Land of the Blind (2006) User Reviews

Political corruption at its finest with two excellent performances

[The_Amazing_Spy_Rises · 7/10 · 24 September 2006]

With that said, I must say that 'Land of the Blind' is not for those who get lost in movies easily, or find this subject to be offending or uninteresting. There is not a lot of action, nor are there a huge amount of politically stirring speeches. Think of it sort of like V for Vendetta, except the overthrower is Donald Sutherland, and without all the cool lines, big ka-booms and ninja fight scenes.

Joe (Ralph Fiennes) is a soldier in a prison holding famed terrorist/politician Thorne (Donald Sutherland). As Joe performs his duties, he listens to what the prisoner has to say, becoming affected by it. This is a story of how one man can change the outlook of another by simple words and actions.

The acting in 'Land of the Blind' is superb. Ralph Fiennes lives up to his Oscar nominated expectations by giving a layered, moving, and psychologically deep performance. He really gets you thinking as Joe. He makes the character very interesting, likable, and deep. Donald Sutherland is perfectly cast as Thorne, making him just as intriguing as Joe. His performance is thought generating, powerful, and memorable. Tom Hollander gives a chilling and memorable performance as well, similar to his turn in 'Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest'. He is shaping up to be one of the new up and coming British actors.

Robert Edwards' writing and direction are another strong element of the film, though not as strong as the acting. The writing is simply above average, because the film tends to drag at times and seem boring, but Edwards' direction of the actors makes up for it. His sets are interesting and realistic, and the music is somewhat noticeable in a good way.

Land of the Blind is the second best political thriller of the year, behind the wonderful V for Vendetta. I enjoyed it, mainly because of the awesome performances of Ralph Fiennes and Donald Sutherland (both should be in the mix for an Oscar nod). Robert Edwards gives us a memorable film that you'll remember for some time. At 110 minutes, it is neither too long, nor too short.

7/10 --spy

A quiet sigh about the state of the world

[Laert · 7/10 · 18 July 2006]

An unnamed country is ruled by a horny birdbrained tyrant, while the intellectual revolutionary Thorne, hero of the resistance, is tortured in an inhuman prison. When the enduring riots threaten to get out of control, the government is forced to release Thorne. With the help of Joe, the Winston Smith or Bernhard Marx of the story, Thorne brings down the despotic government and takes over control. However, the hope for freedom and a better world doesn't last long...

In the official program of the Film Festival in Munich, LAND OF THE BLIND was announced as "a satiric political drama about terrorism, revolution, and the power of memory". In fact, the film story is rather conventional. After the outlines of the story become clear, the further development is rather obvious. However, for several reasons the movie is still very much worth seeing.

The first reason is the performance by Ralph Fiennes. He was willing to take part in the non-lucrative project even though he had to wait three years until the money was raised. His presence adds a breath of magic to the movie.

Another reason rare the numerous cinematographic and intermedial allusions (Kubrick, Lucas) that give you the satisfactory "aha" when you recognize some hint.

At last, it is the fable-like setting: neither time nor place are specified, and the hints like typewriters or Asiatic palaces are deliberately controversial. Together with the satiric elements, this aspect makes the film more entertaining and less pretentious.

The film is promoted by "Human Rights Watch", although Robert Edwards' intention was certainly not a clamant "call to arms", but rather a quiet sigh about the state of the world.

Depressingly Interesting

[tag8833 · 7/10 · 7 September 2006]

To put it simply, this film is George Orwell's Animal Farm as told by the makers of Memento. It covers a dark subject, and embraces the darkness associated with it.

This film is set in a fictional country that takes elements from many utilitarian countries around the world to give us things to relate to. To me the most interesting was the Kim Jong-il analogy. A president for life who succeeds his father and is very interested in the film industry. Others will likely see other references.

As the film progresses, we follow this country through stages of governmental upheaval. We ride on the shoulder of an idealistic prison guard as he chooses sides, and faces the consequences of that choice.

As the movie was building, I felt like it was building a Pro-Terrorism Utopian government, but in the end I was left hopeless, because of each plot turn making the movie yet more dour.

Symbolism abounds, and you will find yourself trying to locate the meanings of the symbols, which are perhaps a tad too convoluted for my tastes.

