Still a little blurry
Added 11/6/2009
Pitch black basements covered over with spiderwebs; shadowy, mysterious corners; claustrophobic, foreboding caves; they all work to increase tension in a viewer because the basic sense of sight is the one on which we rely the most. Vision is our crutch. What would happen if we were all suddenly without sight?
An epidemic strikes fear in the populous as blindness spreads like a yawn. Those affected are quarantined into deplorably cramped and filthy conditions, leading to the ugly side of humanity rearing its instinctive head as preservation dominates decency and morality. When Ward 3 begins to assert their dominance over the other groups, forcing the weaker Wards to relinquish cherished valuables and sexual sanctity for the sake of survival (Ward 3 has all the food), it's up to the others - led by the only seeing person in the facility - to fight back and reclaim decency.
Helio San Miguel provides a powerfully allegorical picture of the human nature under the stress of societal implosion. In a brilliantly ironic twist, the resolution of the films displays to both the characters and the viewers how human depravity can sink the majority to subhuman, no, inhumane levels, and even the previously righteous may become wicked. It is only after the realization of our immorality that we are aware, that we can see. The concept itself is wonderfully thought provoking.
The problems with this film, however, are numerous, and most fall into the believability area. Even if this were even remotely possible, there is no way the afflicted would be isolated without medical study. Further, while the odds of infidelity in a completely blind world would definitely increase, the odds of the infidelity coming from a person married to the only woman with sight are remote. Much worse is the idea of a larger group in this sort of situation would allow a few malcontents to turn all others into milquetoast capable of allowing their women to willingly walk into a brutal gang rape.
Overall, I'd say that it's a brave attempt at the seemingly unwinnable endeavor of book-to-film transition. The camerawork - at times iridescent, at others irritating - could easily sway a viewer one way or another. The complete lack of any explanation, specifically the cause of the affliction, the conditions of isolation, and the magical, last-minute cure, hurt the concept's credibility. The result is just a bit fuzzy, but very entertaining.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
This movie poses a very important question:
why do some films get budgets instead of others?
I like a good sci-fi venture or apocalyptic ho-down or 'Lord of the Flies' frolic as much as the next guy, but the mountain of plausibility issues here aren't even worth acknowledging. If this plot worked in the book, great--it certainly doesn't stand on its own. Even more annoying, the film wasted some otherwise decent actors' time. I'm quite certain whoever made this film could have phoned up the sci-fi channel and gotten a list of standby extras that would have been more than sufficient for his or her purposes.
The most remarkable thing about this film is that I can't think of another film off the top of my head where the outtakes footage is probably far more entertaining than the actual film itself.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Awesome movie!
Added 10/31/2009
Wow, why does this have such a low rating on IMDB and why does so many people hate it? The only answer that I can come up with is that most of the people that hate it are teens that don't know the meaning of "plot hole". There's no plot hole in this movie. The fact that there's no explanation why people become blind is not a plot hole, it's just not an important detail. Saying that it's plot hole is just like saying that the fact there's no explanation why people become zombies in Dawn Of The Dead is a plot hole. It's not a plot hole, it's just not what the movie is about. It was intentionally not explained. Anyway, it's an awesome movie! It's not only entertaining, it's also sad, disturbing, powerful and I could go on and on and on! I'm pretty sure that it's the only movie that made me go from sad to disturbed to happy and to sad again!
Short review, I know, but I'm just not good at writting reviews. I just hope that it's atleast slightly helpful.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
A bit disappointed
Added 10/3/2009
Let me preface this by saying that I have not read the book.
I was fascinated at the premise of people suddenly going blind although it did bother me that instead of stopping to help, drivers yelled at the poor guy. And why the heck would these people be shuffled off to an old prison intead of hospital? I have a lot more why's but most have already been covered by other reviewers. What annoyed me the most was we never knew why people were going blind, and why Juliane Moore's character did NOT go blind. It was like...HUH?
One would think that the screen writer and whomever else involved, would take into consideration that most people will not have read the book (I didn't even know there was a book) and create a film that made more sense to us.
That said, now that I know there is a book, I'll be picking it up so get a better understanding of the story.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
BIG WARNING! There is a very graphic and DISTURBING rape scene in the movie. I strongly suggest that anyone who has had any bad experiences or just has a weak stomach should avoid watching this movie at all costs.
This movie sounds like it would be really cool, but the way they carried it out was just terrible. Maybe if it had taken place in a communist country as opposed to the US or another time period as opposed to the present day, it would have been more believable but that's a BIG maybe. Also, don't expect a satisfying solution at the end because they never explain why the people go blind. This movie didn't provoke thought and was violent, disturbing, and unsatisfying. It left me wanting to slit my wrists after I saw it.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
