Blindness (2008) User Reviews

An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind

[pmdawn · 7/10 · 25 December 2008]

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

Opens your eyes for something you don't want to see

[guynaba · 8/10 · 15 August 2009]

The movie has its merits. It brings you into the story, making you feel all the emotions felt by the characters, and in my opinion this is why some people didn't like it; it opens your eyes for things that nobody wants to see. I'm not saying that a disease like this one could happen, but others may come, and that's a reality.

The movie makes you feel extremely uncomfortable; I caught myself thinking about leaving the room sometimes. The atmosphere that Fernando Meireles built is so heavy and dark (even thought the whole movie is full of bright colors) that it makes you feel something like depression, sadness, and you keep thinking in the movie after it has finished. The acting helped a lot in this aspect; all the actors did their best to give a perfect sense of reality.

If you want just to spend some time watching a good apocalyptic movie, this is not the one. It may be considered as "cult" in someway, by the fact that you don't watch it to get entertained, but to reflect about it.

If I had to grade this movie based on how I felt during it, I would give it a 0, but I have to say that, above everything, it is a great movie.

8/10

Disappointing if you have read the book

[Imdbidia · 6/10 · 22 February 2011]

An adaptation of the allegorical eponymous novel by Jose Saramago. It tells the story of a group of people who are confined in an old abandoned asylum by the Government after the spread of a global pandemic of a strange contagious white blindness.

The movie follows well the book story, but completely forgets the human and social critique, and the philosophical and political questions embedded in it. In fact, the original title of the book is Essay on Blindness, and it is part of a series of philosophical-literary essays on different themes related to humanity, social and political structures. In other words, the soul and insight of the book are lost in translation.

The book is confronting, shocking and much harder and darker than the movie. The movie is a succession of weird shocking events that have no point, a confrontation between good and evil in an apocalyptic world... Wrong and simplistic. This is so because the scriptwriter and the director missed the most important elements of the book, or, simply, thought that the viewer would not want or understand more complexity.

Part of my disappointment has to do with the acting. Most of the actors are uninspired and badly directed, and some of them miscast. I did not believe them at all in their roles, especially Ruffalo and Moore, who seem not to believe the roles they are playing or the circumstances in which they are placed. I found stereotypical and offensive the use a Hispanic -played by Gael Garcia Bernal- as the bad guy; I mean, that's typical of mainstream stupid Hollywood movies, and it was not in Saramago's book.

It is great that we can experience the white textured involving blindness that the characters suffer, which is beautifully portrayed in the movie. However, there is too much clarity and whiteness in the movie, which is overwhelmingly white and on-purpose blinding, so we, the viewers, become a little blind too. I did not thing that was necessary. I think the director could have shown the white blindness from the point of view of the people getting blind, so the viewer can imagine what it is like, and then make the movie darker and moodier. The viewer is going to watch the movie, but cannot be part of it.

Miralles shows his savoir-faire in some of the most difficult scenes, the ones involving the women going to ward 3, shot with great sensitivity (they are raw and disturbing in the book), more suggesting than showing, creating and atmosphere that shows the drama but not the raw facts. It works perfectly. I also found great the depiction of the desolated city, the chaos and dirtiness the city -unnamed- is reduced to, and the life of the gangs of blind people and dogs in the streets. The music is beautiful -a mix of ethereal, quirky, strange and delicate elements- and serves the story very well. To add another positive element, Saramago's book is not easy to read, among other things, because of his literary style, so the movie is an easier approach to the story and it is still interesting.

Saramago, who never agreed to sell the rights of any of his books to any film producer, did so in this case and after a long negotiation. Miralles directed the movie always having Saramago in mind, and what he would think about his cinematographic options while adapting the novel. Saramago attended, side by side with Miralles, the premier of the movie. A video in Youtube (watch?v=7XzBkM_LdAk), shows the end of the movie, in which Saramago is visibly moved, and says that he feels as happy at watching the movie as he did when he finished his book. Well, as a reader, I can't disagree more.