I was completely immersed in the story, and I found the progression of the movie to be very compelling, but the overall message of hopelessness clashed with my youthful idealism.

I recommend this movie as debate fodder for political theorists. Its dark themes limit its audience otherwise.

Land of the Blind is a fearless meditation on the corrupting nature of power

[carolinecodex · 19 March 2006]

Land of the Blind is a fearless meditation on the corrupting nature of power, and adds to the current, very welcome, crop of thought provoking political films. But it is quite unlike anything else you will see. All to the better. It will demand a response, provoke debate. The narrative goes from farce to horror to poetry in a moment. There is no way the audience can just settle back and let the film roll before them. You are involved.

The story, set in a non-specific time and place, draws on revolutions, emperors and dictators from history. It is not simply of the Left, nor of the Right. It is more complex and questioning than that. Idiots in positions of power make a terrible mess. Idealistic intellectuals take over … and make a terrible mess. We've seen it and continue to see it the world over. The message is see what power can do. It is never year Zero. One must always learn from history. The film makes a rare plea for wisdom.

The cast list is extraordinary. The roster of stars, working for a fraction of their normal fee I believe, appear to seize with gusto the unusual material they have been given and turn in excellent performances. Particularly noteworthy are Tom Hollander and Donald Sutherland as the two sides of the dictating coin and Jonathan Hyde and Robert Daws as the Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee courtiers, funny and frightening by swift turns. Ralph Fiennes gives a career best. And the elephants? What do they mean? Make up your own mind.

A noble effort

[mrharper77 · 7/10 · 15 October 2006]

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.

Nobody standing by is innocent.

[lastliberal · 7/10 · 19 October 2007]

It is unfortunate that political satire will not be a winner at the box office. The fact that this film opened on two screens and made just over $5,000 is indicative of the state of the world today. The hippies of the sixties have sold out and became the greedy bastards that spawned mindless soccer moms and NASCAR dads. So the world spirals ever downwards as politicians use propaganda to control the unthinking masses.

Ralph Fiennes (The English patient, Schlindler's List) was brilliant as a government lackey for a tin horn dictator (Tom Hollander) who so reminds us of the current dictator in charge of our country. Joing Donald Sutherland, a revolutionary leader, to depose the dictator, he soon finds that things are worse than ever as an islamo-fascist state is now in power and he is cast in prison because he will not sign a loyalty oath. Herop one day and criminal the next. Go figure.

The interesting part of the farce is the third act when the revolution is overthrown by a counter-revolution and nothing changes. The old adage that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, is never truer.

The film will make you think of the state of governments in the world, You will see many different dictatorships in this film. The sad thing is that they could not exist without the acquiescence of the people. Self-interest will eventually cause your own self to be diminished.

Something a little different

[emuir-1 · 7/10 · 8 April 2007]

Most reviewers have already noted the similarity to Brazil, Animal Farm and 1984, which struck me right away. A dictator is overthrown in a popular uprising, only to become a dictator himself. I enjoyed the contrast between the opulent lifestyle of Maximilian II and the squalid prison where Thorne the dissident writer was being held. Donald Sutherland plays the writer, looking for all the world like Karl Marx. The scenes of the saccharine TV anchors playing verbal ping pong were just priceless and right on the mark. Tom Hollander, who previously played Kim Philby in "Cambridge Spies" was superb in the role of Maximilian.

My only gripe is that I had the impression that this would have been a good film if I had been able to hear it rather than just watch. Unfortunately, I saw this film on DVD, and there were no close captions. This is incredible! As a hearing impaired person I need the captions to know what they are saying, otherwise, by the time I have figured it out, I have missed a few sentences. With a detailed plot it is essential to be able to follow the dialog.

A Hodgepodge Movie Trying to Figure Out What It Wants to Be

[gradyharp · 5/10 · 8 September 2006]

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.

Captivating yet Disturbing View of Power

[dballred · 9/10 · 28 December 2006]

I have always had a certain fascination for stories which indict the abuse of power in the name of the state. After I saw this film the first time, I couldn't stop thinking about it. It had all the disturbing characteristics of an Orwellian novel, but it was not as relentlessly depressing. I believe the screenwriter was holding out the hope that the people will "get" the story.

