source: Land of the Blind

source: Land of the Blind

Most of the reviews I've read about this film, are negative, full of disdain. Oh wait. Correction: Most of the American reviews I've read about this film are negative! The Americans, en masse, fail to catch the subtle references to the Bush-era: - The father-son tack, how the son is a moronic brute and a sadist while the father is a smart brute. - The elephant, symbol of the ruling USA party, is portrayed here as a symbol of fascist nepotism. - The "Hearts and Minds" phrase, not subtle at all. Still, most missed it. Some even miss the character development in Joe completely, describing all movie characters as totally flat. Most of the US reviewers label this movie as "pretentious", clearly in a pathetic effort to pander to the half-intellectuals of the Midwest. To soothe them. "Oooh it's pretentious", if there was ever a word signaling defeat more, I haven't found it. So, hey Midwesterner, yes it might be a critique on your country but it's a burger-and-coke-ignoring piece of pretentious crap, so feel free to diss this film. And yes, while some some themes are not new (power corrupts, extreme left is as wrong as extreme right), this is something that is especially relevant today when the worlds strongest power is sliding down the slippery slope towards some sort of theocracy. Lots of critics seem to enjoy making fun of Joe, by wondering why he's willing to endure the torture?!! Joe is the one figure who stands up for democracy, the classic selfless Hollywood hero, who doesn't squander his ideals, yet the New York Times deems him "a priggish masochist"!!? Wow, talk about IMMORAL to the extreme. The leftist slant in mainstream media has definitely disappeared for good from the NYT. Also, criticizing the most obvious and superficial traits of the film shows that they miss the hidden meanings, as mentioned above, of the film. And Edwards was so kind to make an overt statement about that, by letting one of his characters say: "I am always looking for subtext"!! Oh my effing God, how can you then miss this? Baffling.

This movie is a real mess...where to begin describing how? Well, first is the country it is (or is not -- no way to know!) set in; stock footage as background is shown from third world countries, middle-eastern countries, and a jumble of others, but when the characters appear, they are: NONE OF THE ABOVE. And worse, most of them as part of the government, would not all fit together cohesively in the capacities in which they are portrayed inside a country ruled by a maniacal dictator, as in this film, in today's world. And make no mistake, the movie takes place in today's world, based on most references throughout the film -- so, elements just don't fit. And the characters...all supposedly natives of this implausible land -- well, some have British accents, some do not...go figure. And, of course, there are segments and characters that are not fully developed, and scenes not adequately explained. Worst of all is the fact that this movie cannot make up its mind whether to be exaggerated black comedy, biting satire, or serious compelling drama...bits of each are all stirred together to make mostly a mess. One small example: the exterior design of the dictator's palace looks to be middle eastern, while the dictator himself is not, nor does he resemble his father, a western European-possibly-Mussolini type. Judging from some of the scripted language and overall message of the film about what type of leader replaces the leader he deposes, I believe that the true and witty vision in the mind of the writer became lost when he, as director, tried to put it on screen.

When I read the cast list for this film i thought "hey with these people it should be great!" well... it's not great, but it does do a good job at exposing the hypocrisy of power, and who is better suited to govern, a single person/regime or that amorphous element named "The People". Donald Sutherland and Rafe(don't call me Ralph!) Fiennes, give wonderful acting performances, and there are many great supporting roles too. Including the lovely Lara Flynn Boyle, (watch for the scene with her in a skin tight latex dress playing kinky sex games with her husband!,it made the rental price, for me anyway, worth paying ! Woo Hoo!). There is a lot of interesting and intelligent dialog through out the film too , the director/writer is obviously a literate man. My problem, is that this film tries to hard to be too many things at once. BTW, the poem that Sutherland's and Fiennes' characters quote is by William Butler Yeats and it's named "The Second Coming", and the haunting piano music you hear, you might remember is also used in "Barry Lyndon" and I believe is written by Mozart It's definitely worth a rental though.

As I scanned earlier comments about "Land of the Blind" I was struck by the failure to recognize that this film cobbles together elements of Orwell,"1984", "Z", "Clockwork Orange", "Marat/Sade", etc.. I suppose when one lives long enough(72), there is no surprise when others find novelty in a regurgitated past. Even the music,(particularly Schubert's trio theme) presents us with a Kubrick/Proustian remembrance without the substance. Although many seem to find an echo of the W Bush years, I find myself sensing a brave new world aspect to our new President. Mantras for "change", iconic adulation, even an Inaugural speech in which we are referred to as "My fellow citizens"--Robespierre redux. Fiennes, as usual, is compelling, even when it's not clear that his own actions were spurred by a higher morality. Castro was indeed a hero in the 50's, but his half-century left a river of blood and suppression. It is clear in the film that principles are the first victims of power. I think that before audiences stand and applaud this film, they should ask themselves if they are ready to stand up to tyranny, even if it is well-spoken and attractive. I doubt if most viewers were alive during the McCarthy years, or recall Hollywood's total capitulation to the witch hunts or blacklists. Nor do they remember Stalin's trials, Mao's re-education programs, or so many other acts of oppression. I realize that I've strayed from a direct review of this film, but I'm dismayed at all that has been forgotten or overlooked by those who seem anxious to fight for freedom.