The movie has bad reviews in general and, in this case, I think they are deserved. To me, is the lack of depth and soul, the mediocre acting and the poor direction in major subjects ruins the interesting premises and storyline. Not all viewers are morons, and it is up to the director to direct and edit the movie, and lead the actors to the point in which they become the characters they are playing. Don't expect the viewer to fill the gaps and inconsistencies of any movie and make an essay on blindness from a bunch of apocalyptic events.

Tosca

[tedg · 3 October 2009]

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.

Decent adaptation that's just not as powerful as the book

[Quebec_Dragon · 7/10 · 25 May 2009]

I adored the book, it was both powerful and thought-provoking. The adaptation is fairly decent but I just didn't like it as much. It was gritty, well filmed but I expected more, way more. The movie felt somewhat censored to me for lack of a better term. I do give credit to the director for the clever way his characters go blind and his plays on light. The plot is interesting and mysterious making you wonder what is happening and how you would react to certain situations. Julianne Moore gave a restrained quality performance and the rest of the international cast was OK but not outstanding. I think it's another case where I should have watched the film before reading the book.

Rating: 7 out of 10

Slightly myopic but still enjoyable

[dfranzen70 · 6/10 · 3 August 2009]

n the land of the blind, only Julianne Moore can see. A weird malady has spread across an unnamed city that causes “white blindness” in the afflicted. Moore plays the wife of an eye doctor (Mark Ruffalo) who fakes having the disease so that she be quarantined with her husband (and the other early sufferers). The patients quickly learn that they’re on their own and that any attempts to leave the facility will result in their being shot to death. As the only sighted person, Moore literally sees the inmates/patients devolve into misery and must somehow lead a small band of them to the presumed safety of the outside world.

The movie begins rather strongly, as a young man is suddenly blinded while driving on a busy city street. Disoriented, he is helped by a passerby, who takes him home but steals his car. Meanwhile, an ophthalmologist’s office begins to fill up with people experiencing this odd blindness, not one of inky blackness but of complete whiteness. The following morning, the doctor wakes up with the same blindness, and the only way Mrs. Eye Doctor can go with him is by pretending she too has the (apparently) infectious disease.

The patients are kept in maximum-security barracks and are given sparse amounts of food that they must dole out to each other. But that’s the extent of their outside help; armed guards surround the buildings and shoot to kill anyone who tries to leave. (Lest they, you know, infect normal people.) So it’s not long before the denizens of one section (ward) decide they want more than their share, and anarchy ensues, which is compounded by nearly everyone’s lack of sight. (The doctor’s wife – everyone’s unnamed – keeps her own condition a secret from everyone except her husband.) The movie is a metaphor for the hatred within human beings for one another; it seeks to show that when the chips are down, we are just animals, even if we suffer the same indignities, because each of us wishes to be better than the next, to dominate. We are not, the movie argues, a society built solely on equality. It also seeks to show that there are different kinds of blindness: physical blindness, and the blindness of man to the suffering of his fellows.

Although the film is exquisitely well shot – from desolate city streets to the unencumbered chaos within the compound’s walls – it’s alternately slow moving and predictable. It’s easy to see what will happen once the victims are quarantined, and it’s even easier to see that the doctor’s wife will be the one to lead some of them out of the morass. Although Moore is excellent as always (as are Ruffalo, Danny Glover as an eye-patch-wearer, and Alice Braga as a blind hooker), her character seems to be less a victim and accidental leader than a chosen heroine, which runs contrary to the theme of everyday people simply trying to survive without sight. Moore’s character, the only character with sight, is presented as being a good person, but she is very slow to stop what are obviously Very Bad Things being done to the blind.

Aside from the blindness angle, there isn’t much here to separate this film from other personal-disaster films (to differentiate them from natural-disaster films, which would include earthquakes, tidal waves, and tornados), such as movies about plagues (28 Days Later), zombies (Dawn of the Dead), or infectious diseases (Outbreak). The idea that people would turn on each other even though they suffer together is not new; neither is the idea of a society (in this case, an entire city) abandoning those who all have some sort of disease. And because these ideas aren’t new, Blindness isn’t as compelling as it ought to be; the characters are generally one dimensional and unlikeable, so this isn’t even much of a feel-good movie. To tell the truth, it’s a bit of a lifeless downer, although the ending makes up for it a little.