In this film, a mythical country is beset by an endless array of despots. These despots show character traits mankind has witnessed in real life, such as Pol Pot, Mussolini, Louis XVI/Marie Antoinette, Peron, Ayatollah Khoumeni, and Kim Jong Il. In this "land of the blind," the people are more interested in popular culture than the suffering of mankind at the hands of the despots. As a result, they elect movie stars to represent them in what becomes clear as a sham system.

Those people who are politically motivated and want to see a parallel between the nasty people who are leading the poor nation in the story to ruin and the current world leaders are, in my opinion, completely missing the point. In the first place, the title of this film should provide a clue. In a "land of the blind," just about anybody could arise to a position of power because the "blind" are too easily led.

In this film, there is a heavy reliance on imagery and metaphor. The main repetitive image is that of an elephant. In the movie, the parable of the blind men and the elephant is brought out and that, in my opinion, is what this film is all about. New governments can provide their side of the story--the elephant--to the blind public by steering them to the desired part of the anatomy.

Donald Sutherland, playing a character aptly named Thorn, is one of the best casting choices ever made. You'll need to see this film to understand what I'm talking about. I gave this a nine rating out of ten.

Dark political comedy-drama-thriller executed with mixed results

[oneloveall · 6/10 · 12 August 2006]

Interesting political satire, sustained by the two credible lead performers, does tend to bounce from stylized governmental parody to sincere character study to clouded psychological mystery in much too broad of strokes, but still manages to stay fresh throughout the unique plot line. A morbid, relentlessly bitter commentary on political power, the clever twists throughout ensure that viewers never get settled too much into taking any particular side in a battle where everyone is the looser, and the mere fact of these sides existing becomes the real tragedy after all. After much twisting and turning in and on itself, the film still continues to surprise to the very end, defining much of the previously seen in new contexts. Although these pleasant scripting devices are nothing special, the framework they are used in make these tricks seem fresh again. While uniquely entertaining for the cynic in us all, Land of the Blind suffers from over-indulgences, simply when it comes to the stylizing of them regarding the supremely corrupted, tyrannical, fictitious government; in turn softening the impact of it's relevance, which ends up making this film worth seeing...but not staring.

A childish and shallow examination of totalitarianism and resistance

[Omar_Robert_Hamilton · 2/10 · 18 March 2006]

Land of the Blind thinks it is a witty, modern satire on power and corruption. However, while presenting itself as an incisive commentary it fails to ask any questions of the issues it touches on. Ralph Fiennes' prison guard is converted to an anti-governmental cause by imprisoned playwright/ 'terrorist' Donald Sutherland and is led to help in the assassination of the local despot, but their relationship is based on little other than a few bewildering, pretentious quotations and long meaningful stares. We are given no real reason to believe why: a) Fiennes rises from prison guard to captain of a secret military platoon that hunts terrorists and guards the president and b) then sides with Sutherland.

Rather than be corrupted by power as he acquires it, Sutherland's character turns out to be just another dictator in waiting and after all his philosophizing and poetry-quoting in jail the first thing he does is end free speech and murder the previous ruler. And Sutherland's perfmance is at the same monotone, grandfather-esquire pace that he seems unable to escape from.

Because it sees itself as a 'satire' there are a few moments that are meant to to be funny, and make you see the absurdity prevalent through all spheres of life, but they are crass and dull. The repeated shots of elephants are heavy-handed and dull. The performances are two dimensional and obvious. The film gets so basic that we even get to watch the tyrant taking a crap.

The only thing that saved me from squeezing out my own eyeballs was Fiennes' performance. As usual, he's great to watch and he makes the most of the little he is given to work with. But its sad that such a strong performance is wasted on a misguided film that ultimately doesn't have the courage or intelligence to ask any questions about the themes it thinks it's so cleverly exploding and undermining. In the end we are asked to believe that resistance to totalitarianism, or corruption of any sort, is pointless. For Edwards, it seems, history is cyclical and there's nothing you can do about it. So its best to put up with the dictator you've got because you don't know what's round the corner. At least this one has a monkey.

Can you spot all the totalitarian regimes?

