Customer Reviews

Land of the Blind

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

After expecting "The English Patient, Part VI" We were pleasantly surprised to see Ralph Fiennes head off into uncharted waters. A dark blend of "Nineteen Eighty-Four" and "Brazil" emerges in a fully-formed recreation of the Stalinist revolutionary state, with subreferences to practically every dictator who graced the Twentieth Century.

Donald Sutherland has a chance to shine in a fabulous Castro-esque (the early years) beard, and We were also highly impressed with Lara Flynn Boyle, and Tom Hollander as the son-turned-heir, an unfortunate dictatorial truth still being played out in North Korea. Mr. Hollander was suitably portrayed as a short man next to the leggy Boyle, and the 1950s Peronist costumes set an appropriate tone.

Draw whatever conclusions you will from the film's final scenes- they are the results of torture and re-education camps- but many Russian, Cuban, Argentinian, North Korean, Chinese, Afghani, Italian, Cambodian, George Orwellian dissidents would agree that "Land of the Blind" is a superbly accurate and ironic piece of work.

Great movie about a naive soldier, brilliantly played by Ralph Fiennes, who helps to overturn one dictatorship, only to have it replaced by another. A timely film about government oppression, restricted freedom and unfailing courage. I'm surprised that I haven't heard of this film before.

This is an almost brilliant film, close in greatness to Brazil but misses the makr because of its ham handed idiotic references to current 'terrorist' lingo, which makes it not a timely classic, so it fails becuase it will not play well in ten years, the verbage used in the film will be lost. However there is brilliance here. A mosaic of time periods and dictators, this film references many things, Franco, monks burning themselves, political prisoners, the war on terror, bin Laden, France's war in algeria, Nixon, and even a little known or recalled story of a vietnam POW who blinked morse code on TV. In addition it even references Pol Pot and Kim Jung Il.

This political satire and dark comedy is fascinating in its ability to portray dictatorship, but its use of American uniforms, those used in the war in Iraq, on soldiers shooting civilians is gratuitousa and degrading. Making fun of Pol Pot is one thing, comparing genocide to current U.S policy is sad and too easily.

Set in a fictional country it stars Ralph Fiennes and Donald Sutherland, who deliver great performances. It sourounds a child dictator-director, his tarror card reading wife(ala Noriega) a prison guard turned collaborator with a celebrated terrorist-philosopher.

A must see film, brilliant but has some real tragic drawbacks.

Seth J. Frantzman

Political satire must be one of the most difficult genres to pull off in film. When it really connects, you can create a modern masterpiece (think Kubrick's "Clockwork" and "Strangelove" or Gilliam's "Brazil"). Or it can offer a timely comment about the era in which it is released--prime examples might be Chaplin's "The Great Dictator" or more recently "Wag the Dog" and "Bulworth." One of the main problems with "Land of the Blind" is that it seeks to bludgeon the viewer with its message. It resorts to an obviousness to telegraph every emotion you should feel, instead of trusting that the audience might have the intelligence to appreciate something a bit subtler.

Within the opening credits, I was already rolling my eyes at the inane dialogue spewing from the political allegory/satire "Land of the Blind." Seriously, had Ralph Fiennes not been in this picture--I could not have lasted more than a few minutes. But always the optimist, I stuck with "Land of the Blind." In truth, taken out of context, the performances themselves are nice--Fiennes and Donald Sutherland have some good dramatic moments while Tom Hollander and Lara Flynn Boyle have some nice bits of comedy. The problem goes much deeper, and it has much more to do with moviemaking than politics. The tone of the picture shifts radically all over the place, the actors seem to be appearing in different movies, the dialogue is speechy and pedantic, the film's message is both hammy and heavy-handed. So what am I saying? Simply put--the screenplay (as written or as changed during the filming/editing) just doesn't work. As much as this film wants to be "important," maybe even "daring," its bluntness comes across as incredibly naive and lacking in sophistication.

The plot of "Land of the Blind" is reasonable enough. Living in a land governed by tyranny, Fiennes attempts to overthrow the current regime (Hollander and Flynn Boyle in lunatic mode). He has befriended a political prisoner and scholar (Sutherland) who has been condemned for his free-thinking. Helping Sutherland achieve freedom and power, however, might have some consequences. Because there is a BIG lesson to be learned: Power is corrupting! And injustices are committed in the name of what is right! And there might be different interpretations about what is right and just! Basically, these simple and obvious principles (that any grade-schooler might acknowledge and agree with) are more complex than what the film has to offer. Really, it's just about cutting off the head of one monster to see another rise in its place.

The film's humor is sophomoric and I literally cringed at many of the misplaced "jokes." But as if this wasn't bad enough, all traces of satire soon evaporate in the film's second act. "Land of the Blind" begs to be taken as a serious commentary, I just could never take it seriously as a movie! KGHarris, 11/07.

Unlike "Kiss of the spider woman" [...] this movie provides inside into the makers of history, where deception, personal gist for power and by-date imminent interest rule.

Due to an accustomed trend of contemporary show- bestsellers, creators deploy sexual fantasies game and dominantress to memorize a dramatic eclipse of a story where a way from rags to a hero and back lasted about a quarter of century, blood, tortures and murders follow.

Nice performance, beautiful cast and intrigue depicted simplistically, and a "naïve soldier" Joe does not look like a young recruit at all.

This dramatic story is of a very gloomy vogue final.