A final note: The American Council of the Blind said, in deploring the movie, that “blind people do not behave like uncivilized, animalized creatures.” That’s simply a silly statement. Anyone can behave as an uncivilized, animalized creature, particularly if they are treated as animals and quarantined from “normal” society (which was the point of the director, Fernando Meirelles); to believe that blind people are not susceptible to anger, despair, and revenge is to believe that blindness somehow connotes angelic heroism, which is unfair toward blind people as well.

Intense, slow, gritty, powerful and methodic

[ToddWebb · 10/10 · 4 October 2008]

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.

provocative but problematic logic

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 29 October 2014]

There is a contagious blindness disease. The optometrist (Mark Ruffalo) who treats the first case also gets it. The authorities round up the sick under quarantine. The doctor's wife (Julianne Moore) doesn't get the blindness but she stays by his side. Soon the sick are left on their own and the strong starts taking advantage of the weak. Doctor's wife keeps her sight a secret as the prison descend into hell.

The start is pretty slow and I don't think it's necessary. My main problem is that there are a few unbelievable things in this movie. A minor problem is how quickly the quarantine is imposed. For such a weird sickness, the authorities seem unusually brilliant. The main problem is the unwillingness of the wife to use her sight. The plot seems to be bending over backwards to get to its points. There is a very provocative plot here. I wish it could be done more naturally.

A reality break from the rat-race -- society going blind.

[giomanombre · 10/10 · 17 March 2009]

This one gets a 10 out of 10. The very title and premise of this movie was intriguing to me. While we are caught up in the rat race. Wondering how to pay the bills, make the next dollar, worrying about recession, etc... what happens if we all suddenly just go blind. It is true that some of the most basic things that we take for granted that we should be thankful for -- gets lost in a rat-race called life. I knew I would enjoy the very premise of this movie as it shows that depth of how a first world country can go if one of the most basic gifts of sight were deprived. It wouldn't take a very long time for things to become anarchic.

I've been reading through all the comments because I didn't want to say something that wasn't said before. However, I want to defend this movie against some criticisms.

First of all, people are saying that Julian Moore's character waited a bit too late to use her weapon or do something. I think that this actually makes the movie more realistic and is a strength. A character that has never killed before, and is killing for the first time has to be taken beyond a breaking-point in order to cross that boundary. This makes sense with me and I do not understand why people are criticizing this element.

Second complaint common is demanding of goods or valuables if the place is already quarantined. I defend this movie in this respect because I think that to be appreciated, you have to give it latitude by trying to connect with it's overall message, even if it may be metaphorical at the expense of realism. You cant take a movie like this too literal -- you simply have to understand what it is saying -- which is the downward spiral when the rules of society collapse -- and learning to be thankful for some of the things that get lost that's really important in the rat-race we are all called up in.

Thirdly, the complaints of the gore, violence, and rape -- it was rated a restricted movie -- you are viewing at your own risk.

This movie has touched me and I'm glad that I have rented. If for not anything else, but at least helping me to see life beyond the rat-race that we are all glued to and imagining what could happen if one of the most precious gifts that we are all blessed with -- that of vision -- were deprived of everyone for just a length of time what would happen.

THAT -- in itself has got me thinking. There is no higher rating than 10/10 -- so that's the best I can do. I feel happy that something woke me out of the rat-race and see the blue sky -- it was this movie.

I really don't know, this is a brilliant film and a slow paced one and a well acted film and a... well, you get the idea

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 7/10 · 10 October 2008]

I remember seeing the trailer for Blindness back in April, I thought this looked like a terrific film and was just looking forward to it. I had the opportunity to see it this last Tuesday, I wasn't too sure though on what to expect, was this a horror movie, was it a suspense thriller or maybe was it meant to speak to society? Well, all of thee above, it had some really scary moments, very intense moments, as well as showing us how we take something so precious for granted, our sight. However this film did throw me off, it was a little slow paced at times and some scenes could have been shorter as well as the story would have some strange moments that really just made it seem like it was a straight horror film while I think this should have been a more balance mixture of each genre that I described before. I was never that big on Julianne Moore either, but she pulls in a great performance and was very strong, she carries the story pretty well.