[Ryu_Darkwood · 8/10 · 17 September 2007]

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.

corrupts absolutely

[wrlang · 6/10 · 2 September 2006]

Land of the Blind is a political satire about the elite of power and the elite of revolution for the people and the ultimate dictatorial result no matter who is in power. Fiennes plays a captain of a regime that is in power, loses power, and gains power again much to his detriment. A person at the wrong place at the wrong time. Sutherland does a good job as a revolutionary and dictator as does the rest of the cast. While there were no standout scenes, good acting, direction, screenplay with a minimal amount of gore make a depressing movie relatively interesting. Modern political environments echo the theme of this film – absolute power corrupts absolutely. One mans vision of a people is not necessarily the people's vision of themselves. We incorrectly ask our leaders to lead us when what we really want is for them to provide for the needs we identify. Americans are not sheep.

Pointless waste of time

[axon50 · 2/10 · 20 August 2006]

Perhaps if you grew up as a mushroom you might be shocked enough by the content of this film to think it is actually worth something.

It takes elements of King Charles I, Cromwell, the Restoration, Soviet Russia, the novel 1984 and various other things, mixes them together and makes a pointless story pretending to be something more.

It starts off OK but soon it becomes clear the writer has no real ideas of his own and is just loosely copying history.

Apart from Ralph Fiennes putting in a fine performance and some nice shots of the former Royal residence Brighton Pavilion, I was bored and felt I had lost 2 hours of my life.

The ending was the biggest disappointment as it really questions why I bothered to get that far.

everything borrowed, something blue

[lionel-libson-1 · 17 February 2009]

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.

A most thought-provoking dystopia film.

[aalokdas · 7/10 · 18 April 2012]

Really a most thought-provoking dystopia film with a bizarre ending that like most great movies - leaving you wondering...

It drags a bit and is quite silly in the first half hour, but then it picks up, adding elements, symbolism, styles and phrases of dystopian regimes throughout the past 2-300 years.

The basic plot tells of a shift between an aristocratic fascist consumerist decadent regime to a fundamentalist communist anti-knowledge mobocratic one - most similar in style to what happened in Russia post 1917, the first part, and China post 1949 or even Iran post 1979, the second part.

Throughout, the film intersperses bits of rhetoric that make you ponder as to what its message might be.

Unexplained vignettes of Elephants and Schizophrenia deepen the message and add layers to what might originally come across as popcorn-satire with a powerful cast. The apparent twist towards the end is well executed and is the cherry on top.

But it certainly could have been made with more finesse, but then perhaps it would have been too serious to hold any box-office appeal, which political satire always must capture - for otherwise it would not be of much purpose.

The ending may matter

[Kazetnik · 4/10 · 31 October 2006]

Many others have commented on this "homage" to all satires of a political bent and its hodge-podge of referenced dictators, and I can only agree. Pol Pot, Hess, Mussolini, Caligula, Winston Smith, they're all here, filtered through a film school montage of techniques and borrowings. It's all very unsatisfactory, character motivations are opaque and inconsistent, and the tone is uneven, uncertain if it is satirical comedy or mockumentary expose.

The ostensible message identified by other reviewers of the movie - that all resistance to tyrants by ordinary people is futile - is, however, less clear to me. Yhe very fragmented nature of the final ten minutes or so seems not to have been commented on either here or in professional reviews. To write it off as a descent into madness, as it has been, seems to ignore a certain poignancy and trickiness of the closing scene, where the daughter leaves her father in a flat on a council estate (looking like somewhere in South London), gets into the lift and weeps. Are we meant to conclude that everything that has gone before is the delusion of a madman, typing his story endlessly to the exclusion of the real? Or that the hypercoloured parody of the bulk of the film is a metaphor for the life that we Winstons live in apparent freedom but actual oppression? A block of flats, uniform, utilitarian, where people try and make a life for themselves lacks the drama of a North Korea or Cambodia, and the censorship and mental poverty may be invisible to us since we are not starving or sent to re-education camps or explicitly tortured. Maybe I am being too generous to this very flawed film, but the ending has left me with many questions than anything else in the movie, since it seems to require us to go back and look again at the rest of the movie. Are we so remote from this exaggerated, fictional country? Is it just a matter of degree?

