IMDb user comments for
Blindness (2008) Plus avec IMDbPro »

Filtre:

Meilleur Chronologique prolific Ils ont aimé Ils ont détesté Cacher les spoilers:

Page 1 sur 24:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

233 commentaires au total

---

152 utilisateurs sur 233 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Blandness, 14 septembre 2008

Auteur : debblyst de Rio de Janeiro, Brésil

*** Ce commentaire peut contenir des 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.

---

200 utilisateurs sur 331 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Intense, slow, gritty, powerful and methodic, 4 octobre 2008

Auteur : ToddWebb de 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.

---

125 utilisateurs sur 183 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind, 25 décembre 2008

Auteur : pmdawn de 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

---

96 utilisateurs sur 169 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Fair adaptation of a complex novel, 12 octobre 2008

Auteur : Aluísio Parondi (nem.freud.explica@gmail.com) de 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.

---

56 utilisateurs sur 96 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
huge disappointment, 31 octobre 2008

Auteur : viscommie de Etats-Unis

*** Ce commentaire peut contenir des spoilers ***

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.

---

73 utilisateurs sur 135 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Atrocious, 14 octobre 2008

Auteur : marsbar114 de Etats-Unis

*** Ce commentaire peut contenir des spoilers ***

I wish I could give this movie 0 stars. I don't even know where to begin to describe the horrible experience that was paying to see this movie, although I suspect I would have felt the same way if I had pirated it from the Internet.

The "heroine" had the sole advantage over the rest of the population, being sighted and all, and rarely uses it. When she does, it boggles the mind as to why she waited so long.

The "villain" possesses a gun, but HE IS BLIND. The rest are afraid anyway. He also demands currency in exchange for food, and no one thinks to bring up the fact that they are confined to an unstaffed quarantined building, and that the collection of material possessions is futile and useless. Or more importantly, that they could easily fight back, being on a level playing field...oh, no, wait- one of them CAN SEE.

But they wait until the antihero and his disgusting cohorts rape the women of the other wards (albeit they are "voluntary" victims), including their farcical "heroine", before she decides to use against him the weapon she has been hoarding from the beginning.

And NOT ONE man objects to the women giving themselves to the repugnant legion in exchange for food (though they really don't have to- see above), aside from the husband who is merely afraid of his own loss of dignity as a result. I guess chivalry really is dead. So is common sense.

The premise is ridiculous, and it is laughable to suppose that this dreck represents a coherent diatribe on human behavior as it gives way to indifference and chaos. I have had to suspend disbelief for movies before, but my psyche was ready to implode from all the lingering I did during this stupendously dreadful flick.

What a waste of good actors, too. For shame that they (presumably) saw this finished product and did not subsequently withdraw themselves from public life for all eternity. I don't give way to labels flippantly, nor do I tend to exaggerate, but this is easily the worst movie I have ever seen.

---

28 utilisateurs sur 46 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Perhaps a bit too laboured and bleak but well shot and grippingly depressing in the detail and sweep of the story, 23 janvier 2009
Auteur : bob the moo de 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.

---

34 utilisateurs sur 58 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
In a crisis moral breaks, really?, 19 novembre 2008

Auteur : viewer10000 de Allemagne

*** Ce commentaire peut contenir des spoilers ***

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.

---

10 utilisateurs sur 11 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Tosca, 3 octobre 2009
Auteur : tedg (tedg@FilmsFolded.com) de 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.

---

14 utilisateurs sur 21 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Strange... But still very good, 8 avril 2009

Auteur : lopcar1993 de Etats-Unis

With "Blindness," Brazilian director Fernando Meirelles dispenses with the polite approach of "The Constant Gardener" in favor of the gritty, daring style of his acclaimed "City of God." Adapted by Don McKellar from Jose Saramago's novel about a sudden epidemic of sightlessness, the film is an often dreary allegory for these uncertain, perilous times. Visually nervy, beautifully acted, intense and philosophically compelling, it struggles to connect emotionally as it wrestles with the challenging source material. It opens in an unnamed major city as people start suffering total white blindness; the government, fearing infection, herds the early victims into quarantine camps. At one camp the afflicted include an ophthalmologist (Mark Ruffalo) accompanied by his wife (Julianne Moore), who's faking blindness to stay with her husband. It later turns out she might be the only person in the world with vision. As it becomes more fetid and desperate, the fend-for-itself camp becomes a symbol for humanity's historical inhumanity. A group led by an ex-bartender (Gael Garcia Bernal) commandeers the food rations, demanding valuables and sex. The ensuing scenes are nearly overwhelming despite being shot in near darkness, a sensory-deprivation gambit that is mostly successful. The last act, as a band of camp survivors makes its way through the eerie city searching for shelter and nourishment, vaguely points to a redefined society in which blindness is a fundamental equalizer.

---

---

Page 1 sur 24:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Ajouter un autre commentaire

---

Liens liés

Plot summary	Notes	Récompenses
Revues externes	Site Officiel	Plot keywords
Principaux Détails	Your user comments	Your vote history