We open with one man caught in the middle of a horrible rush hour, all of a sudden he looses his sight, a man offers to drive him home and steals his car. The man and his wife go to the eye doctor, the eye doctor doesn't see any symptoms that would prove anything causing his blindness. But the next morning, the eye doctor is blind as well, he and his wife go to a government holding center where they fear that the blindness is contagious as the blindness spreads throughout the country. But things get dramatically worse as the blind people start to turn on one another and make things very violent and fatal towards each other.

Blindness is a very powerful movie and is over all worth the watch, I do have a couple problems with the movie, like the pacing of the movie as well as the story. We never find out what causes the blindness, was it a disease, was it a terrorist plot, was it technology...? It's just a very interesting film, I had to think Blindness over for a while, I was walking out of the theater and someone said it was the worst film she had ever seen in her life and when I went to the bathroom and saw another person who saw the movie said that it was such a powerful movie and that she was very pleased with the film and how it was made. So I'm going to say this movie is for a certain kind of person, it has it's flaws, but if you are truly a film buff, I would say that it's worth the look.

7/10

Blandness

[debblyst · 5/10 · 14 September 2008]

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.

'Lord of the Flies' with adults: much more than it seems to be

[Radu_A · 10/10 · 15 November 2009]

One of the few outstanding pictures of late, 'Blindness' is hard to watch, hard to stomach and hard to deal with. As other comments mention, this movie leaves you somewhat disgusted at being human, because the consequences of a non-explained epidemic of white blindness appear extremely realistic.

It's also perfectly understandable that some people hate this movie, as it definitely vilifies everybody affected to a certain extent, the only exception being the still-seeing heroine. However in the profit-driven film industry, which so frequently torments our brains with just too much triviality, such a well-paced, provocative, thought-inspiring piece should be appreciated more for its dare than criticized for its shortcomings.

If you don't want to learn too much about the plot, read no further. I give a concise summary because some of you may want to know why this film is so controversial.

An unnamed city (though easily recognizable as Toronto). A busy traffic intersection. A Japanese man suddenly turns blind. Unnerved drivers honking need to be appeased by a passersby. Another one offers to give the Japanese man a lift home. Once there, he makes off with his car. The Japanese man waits for his wife, who then takes him to an optician. The optician cannot establish his condition and refers him to a hospital. The optician heads home, has dinner with his wife (absolutely brilliant: Julianne Moore), and wakes up next morning to find that he has lost his sight as well. So has the car thief and various other patients of his clinic. It becomes apparent that the blindness is an epidemic. The optician is being transported to an isolation facility, accompanied by his wife who pretends to have turned blind as well. Once there, they try to set up a code of behavior for the ever-increasing numbers of arrivals, since they are completely left to their own devices, with no direct contact to the outside world. The facility is guarded by trigger-happy soldiers who offer no assistance whatsoever and resort to violence in order to keep the affected indoors. Among them, power struggles ensue. With limited food supplies, a group of crooks takes control of them and coerce the others to exchange their valuables, and then their women for food. Their means of authority are a gun and the instincts of a blind accountant (chilling: Maury Chaykin). After one of the women dies of abuse, the optician's wife kills the leader of the crooks (effectively ruthless: Gael Garcia Bernal). A revolt ensues, during which the building catches fire. The wife dares to ask the guards for help and finds the facility deserted. She takes a small group of the liberated blind across a collapsed Toronto, eventually making it home. A joyful dinner with what has become her family of sorts follows. Next morning the Japanese man, who was the first one affected and is still among them, can see once more, to the joy of everyone except a naturally blind man who had hoped to go on living with everybody (wonderful: Danny Glover). The optician's wife walks out on the terrace and looks up to the white sky - has she now lost her sight, as it returns to the others? The criticism this story attracts from naturally blind people may stem from the accomplice of the villains. Of all the bad guys, he appears to be the worst because he knows exactly how vulnerable and extorted the affected victims feel. He jumps at the chance to wield authority for once instead of feeling compassion. However, this doesn't seem unrealistic and isn't presented in a discriminatory way.