A must see film

[rll-5 · 10/10 · 19 March 2006]

It is a rare event when a feature film with two name stars, Fiennes and Sutherland in this case, can so eloquently capture the political atmosphere wafting across the world today. Robert Edward's 'Land of The Blind' does this and much more in the political thriller/drama/ comedy that manages to create an original film based on themes that have unfortunately not gone out of style.

While never overtly alluding to a specific regime, the film creates a world that is at once absurd and chilling. One moment you are watching a David Lynch take on a Banana Republic, and the next you are thrown into 1950's Kremlin a la, "The Manchurian Candidate". This suspension of time and place allows the viewer to take in the chilling effect of totalitarianism, while witnessing the insane behavior of its participants. The film's engrossing aesthetics run the gamut from Fellini to "Brazil" to "1984", all expertly directed by Edwards and edited by Pearlstein.

'Land of The Blind' has the guts to take the viewer on a journey that few filmmakers would dare these days, and having the acting to back it up takes the film straight to the winners circle. Make room George Clooney, thank goodness another talented filmmaker has emerged with courage and vision.

On a side note, I had the good opportunity to see this film in London at the Human Rights Watch Festival, and the sold out crowd went absolutely nuts for the picture. This film should do great as long the distributor realizes what kind of a gem they have.

GO SEE THIS FILM!

No one eyed man in charge here, just corrupt; depraved and evil minded men with one eye on their oppressive regimes in a teetering, often frustrating film.

[johnnyboyz · 5/10 · 15 July 2010]

Robert Edwards' 2006 film The Land of the Blind is ultimately a tale of how absolute power corrupts, absolutely. The film is stark in its imagery and tone, its gross mixture of everything from its colour palette to other general, discomforting and disorientating content giving it a very distinct feel; so much so that it's an odd thing Edwards has not gone on to produce, by way of writing or otherwise, some more projects since. I got the feeling this was, indeed, one man's view on how the hypothesis of complete control completely corrupts and destroys an individual from within and those they might watch over; unlike Donald Sutherland's character very early on in the film, we do not necessarily have a complete turd on our hands here. But something lacked; something was missing. The film's sole source of shocks derives from its sporadic and disturbing imagery spotted along throughout, not from its would-be disturbing and enthralling in equal measure decline in well being and moral consciousness of the leaders on show; as if the coming and going of the two chief characters in charge plays second fiddle to the grotesque other stuff dreamt up so as to shock. While the film just about pulls off what it sets out to achieve, it's at a wavering and frustrating cost.

The film provides us with the character of Joe, played by Ralph Fiennes; initially a security guard at a high security prison in a nation run by a remorseless; disgraceful; gross and political correctness disregarding dictator named Maximilian II (Hollander), a man who has inherited the kingdom from his father and continues the brutal ruling of it. Hollander does a good job in playing this small, wormy, measly little man whom just happens to have landed the most powerful job in the world. The third member of the triple threat the film revolves around is the prisoner Joe is charged with observing, a certain free thinking elderly man of a supposed politically driven opposite to that of Maximillian II, named Thorne and played by the aforementioned Sutherland. The first time we see Joe, he is sitting in an alarmingly small Gilliam's Brazil-style room typing his memoirs, thus recounting to us the tale of the two regimes. In providing him as the middleman, the film has a lynch-pin or anchor around which the general study of two differing political men, be it stark differences in items ranging from overall age to intelligence, with power can just bring about their own downfalls. In beginning and ending with Joe the prison guard, although ambiguously so nearer the end thanks to some somewhat frustrating scenes that suggest mental illness in our Joe, we're able to see that regardless of who it is that's in power; there are winners and losers of each and every belief or political ideology. In thinking he was initially lending a helping hand for the opposition, despite things looking good for him, things were never quite as rosy as they seemed.

