[Tweek]

Aw, that was a great video.

:)

[Bourne101]

Great video.

[Potter82]

hmmm.... while I liked the book, I don't know if I want to see this movie, since it will no doubt be INCREDIBLY depressing.

I find it very hard to think of another book that was such a damning condemnation of all that is wrong with humanity from callousness, neglect, lack of empathy, moral cowardice, greed, to downright sadism and tryanny.

I like to think that I'm far more cynical than most people and while I normally really like grim, dark films (i.e. in regards to recent films of this nature, I loved No Country for Old Men & The Dark Knight), there are just some things that will be in this film (if its anything like the book) that I have zero interest in seeing.

I am well aware that such things happen, I would just prefer not to subject myself to their portrayal a second time.

[Reigh Kaufman]

hmmm.... while I liked the book, I don't know if I want to see this movie, since it will no doubt be INCREDIBLY depressing.

I find it very hard to think of another book that was such a damning condemnation of all that is wrong with humanity from callousness, neglect, lack of empathy, moral cowardice, greed, to downright sadism and tryanny.

I like to think that I'm far more cynical than most people and while I normally really like grim, dark films (i.e. in regards to recent films of this nature, I loved No Country for Old Men & The Dark Knight), there are just some things that will be in this film (if its anything like the book) that I have zero interest in seeing.

I am well aware that such things happen, I would just prefer not to subject myself to their portrayal a second time.


My complaint with the book - which I hope is altered/improved in the film - is:




SPOILER




The way the plague of blindness simply ends, and then it's over. People at the cinema willl feel pretty hacked off with that ending.



END SPOILER


What works on the page does not often work on-screen.

[Danger^Cart]

I can remember when The Fountain recieved a mixed reaction and that turned out to be one my favorite films of the past decade, so maybe this lackluster reception is a good thing?

[SpikeDurden]

The Constant Gardener and City of God are both absolutely fantastic. The premise of this film and the cast assembled is great, and it looks extremely riveting and intense. I don't mark the reaction as necessarily a bad thing, though. Oftentimes the really serious and intense, yet off beat genre pictures get mixed reviews, such as the aforementioned The Fountain. Then again, I try not to listen to reviews that often and just make up my own mind. So yes, I will be seeing this as soon as I can.

[andanotherthing]

I'm planning on checking out Blindness based on the quality of the premise alone. Regardless of how the movie actually plays out at least it's an interesting idea. It kind of reminds me of Children of Men, in that there's the whole unexplained, reality-changing epidemic.

I recently saw the first five minutes of the film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag6r1LiL8qQ

...and, I totally believed the driver was stealing the blind guy's car there for a second.

[Tweek]

...and, I totally believed the driver was stealing the blind guy's car there for a second.

LOL me too.

What does that say about our faith in humanity? :p

[jolanar]

I think this looks like it's going to be absolutely amazing or absolutely awful. Early reviews are not being kind however.

[DRbeauty]

LOL me too.

What does that say about our faith in humanity? :p


Whatever, that guy was acting shady. I still think he's going to stab him to death and steal all of his shit.

[chinton]

Wow what a massive let down from a director that I genuinely think is great. I've never read the book, but I have heard that it is first and foremost an allegorical book which is what I think really killed this movie. Maybe in the book the characters are better developed and the narrative is strengthened aside from just meaning something but those two things fail here. It has great acting all around, but I just really didn't care about the characters. The story was only so so.

In the end it felt as if this was a film that was specifically made and set-up to MEAN something about the breakdown of society in the middle of a crisis. First, this is not original in anyway except the way in which society broke down, but in the end we've seen this kind of theme in every post apocalyptic drama. Even worse, none of the points it made were subtle in anyway and everything was shrill. The hospital section felt like it was written by a college student who wanted to be oh so deep in exchange for meaningful characters or complex points.

Oh and while it looked good i just got sick and tired of the endless visual tricks which all seemed to boil down to the same trick over and over once you looked at it i.e. flooding the screen with whiteness.

I still love this director but the movie for me was misguided on every level.

3/10

[visual_tension]

After recently watching City of God for the first time, I expected this to be great. It falls a bit short, but it's still pretty good. Moore and Ruffalo do some strong work here and the cinematography is excellent, although slightly irritating at times.

7/10

[Crazy Dud]

The first half of this film is quite stellar. Everything works. Unfortunately, the second half of the film quickly devolves into an unjustified exercise in movie sadism. The other problem is that the ending is very unsatisfying, and leaves essential dramatic questions unanswered, which is simply lazy writing. Despite all of this, I have scored the movie as high as I have because, from an objective artistic standpoint, the film is brilliant. Still, I strongly advise whoever is reading this review not to see the film.