The meaning of the white blindness appears to be some religious castigation in the novel, though this isn't pointed out explicitly. What makes this movie so fantastic in my opinion is that no explanation is offered at all. It's all about how people react upon a common affliction, and the chain of degradation that ensues is so logical that I am hard-pressed to remember any other dystopian film with such a clear message.

And then there is Julianne Moore, who makes her screen persona absolutely unforgettable - both angelic and vulnerable, both forgiving and vengeful, and always credible, even though it is such a mystery why she is the only one not affected by the disease.

In conclusion: this is one of those rare movies that give you a lot more than you might have wished for.

Good but..

[sabinabellet · 7/10 · 7 July 2018]

First I have read the book and couldn't stop my self watching it's movie. Movie is good , liked it but seriously book was better. Even though it will be my recommendation to who wants to watch a dramatically interesting movie.

Major disappointment

[jeccles1 · 3/10 · 7 October 2008]

I wanted to like this film and had great expectations, yet by the end of the movie I was annoyed at the entire production. Plot holes of some degree are to be expected in any movie, but the ones in Blindness were so gaping that they became major distractions.

The point is made at the start that Ward 1 would be the best to be in because they were closest to the supplies, yet despite that and despite the fact that they have the only sighted person in the building who can see the deliveries coming, they end up with nothing.

The Julianne Moore character leading the lambs to the slaughter so to speak (women exchanged for food) was absurd. Her walking up to the "dictator" with a metal pipe and smashing him in the head would have been the obvious move. He has a gun. So? And the idea that just because the "dictator" had a man who was already blind on his team, they had a great advantage, is absurd as well. I work with blind people daily. Their blindness does not give them magical powers. They have a degree of increased sensitivity with other senses, but still walk into walls and head the wrong way pretty often, so while they would have an advantage in that they had no adjustments to make when the affliction hit the world, that's about all.

In the end, I was reminded of "Children of Men", another film which had great promise but ultimately disappointed. At least that movie started out great however. "Blindness" just meandered around, and did so for a long, long time as well. "Day of the Triffids", an old sci-fi movie, gave a better take on the possibilities of such an epidemic.

Fair adaptation of a complex novel

[Benedict_Cumberbatch · 12 October 2008]

"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.

Could have been great but is not terrible either..

[akkoziol · 7/10 · 6 October 2008]

From having read the book a few years ago, I was a bit hazy on the details and what got translated verbatim from the book to the movie and the majority of what I remember from the book was there. The premise is, without a doubt, great. I'll say what everyone who has read the book will say: the book was better. I've never seen a faithful translation of a book-to-movie so quit your whining. Other than a few sequences, not quite relaying that much time passes, a bit of filler that I agree was OK to admit or change a bit, it was fairly true to the book. I can't say that this should not have been made into a movie as others have said. You know who hates this movie? People who like CG, plot and action that moves at an epileptic pace, and those who DON'T READ BOOKS. Maybe even most Republicans. This IS a thinking person's movie that asks you, the viewer (or reader), a very deep and hypothetical question: what if EVERYONE suddenly went blind? I agree with some others who've said that acting was sub-par other than Julian Moore, I will give it that. She carried the whole movie on her back, quite literally. This could have been a LOT more gripping and terrifying if they would have gotten some better actors for many of the roles. I was not convinced that everyone was in a panic by suddenly going blind. The book did convey this more and the movie did not. We do see the nod to Lord of the Flies as human civility and morality quickly go into the toilet. I don't care who you are, if you've lived so many years and suddenly your precious site was gone, you would be FREAKING out. One thing I will also agree on is the rape scene, you will cringe like you've never cringed before. It is brutal and pretty true to the book. You've been warned. In a nutshell, it's a very non-Hollywoodized adaptation of a pretty terrifying book. It has some shortcomings, shaking acting, but I disagree with those who've given it 1 star. I liken it a bit to Children of Men. If you don't like movies that explore hypothetical questions, skip it and go rent Norbit.

how bad can humanity be?

[Orhan_Akdeniz · 7/10 · 16 March 2020]

I watched this movie on the date it was made. At that time, I liked it very much. I watched it again because of the virus epidemic. It tells the evil in humanity.