Edwards' idea that the state within his film could be representative of any nation throughout history, corrupt or otherwise, is impressively established with a glut of varying mise-en-scene, further still aiding in the disorientating feel the film has. Maximillian II rules a locale which on the surface, is a visually-driven clash between Stalinist Russia with Georgian England, with various other items such as the music characters play to themselves straight out of the 1940s; but whose flag looks like Argentina's (no doubt a reference to the Argentinian regime of the late-1970s) and whose language is certainly English with the national sport seemingly being basketball. Thorne is a prisoner of beliefs and publishing's, thus is suffering the regulations of censorship so knows the trials and pains of being a prisoner of that ilk. He seems to win Joe over as they talk through the prison walls with poem quotations; tales of his plight and so forth, but later on when Thorne gets into power, he goes on to enforce a degree of censorship on certain things. I like to think of this as the point rather than character inconsistencies within Thorne; that with the obtaining of so much power after so much graft, no matter how well meaning the individual came across as in times of great strain, the being granted of so much power will usually have a detrimental effect on the individual.

After suffering a great deal in a world that sees the shallow and narrow minded rewarded, with the creative and academics punished, we feel Thorne's attitudes were merely the lesser of two evils on the whole; particularly evident when the hate supposedly transfered onto the victims of the state come back to haunt them when the uprising sees a ridiculously unfair trial of the former leader, which features the gagging of one person on trial and the sole witness being the one who's in the process of electing themselves the new leader. For all Thorne's struggling when we observe him in his jail cell citing poems; having to write with his own excrement and suffering brutal beatings at the hands of the guards, he certainly packs a mean political punch of his own in dealing with those that do not entirely agree with him and his political ideologies. The film's colourful look and somewhat comedic overall tone stands in deliberately stark contrast to what's playing out, a tale of absolute power absolutely corrupting; two different plights: in the character of Joe, one of morality which later manifests as one spawned by suppression suffering by the state with Thorne's mirroring this in that it takes a similar structure but the other way around. Its successes lie at its core, around which an often lumbering and usually disgusting spectacle of very little drama unfolds. I liked some of what I saw but the point is made relatively rapidly and the film knows this is all it has while things generally fall apart after the first third.

Brilliant. A dark comic thriller and razor-sharp political satire.

[emailkim · 9/10 · 20 March 2006]

'Land of the Blind' is a brilliant, darkly comic thriller - a sardonic fable about power politics. It's at once deeply absurd and deadly serious, and I loved every minute of it.

The movie takes place in an unnamed country, an outlandish mix of Haiti, Iran, pre- revolutionary France, and suburban London. It's a get-along or find-yourself-in-a-re- education-camp kind of place.

The film plays as both taut political thriller and broad farce. It's a grim sign of the times that even the most outlandish aspects of this world feel like political deja-vu. Politicians are voted in based on their acting credentials; the President-for-Life is also a self-styled auteur of 'B' action movies; the sycophantic TV news-anchors remain upbeat and bubbly as they bend to the political winds, switching cheerily from Brooks Brothers to burqas.

At the heart of the movie is the relationship between imprisoned playwright Thorne (Donald Sutherland) and the man who guards him - Joe (Ralph Feinnes.) Thorne is a tortured man in possession of a brilliant mind, who's been reduced to writing on the walls of his cell with his own excrement.

Joe works for Junior, the buffoonish but cunning dictator played brilliantly by Tom Hollander. Junior is part infant terrible, part cold-blooded killer. Some will see parallels between him and other political leaders - the wealthy, goofy President trying to live up to the image of his father, the manipulation of a nation's fear of terrorism to hide gross abuses of power, etc.

Joe is cursed with a moral compass. He comes to recognize Junior as evil, but struggles with whether betrayal of the regime is the same as betrayal of his country. At first, Thorne looks like Joe's savior. But the question of whether Thorne is a Vaclav Havel - an intellectual who could save his country, or an Abimael Guzman – the imprisoned Peruvian professor and leader of the Shining Path terrorists, is grimly answered in the movie's closing act.

The cast is remarkable, nothing you wouldn't expect from Fiennes and Sutherland, and Lara Flyn Boyle does a terrifically dark and funny Lady Macbeth as Junior's wife. But Tom Hollander's performance deserves special note. Junior is now my favorite movie villain, ever. Frankly, I'd never heard of Hollander before, but here he turns in such a spectacularly comic and sinister performance that I've now Netflixed all of his other movies. If there's justice in this world (and according to this movie, there's not), Hollander would get an Oscar and a huge career out of this film.