5/10

[Strider]

Blindness - 5/10 or **1/2/***** stars

After two great, masterfully directed pictures in City of God and The Constant Gardener, Fernando Meirelles, unfortunately, has delivered his first misfire. Blindness is part allegorical drama, part thriller, and neither part is very effective; furthermore, it's plagued by a paper-thin, lazily written screenplay, poorly developed, unsympathetic characters, weak performances (with exception of Gael Garcia Bernal, who outshines the entire cast as a loathsome opportunist), a painfully slow pace, and a sappy, frustrating conclusion. Blindness is brimming with style, but devoid of any real substance.

Strider

[mreeez]

Wow what a massive let down from a director that I genuinely think is great. I've never read the book, but I have heard that it is first and foremost an allegorical book which is what I think really killed this movie. Maybe in the book the characters are better developed and the narrative is strengthened aside from just meaning something but those two things fail here. It has great acting all around, but I just really didn't care about the characters. The story was only so so.

In the end it felt as if this was a film that was specifically made and set-up to MEAN something about the breakdown of society in the middle of a crisis. First, this is not original in anyway except the way in which society broke down, but in the end we've seen this kind of theme in every post apocalyptic drama. Even worse, none of the points it made were subtle in anyway and everything was shrill. The hospital section felt like it was written by a college student who wanted to be oh so deep in exchange for meaningful characters or complex points.

Oh and while it looked good i just got sick and tired of the endless visual tricks which all seemed to boil down to the same trick over and over once you looked at it i.e. flooding the screen with whiteness.

I still love this director but the movie for me was misguided on every level.

3/10

Hit the nail on the head. Saw it last night and was profoundly disappointed.

[Crazy Dud]

Blindness - 5/10 or **1/2/***** stars

After two great, masterfully directed pictures in City of God and The Constant Gardener, Fernando Meirelles, unfortunately, has delivered his first misfire. Blindness is part allegorical drama, part thriller, and neither part is very effective; furthermore, it's plagued by a paper-thin, lazily written screenplay, poorly developed, unsympathetic characters, weak performances (with exception of Gael Garcia Bernal, who outshines the entire cast as a loathsome opportunist), a painfully slow pace, and a sappy, frustrating conclusion. Blindness is brimming with style, but devoid of any real substance.

Strider

Everything in this review is absolutely true.

[hoojib127]

8/10

Just got back from it. Somewhat overstylized cinematography aside, this is a solid film.

I thought the film did a good job at showing how, after thousands of years of existence, we humans really aren't as advanced as we'd like to think we are. It really reinforced our negative aspects: our lust for power and our ambition to hold onto it at all costs once we get it...our tendency to only want to look out for a select few people and say 'to hell with everyone else'....our tendency to let our emotions cloud our reasoning...etc. Hardly original, yes, but points always worth reiterating (seeing as most people continue to ignore them : ?).

"Children of Men" meets "Night of the Living Dead" could be the best way to describe this.

[chinton]

8/10

Just got back from it. Somewhat overstylized cinematography aside, this is a solid film.

I thought the film did a good job at showing how, after thousands of years of existence, we humans really aren't as advanced as we'd like to think we are. It really reinforced our negative aspects: our lust for power and our ambition to hold onto it at all costs once we get it...our tendency to only want to look out for a select few people and say 'to hell with everyone else'....our tendency to let our emotions cloud our reasoning...etc. Hardly original, yes, but points always worth reiterating (seeing as most people continue to ignore them : ?).

"Children of Men" meets "Night of the Living Dead" could be the best way to describe this.


Children Of Men is a brilliant film that says the same thing in far more meaningful and more compelling ways.

[SpikeDurden]

I guess I'll be one of the first to really truly disagree with the consensus...


But I thought Blindness was just stunning. It shook me to my core, made me shake and weep and feel so many emotions in a very swift 2 hours. Obviously it's very allegorical, and I could even see how some might say that ultimately the film results to style over substance and what parallels to human behavior the film does draw are simplistic or have been portrayed before... but ultimately ever film that delves into a dystopian (or close to that, at least) reality/future is going to have similar things to say, partly because most people do have a truly cynical view on society and partly because that's perhaps how things would probably go, but Blindness does it all with such raw emotion and a true passion for the human condition that I just fell in love with it. Meirelles continues his path as one of my favorite and one of the boldest modern filmmakers, and along with his DP they create a stunning vision of the "milky white sea" and the odd darkness that lies within. It's disgusting and disturbing and often hard times to watch, but it's so powerful and ultimately surprisingly hopeful. The cast is wonderful and despite having no names or no information about their past, they all create vivid and multi dimensional portrayals, without the use of their eyes, the most powerful acting tool. It's all very remarkable, particularly the rivalry that erupts between Ruffalo's doctor and and the gorgeous Bernal's King of Ward Three. I particularly liked what happens after they leave the compound, though, and the way in which the relationships evolve and develop in the last act of the film just had me speechless.