Blindness: Seeing in the dark

[viniciusprusch · 10/10 · 28 November 2017]

Reading the book by Jose Saramago, one of the first things that struck me was the dark tone with which the story was developed. To me, one of the main points of Saramago's writing in this case is making you feel as blind as his characters; you don't know their names, their past, what exactly is happening to them or why. In this sense, it was hard for me to imagine this story being told in a media that relies so much on the visual aspects of a narrative as the cinema. Part of what made possible for me to put myself into the shoes of the characters and, consequently, relate with some of them, was being in the dark with them, having nothing but my imagination to rely on.

Watching the movie, however, I was rather surprised by the final result. I had already watched City of God, so I knew how good Fernando Meirelles was, but, given the circumstances, I was trying not to expect too much from this movie in particular. Nevertheless, the choices made by the director made all the difference. After all, he focuses on another idea present in the book to convey the same message, which is that, even though the whole country is going blind, one of the main characters (Julianne Moore) isn't. So, to me, the movie puts you in her place; it makes you able to see in a world where everyone has gone blind. The only time you can't see what's happening is when she is in the dark. Rather than not being able to see, our biggest curse ends up being the very opposite, which is being able to see so many bad things with tied hands. This is what sets the tone to the movie and, in my opinion, one of its greatest achievements.

On another note, Julianne Moore's amazing performance creates an antithetic feeling in the audience, some kind of painful hope. If, on the one hand, we are forced to see things the way she does, and she is the one whose hope is the most powerful, on the other hand, we know that we can't go back in time, and that everything that was done will remain in the memories of those affected by it.

The photography is both beautiful and brutal at the same time, and the usage of very bright scenes which blur our vision for some seconds is yet another positive point of this adaptation. It conveys the idea that the white blindness might be seen as a metaphor for a kind of "image overdose" as the one discussed by Jonathan Crary (2016) in his book entitled 24/7: Late Capitalism and the Ends of Sleep ("With an infinite cafeteria of solicitation and attraction perpetually available, 24/7 disables vision through processes of homogenization, redundancy, and acceleration.", claims the author). In fact, if you watch the documentary by Brazilian directors João Jardim and Walter Carvalho entitled Janela da Alma (The Window of the Soul), you may realize that it was possibly Saramago's idea from the beginning.

More than respectful to the source story, the movie rewrites it with a new perspective while keeping untouched all important events. It's a movie worth watching whether you have read the book or not (even though I definitely recommend that you check the book out) and a piece of art which stands in its own merits.

What is the difference between seeing and not seeing?

[frknzdn · 7/10 · 23 January 2019]

It has brought a different perspective to the outbreaks leading to the end of the world. Unlike other post apocalyptic films, the incapacitated side was evaluated differently.

So worthy of viewership

[transcendingpictures · 9/10 · 9 October 2008]

"Blindness" is an excellent film in my opinion. The filmmakers clearly had a vision (excuse the pun) and were courageous enough to stick with it throughout the film. There were many instances where I expected the film to resort to more conventions in plot and execution, but the story remained rooted in its characterizations. The performances are tremendous, and look and feel so real. The film clearly functions as an allegory of the condition of the world, but the film stays focused on the localized story of these characters and wisely just leaves room for the macrocosm to be experienced and examined. And it does provide a hopefulness to it in the end that nicely counters its darker themes.

It's unfortunate that this film has been stigmatized since its weak debut at Cannes. The wide opening with very little business last weekend isn't going to help its financial future. Right now I think the people that have seen the film and appreciate it need speak up about it. Share your opinion with others so that this deserving film can get its viewers and not fall prey to the bad press. I know it will find an audience, if not on DVD, where often many great films get their dues (like "The Shawshank Redemption"). But really "Blindness" should get the respect and business that's relative to the vision and energy put into making it. It looks great, asks important questions and hits the right emotional notes.

I highly recommend it!

Different from the image I had when I read the book

[bejaouizied · 6/10 · 26 November 2017]

The film does not match what I have imagined when I read the book. The scenario of the film is quite similar to the story however the image, the way it's filmed and the colours caused a lost of originality that the book offers, the book has lost its soul when it has been filmed. Worth watching though.