LOTB a highly stylized, gorgeously shot movie – the rich production design and cinematography beg comparison to Terry Gilliam's 'Brazil' and Jeunet & Caro's 'Delicatessen'. Like those films, LOTB also takes place in a surreal dystopia that feels physically warped by abuses of power. Also, like those films, LOTB is darkly cynical and very, very funny.

It's a rare pleasure to see this kind of razor-sharp satire wrapped in a thrilling, artful, and well-crafted piece of story telling.

The sound guy should be shot

[Anarchy738 · 4/10 · 4 October 2007]

I spent the entire movie raising and lowering the volume while I watched this movie. I may have actually enjoyed it...if I could have taken my finger off the volume button for more than 3 minutes.

Other than that, the plot was a bit trite, but the imagery was very good. The character development tried very hard to be engaging, but in the end you really didn't feel terribly good or bad for the lead character.

Technically, the visual effects were very adept at setting the mood. Unfortunately, again, the sound...ruined the movie for me.

A little sound consistency would have been welcome.

Stylish and artistic

[Gordon-11 · 9 September 2006]

This film is about a prison guard siding with a political prisoner in a fictional country. The prison guard helps overthrow the government, only to find out that the new president is a worse dictator.

The story was a bit slow to start with, but it becomes mesmerising soon. The political tones in the film cannot be underestimated. The filmmakers are careful not to criticise any kinds of regime, in order to avoid a political war.

The two leading actors, Ralph Fiennes and Donald Sutherland both give strong performances in the film. They make the film very enjoyable to watch.

In addition, the stylish editing and cinematography makes the film very artistic.

The type of film people will either love or hate. I guess I'm more in the middle, but really didn't love it.

[mark.waltz · 4/10 · 17 July 2022]

I'm actually rather blase about it all, refusing to give it much thought, simply because by the time it was over I really didn't care about it that much to waste more time on it than I already had. It's a rather bizarre film, crude where it didn't need to be and violent for the sake of just being nasty. Tom Hollanderplays the epitome of the total man/child, the dictator of an unnamed country, the son of a long dead beloved dictator, and married to an Eva Peron wanna be (Lara Flynn Boyle) who whispers conspiracies into his ear to keep him under her control, obviously only because she knows that if he loses power, she's toast. He spends more time coming up with dumb ideas for movies (as he runs the nation's film industry as well), probably influenced by the cartoons he watches (the worst ones ever made) than thinking of his people, and he probably controls the media too as they are even more insipid than real life journalists, if that's possible.

The film also deals with an esteemed playwright Donald Sutherland, who is in prison, guarded by Ralph Fuentes, for allegedly having upset the government, suddenly released and given a position in parliament. The good cast can't help the often confusing script that had me torn between identifying certain scenes as part of the real plot or a play within the script. What appears to be a staged view of a coup is acted out so badly that I started to hope that just was the end of the film even though it was only an hour into it. The metaphor involving the elephants only shows a ridiculous pretentiousness of this film. I rank this higher than I felt I should have only because of the unique ideas and often beautiful photography. But I felt it was a big waste of 2 hours, unfortunately confirming my speculation that many modern cinema writers are trying to prove themselves smarter than their audience, fooling no one but themselves.

The Very Definition of Dystopia...

[BobStage · 9/10 · 14 September 2009]

Late in the film, a doctor tells a story of a group of blind men who each feel a different part of an elephant and give their opinions on what an elephant is: "One felt the trunk and said, 'an elephant is very much like a snake'. One felt the tusks and said, 'an elephant is very much like a spear'..." This kind of scenario truly befits the brilliant film known as "Land of the Blind".

"Land of the Blind" is a very smart film. To say that it is biased is to be ignorant of much of the film; this film has no stated political sides; it points fingers at the fascist dictator just as easily as it points fingers at the violent rebels trying to give power back to the people. The protagonist is a man named Joe, played brilliantly by Ralph Fiennes. Fiennes has been Oscar nominated in the past for playing a sadistic Nazi in "Schindler's List". This performance puts the latter to shame.

In the beginning of the film, Joe goes through the motions of a prisoner, but a prisoner with some prestige it seems. He has his own shower, and a typewriter to use at his discretion. And he uses it extensively, writing down his thoughts of the past and his life. The deadened look in his face haunts us through the film as he speaks of what he has done to earn himself this imprisonment.

