Worst Movie Ever Bar None
Added 11/15/2009
This was easily the worst movie I have ever seen. The story and acting is laugh out loud ridiculous. The plot is a joke. I am not going to type in a long winded review of the plot. I am just warning you, this is two hours of your life you will never get back, disregard this warning at your own peril.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Thought-Provoking, Flawed, and Unpleasant, but with Good Performances
Added 11/13/2009
I was originally intrigued by the idea of this film based on, strangely enough, the outrage it caused among those with vision impairment. The offense taken seemed to be based on the idea that, suddenly struck blind, society descends into savagery, and thus the film is saying that blind people are less "civilized" than those with sight.
After watching the film, I didn't see it that way. As has already been stated countless times by other reviewers, this is an allegorical film about humans' ability to brutalize one another -- indeed, their penchant for and willingness to embrace doing so. As is necessary in films of this type, a great many people are much more quick to victimize (or callously disregard the helplessness of) their fellow citizens than I think they truly would be, at least in the early stages of a society-wide plague. Why is it that filmmakers are so quick to see members of the military as unfeeling monsters only too happy to deny medical treatment to wounded prisoners, quick on the trigger and ill-prepared to cope with stress? This is a caricature of a stereotype, and this type of cheap characterization is only too common in the movie.
There are a few redeeming points. One character, a prostitute, is simply brilliantly done, both in her introduction to the viewer and in her sudden plight (not to mention how she is later utilized in the film, as a means of contrasting Julianne Moore's transformation from wife and lover to caretaker and mother (for Moore's film husband begins to resent her and eventually acts on this resentment). Danny Glover, a wise, one-eyed blind man (HA! SYMBOLISM!) is strangely underutilized, which is a shame, for there's depth to mine in his character's strangely cheerful reaction to the plague.
Certainly, elments of the "plague of blindness" bring to mind zombie films, from the quarantine of victims to the willingness of military personnel to shoot those so interned. The rest of the movie is simply a bleak meditation on the animal nature of people who are, for whatever reason, suddenly freed from the boundaries of polite society.
Some of the practical aspects of a world in which almost everyone is blind are disturbing and difficult to watch (or contemplate). Consider bathrooms that nobody can clean, or trash that nobody can see to clear away: it's a formula for filth and degradation when the blind inmates of the quarantine camp are left to fend for themselves.
Roger Ebert stated very plainly that he found "Blindness" extremely unpleasant to watch, from its distorted camera work to its intrusive, overly loud soundtrack. He wasn't wrong. The subject matter is equally hard to watch. The movie is, frankly, depressing and revolting, making it less than enjoyable but something bordering on interesting. It's worth watching for the performances of its actors, I guess, which were quite good (Mark Ruffalo, who seems flat at first, eventually proves quite capable and subtle in his portrayal of Moore's husband).
Those who enjoy entries in the "The End Of The World As We Know It" (TEOTWAWKI) genre will want to add it to their resumes of watched movies... but many more will, I think, be just as happy passing it up. I have to admit that, even now, I'm not sure how I feel about it. Is it a "good" movie? Not really. Is it well-executed? Only in part; it has deep flaws, ranging from its plot to its filmmaking. Is it thought-provoking? Most definitely.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
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.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