2 hours of life you will never get back

[Lugo1989 · 2/10 · 19 September 2017]

The title says it all. One of the most disappointing films I have seen in a while. The story has so many faults that it makes watching this a really frustrating experience.

A city is ravaged by an epidemic of instant white blindness. Sounds like an interesting premise doesn't it? Well, they ruined it. People who get blind are simply put in a quarantine which is some old abandoned building and they are just left there like animals which seems completely unrealistic. I don't think the authorities would just lock up people, surround the place with armed guards, give them some food, deny any medical assistance and leave them there in a complete mess. And don't forget they are all blind so after a while the place begins to look truly awful.

There is also nothing explained where the disease came from, what caused it, how to prevent or cure it.

Our main female protagonist is the only one that can still see, somehow she did not get infected and why her sight remained normal is not explained either. I believe she could make much better use of her untouched sight than she did. Especially when a guy who is a self-proclaimed king of one of the wards makes life even more miserable to others by denying some of them food and is feared by many because he has a gun. Since her eyes work she could easily take his gun, hit him in the head with something or react in any other way much sooner than she did thus helping others.

After a while they break out of the building and discover they were simply left in the city with many other blind people. At this point the story should really pick up the pace and it simply doesn't. We are left with blind people roaming the city streets, looking for food, they main group that we are following even move in together and all of a sudden live a happy life. I am not going to even lose words on the ending since it's simply too bad to even bother.

I am sure some of you are used to watching slow-burners but believe me, this is much too slow. Characters are one-dimensional and sometimes make completely unreasonable decisions, the acting would be the only positive thing here, Mark Ruffalo and Julianne Moore are not bad at all as well as the supporting cast and that is the only reason why I rated this 2 instead of 1 stars.

In conclusion, avoid Blindness and spend 2 hours of your life on something else, anything else.

A brilliant adaptation

[lauragabrielapires · 10/10 · 16 December 2017]

Blindness (2008), directed by Fernando Meirelles, is an adaptation of José Saramago's novel Ensaio Sobre a Cegueira that tells the story of a society that falls victim to a sudden surge of blindness. The film is an extraordinary adaptation. It pictures a lot of the details of the book, such as places and scenes that are fundamental to the plot.

The where and when the story happens is not mentioned and to express this idea in the film the director made a great choice by mixing elements of various nationalities. The language used is English, but the license plates look similar to Brazilian plates, the images of the city are taken from cities from different countries and the cast is really diverse. Also, none of the characters has a name, and fortunately this wasn't modified in the movie. As a great fan of the novel, these were the first details that I was expecting to see because they create the perfect atmosphere to the plot.

Speaking of plot, just a few things were changed and it didn't bring any harm to the original story. While I was watching, I started to remember certain scenes from the novel and I was trying to imagine how these scenes would be portrayed in the film. I wasn't disappointed at all. Of course some parts were left out, but it wasn't a great loss, they were well adapted to be shorter than the novel. I've seen some negative reviews talking about how the film can cause a bad feeling to the audience, but I can't see how this is a bad thing, because that is exactly the purpose of the whole story. It is to cause discomfort, to show the reality we could live. The graphic scenes can be too strong to the more sensitive but they were unavoidable.

All I can say is that Blindness is a well made adaptation that doesn't disappoint those who read the novel. The direction is brilliant, the actors are great and the story is told in full. Even if you didn't read the novel, it is a great way to meet José Saramago's brilliant work.

The novel by Jose Saramago (Blindness)

[sarahlotfyb · 7/10 · 29 April 2020]

It's taken from the novel, and for those who read the novel, they will tell that the novel was so much deeper in taking you through the darkness and the misery of that white blindness. The novel has so many meanings that I feel I can't even express here in few words, but the movie tried to intense the sequence of events to be 2 hours and they could do that in a very good way.

Reading the novel would be great for the people who liked the movie. However, I love the movie so much!

What I didn't like about the movie that in many scenes the actors or actresses didn't act well that I could see that they were only acting and that was so disturbing during watching and being so indulged in the feeling.

Atrocious

[marsbar114 · 1/10 · 14 October 2008]

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.