Ironically, Joe began as a prison warden, or at least, that's where the narrative begins. The latest man in power, Maximilian II (Tom Hollander) is struggling to keep power amidst the many rebels trying to supplant his status as president for life. This group, known as the Citizens for Justice and Democracy, claims noted playwright John Thorne as a member.

Embodied by Donald Sutherland, Thorne is one of the most interesting characters I've ever seen in a film. Sutherland's lack of accolades for this role is just evidence of injustice in the world. Thorne is in prison, and is routinely abused by vicious prison wardens. His room is so small and filthy (even more so due to the fact that he writes anti-government slogans on his walls with his own excrement). As we gaze at his tattered clothes, his thick dirty hair, we then cut to Joe's look of disgust at this abominable way to treat another man. His meaningful narration, along with the haunting clicks of his typewriter, is the spine of this movie and guides us through events that occur, and Joe's reactions to it all. We also see the character of Maximilian as he calmly sits on the toilet in his private bathroom, his two hapless aides standing by and speaking to him about issues that any serious leader of a government would dare not wish to hear.

On paper, Maximilian is truly a disgusting character, and Tom Hollander adds a special sort of disgust for him. He truly doesn't care about the people at all, until he realizes that his position is in trouble. He takes in the deaths with an air of amused shock, but when he hears of how Thorne's popularity is growing, he turns pale with fury and takes it out on his aides with a sadistic ease.

The film deals with Joe's change in mind set, from the neutral observer just doing his job, to becoming attached to Thorne's plight, and then watching as the two sides vying for power reveal their darkest actions. It is clear that Maximilian is a corrupt man who would rather spend his time making bad films rather than rule the country properly, and Joe finds himself pulled to Thorne's side as Thorne is slowly granted new prisoner rights in the face of a humiliation for the government in power. Meanwhile, the dark eyes of Thorne show us that he is planning something; something that will topple the government and place him as the new leader of this war-torn country. Joe does not see this plot at first, and then is forced unwittingly into the most crucial point of the political struggle.

To say anymore would spoil too much of the film: I leave it up to you to see it for yourselves (thankfully it's available to watch on Youtube as of now). The acting for this film was absolutely brilliant; Sutherland and Fiennes are given crucial jobs, and both deliver their due with ease. Hollander makes a memorable role as the spoilt young ruler trying to live up to his father's tyranny. Also memorable is the presence of Lara Flynn Boyle as the selfish First Lady of the state, and Mackenzie Crook in a very funny cameo as a film editor.

Many writers have become famous for their novels about great plans gone horribly wrong; George Orwell, Michael Crichton, and Orson Scott Card. Robert Edwards, who wrote the screenplay and directed the film, should have at least been Oscar nominated for making this kind of film. This is a film that rarely gets made anymore, and that's a pity, because it is a very smart film that looks at the two sides of politics and then asks a deeper question about reality itself.

Disappointment with "Land of the Blind"

[jjmfe · 3/10 · 22 April 2007]

I was very disappointed in this film. The story and the point of the author is presented in a heavy-handed, and cliché manner. The author's hyperbole denies the possibility of balance. He argues against change, and allows that only extremes in the swing of the pendulum of social change are possible. He makes his point unapologetically without subtlety.

His indelicate way of making this point is a little like writing into a story too many soliloquies to describing the feelings of the principal characters without just showing those things, and letting the audience figure it out. He over tells his story. He's taken too big a picture in too short a span of time, and indelicately made his transitions. The filmmaker says to his audience, "I'm not a good enough filmmaker to make my point subtly, or you're is just too stupid to get my point unless I explicitly tell you.

Its good casting, they're good actors but Sutherland plays his part a little too smug too self-righteous to be believable, rather like his thief in the "Italian Job." Not the best work in either place of a normally good actor. The characters are waterfront artist's caricatures.

Whose story is he telling? Is it Cuba, South Africa, Haiti, WW2 Germany, or Romania? He's hyperbolized elements of all those places into one. The story could have been very good, and a more effective political statement with a lot less. It tries to hard, and fails to be an effective vehicle as a political statement, or a good story. Skip this movie. Don't waste your time or money.