[unspoken]

I don't think I could add much more to what SpikeDurden said. I really enjoyed this film, and would call it one of my top 5 of the year so far. 9/10 from me.

Is anyone else confused over why critics/viewers point to the ending as a particular weak point, when the two most revered films of 2007 (No Country and There Will Be Blood) basically did the same thing and were praised endlessly for it?

[Crazy Dud]

I don't think I could add much more to what SpikeDurden said. I really enjoyed this film, and would call it one of my top 5 of the year so far. 9/10 from me.

Is anyone else confused over why critics/viewers point to the ending as a particular weak point, when the two most revered films of 2007 (No Country and There Will Be Blood) basically did the same thing and were praised endlessly for it?

The style of the endings of those two films may have been similar, but the content and substance of those endings were very different.

[Strider]

Is anyone else confused over why critics/viewers point to the ending as a particular weak point, when the two most revered films of 2007 (No Country and There Will Be Blood) basically did the same thing and were praised endlessly for it?

I'm not sure I see the connection between the three endings. I suppose they're all similar in terms of stopping at a point where it feels like they could've gone on for another 20 minutes or so. But that's where the similarites end. Unlike the ending for Blindness, No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood do not feature endings that are sappy or frustrating (i.e. leaving the viewer with more questions than answers); both films actually have very strong, appropo endings, whereas Blindness' ending just left me with a sour taste in my mouth.

Upon my first viewing, the endings for NCFOM and TWBB left me thinking "WTF?!," but once I started to think each ending over, I finally realized that they both made perfect sense. I've thought about the ending for Blindness quite a bit, and I'm still waiting for the same realization that occurred shortly after watching the two aforementioned films.

Strider

[hoojib127]

Children Of Men is a brilliant film that says the same thing in far more meaningful and more compelling ways.


Yes, "Children of Men" was a better film overall...but the way some of these detractors talk you'd think they were talking about "Kangaroo Jack" or something. :confused:

[chinton]

Yes, "Children of Men" was a better film overall...but the way some of these detractors talk you'd think they were talking about "Kangaroo Jack" or something. :confused:



Of course Blindness is better than Kangarro Jack but then so is a flesh eating disease.

I still love this director I just thought Blindness was profoundly dissapointing for me.

[blankpage]

Chinton and Strider pretty much nailed it. The film, as a whole, was just dull. Alright we get what's trying to be said, but at no point during the film did I feel compelled. I think the problem was "okay, people go blind...and now everything's gone to shit." That whole thing wasn't developed at all. It's just boom - blind - world is shit.

This looked very promising, and I was severely disappointed. I'd have to say the films best attribute were its actors. Moore, Ruffalo, Glover, Bernal, and the strong supporting cast really kept me in this movie. If it weren't for them, my grade would've been much lower.

5/10

[jjbinks]

I haven't seen it yet but I'll admit the trailer (http://www.movietrailerlive.com/ct_0008_BlindnessAC) looks awesome. I read up on it and found out it was based on a book written in 1995. I find the story pretty appealing. In this day and age, it seems like one more thing to panic about. Does the trailer do it justice?

[Crazy Dud]

I haven't seen it yet but I'll admit the trailer (http://www.movietrailerlive.com/ct_0008_BlindnessAC) looks awesome. I read up on it and found out it was based on a book written in 1995. I find the story pretty appealing. In this day and age, it seems like one more thing to panic about. Does the trailer do it justice?

The trailer makes the film look FAR better and FAR more compelling than it actually is!

[ilovemovies]

Though this wasn't exactly the masterpiece I was hoping, it's still a VERY good movie with fantastic performances from everyone ESPECIALLY Julianne Moore who is phenomenal here. The movie is pretty ugly and disturbing at times. It's pretty powerful and harrowing and gripping in moments. The epilogue goes on a little too long though, I felt. I also thought the begining was just a tad rushed. I would have liked to have seen more of the initial outbreak.

These are overall small nitpicks though as I found the movie to be very compelling and fascinating all the way through. I haven't seen City of God, but I do like this better than the Constant Gardner which frankly I found to be a little dry.

7/10