This movie was a total waste of film. Why would the director think the audience would enjoy seeing someone sitting on a commode taking a crap and then wiping themselves. Ralph Fiennes and Donald Sutherland are two accomplished actors and should have thought twice before having their good reputation connected with this drivel. One part of the emperor's dialog, during his trial, was taken from the movie "Gladiator" and should have never been used. I rented this movie from my local video store with no prior knowledge about it's content. Sometimes I am fortunate in renting what I a call a sleeper. In the case of this movie I feel I wasted gas money and the price of the rental,

A transparent, shallow statement about political process that reeks with that unmistakable bias of the easily-blurred eye of American perspective on its ever-bleak forecast of its ongoing tumble into the abyss of stupidocracy. Grow up, already. While I found the film predictable and agreeing with pretty much everything Mr. Robbie Hamilton from London had aforementioned, the most annoying part of this film going misaddressed is that tacit message the script writers make: namely the invalid assumption being made that a government only has two preposterously extremist courses that are inexplicably parallel in outcome. Stereotypical, self-destructive American paranoia being spouted that's clearly designed to promote more irrational fear-mongering about religion and other authoritarian figureheads in general. So much for In God We Trust, or anyone else...ever. Its this certain pathological mistrust of anything not directly decided by the individual taken, as always, to ridiculous extremes. Not to mention the nonsensical Marxist template that's somehow slapped onto Donald Sutherland's character all the while. That doesn't even make any historical sense. Just worthless. Its such a trite theme in these pieces of obvious and boring moral-atheist, pseudo-intellectual, contemporary propaganda that seem all too eager to reach out with its tentacles of questionable, subtle behavioral conditioning. There's never a middle ground of realistic attempts at political negotiation with encouraged mutual symbiosis, or even a hint of political amicability; but only the less worse of two bloodthirsty avenues from which to despondently choose. Oh no everyone; the revolution is just as evil as the dictators, now we're really, really depressed; more than before. I suppose we should just succumb to this false dilemma about the futility of life; let's all kill ourselves since we can only lament over how history never seems to change. Would that make you happy? A true feast for the weak-minded in the throes of the great and churlish American identity crisis. Aren't the Americans tired yet of being fed these deliberate farces: thinly obfuscated as unavoidable, political "fact"-themes that only seem to triumph one over the other in Hollywood in vying for overly-generalizing ignorance? Where have all the real films gone? The classics that situationally question; asking the viewer think for oneself are all but replaced by these diluted garbage like Land of the Blind that shamelessly attempts to think FOR you. Its not even entertaining or thought-provoking; its just pathetic. Just watching this film gave me that pain in the anterior surface of my left frontal lobe. That's right; I could actually feel myself getting stupider for having to watch this film just to make sure that there were, in fact, no good parts to it. If I could vote for one thing, I vote for a resolution that limits how much these armchair engineers can afford to waste our time by tirelessly churning out delusional, half-baked scripts of poorly re-hashed Animal Farm allegory. Orwell already told the story more than brilliantly; let's keep it that way. Ditch this hyperbolic waste of film.

This is a grim tale about how totalitarian regimes try to ban the free spirit out of the minds of their citizens. Performances by Ralph Fiennes, as the warden sympathetic to the cause, and Donald Sutherland, as the imprisoned rebel leader, are both splendid. I liked the satirical approach to the subject. Despite its harsh and eerie subject - the cycle of violence concerning revolutions and contra-revolutions - it is also very funny movie on a darker level. It's an absolute blast to spot the existing dictatorial regimes they mixed up to create the most horrible regime imaginable. Another great movie getting a mediocre score. It's a shame. Though I do understand that this is not the material for your average escapism of everyday life. This grim and violent tale is perhaps only interesting for those with an interest in modern history.

LAND OF THE BLIND is a strange horse of a film. It is so full of gimmicks, silly scenes, awkward dialogue, and mixed metaphors that it sinks under its own intended farcical weight. Robert Edwards wrote and directed this take off on totalitarian governments and the crises that arise with the corruption of power, sprayed it globally and historically so that it can include everyone in its aim, and shot it in a Felliniesque fashion that just falls short of significance. Abetted with a strong cast of actors (Ralph Fiennes, Donald Sutherland, Tom Hollander, Lara Flynn Boyle, etc) one would think this overproduced piece would have made it. But alas is sinks into somnolence despite its oh-so-very-obvious attempt to be a significant statement about politics today. The biggest task required for this movie is trying to stay awake to the final frame.