What is freedom? What is happiness and where do we find ourselves if we're pursuing them too enthusiastically? Pol Pot's Cambodia, Lenin's Russia, Khomeini's Iran, Castro's Cuba, Kim's North Korea, Hitler's Germany, Robespierre's France, Ceausescu's Romania... early 3d Millennium America? And then, there's 'the day(s) after'. What do we do after we defeat and punish our tormentors, once the victory is ours and our power seems to be absolute. We find more enemies, what else. And we work hard at it. And we keep going until it's our turn to the guillotine or to the labor camps.

This is not an easy to watch movie because it's not an us vs. them pattern (us good, them bad) but rather 'us' and 'them' taking turns to be the baddies, an exercise in self-destruction and perpetual humiliation. Just to make sure that we get the message, it all starts with 'them' in power, then one of 'them' replaces another, then 'us' manage to overthrow 'them', then 'us' turn against ourselves and become worse then 'them', then 'they' come back.

On that background, that who was the tool of the oppressor (Hollander) turns into a tool of the liberator (Sutherland) who, in turn, becomes oppressor but he (Fiennes) will never be a tool again as he accepts his fate of the forever prisoner. There's nothing original about this. Thoreau noted that "under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison ... the only house in a slave State in which a free man can abide with honor." And Fiennes, playing 'Joe the good soldier' keeps his honor intact and keeps himself in jail.

Like I said, this is not an easy movie to watch. Black and white, shocking archive scenes - Edison electrocuting an elephant - are blended with with images of torture or kitsch luxury and grotesque orgies. We, who never came close to a Pol Pot-induced nightmare are likely to look the other way when unwashed prisoners, using their own feces to write slogans on their jail's walls, pop up on the screen. Like those legendary frogs, we still feel comfortable while the gradually warmer water is slowly cooking us into a delicious, nutritious, totalitarian soup. It can never happen here we think as we try to make ourselves watch for a while longer. Only that it can because this IS our human nature, to do whatever it takes to dominate and humiliate our fellow humans, to show them who is in charge and to make them accept us as the ones in charge. And we never seem to learn.

I don't know if I'm going to watch this movie again soon but I am glad that I did watch it once. Watching it is not entertainment and it can be painful but it can be good medicine too, providing some temporary relief to some diseases that come with our human nature. 'Memento mori' - remember that you will die - the victorious Roman warriors were reminded at the moment of their triumph. That, and, remember that you are probably played like a pawn in some more or less subtle domination game.

Robert Edwards, writer and director, Sutherland, Fiennes, everyone who was part of this project deserves praise, respect and appreciation for their courage, their understanding and their hard work. I don't believe anyone got rich out of this effort but everyone should feel good about themselves for doing what had to be done and making a statement that had to be made.

This is the story of every nation ruled by a dictator, where the people dream of a better life and support a revolution but the old dictator is overthrown and replaced by a greater villainous scourge. There are countless examples of citizens' disappointment when they discover that the devil that is now in charge is worse than the devil they had before. After all, Man's greatest achievement is his unlimited capacity for self deception.
Maximilian II is an absoulte dictator in a land named "Everycountry", who declares himself "president for life".Joe, played by Ralph Fiennes, is a security guard working at the prison where Thorne (Sutherland), a carismatic intellectual rebel is treated savagly. Joe feels in his heart that Throne is a good man and learns a lot about him while bonding with him. When Maximilian seeks popular support, he releases Throne from jail, to serve as a government member. Joe is promoted to serve as a guard at Maximilian's palace. Because Joe trust Thorne he allows Thorne and his followers into Maximilian's inner chambers, where Thorne kills Maximilian and his wife.
Joe watches in terror as Thorne, whom he had idolized, transforms into a villain, who rules "Everycountry" with absolute totalitarianism, Education is prohibited, women are covered with burqas and thinkers are sent to re-education camps. When Joe realizes he has been deceived, he refuses to work for the new government and he is sent to a re-education camp where he is treated far worse than Thorne had been treated in prison.
As much as I love Sutherland, he was so convincing that I deeply hated the character. Finnes is magnificent as always, watching him listen to the re-education Camp Director Saying : "A stale piece of bread is better than nothing. And nothing is better than a big juicy steak. Therefore a stale piece of bread is better than a big juicy steak" brings back many images of struggling deceived nations.

...unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to HEAR most of what they are saying due to some of the poorest sound editing I've ever heard. The voices are over-reverbed to the point that they are really unintelligible. I understand that there is some artistic license being taken with the sound (the voice pans from left to right as the narrator reads what he is typing), but there is also a good deal of dialog in the film, most of which you won't catch unless you turn on the subtitles.

I saw the movie some time ago - I did not really understand the point of the movie. My son loved it so I purchased it for him.

The cruel metaphor of the restless cycle of the power, tragic and irreversible. When a simple officer who keeps in prison to a dangerous political prisoner, begins to think and eventually aids him for the unavoidable coup d' etat. Once Thorne comes to power, his delirious thirst of repressed instincts will flow and in the name of the great ideals of democracy and liberty, the shadows of opression wing over the nation to refound a new tyrany. But this man assumes a bold and courageous attitude that eventually will lead him to dark horizons.

Witty and satyrical flim that reveals the eternal wheel of the history. Those who fight for arriving the power, once they reach it, then fight for keep themselves.

Sutherland and Fiennes are the driving forces of this movie. No doubt .