Blindness

Meirelles adds another perspective, that the epidemic might be a good thing if, by being thrown into the darkness together, we may once again recognize the human family to which we all belong.

It engaged me throughout and I found the ending to be surprisingly hopeful.

There's a good movie here, but we get it in pieces that are sometimes hard to decipher.

An arresting, often riveting film that is fascinating to look at but not nearly so interesting to watch.

Blindness is provocative cinema. But it also is predictable cinema: It startles but does not surprise.

Blindness is one of the most unpleasant, not to say unendurable, films I've ever seen.

This ends on an uplifting and philosophical note, equating moral blindness with the literal sort, which you'll probably appreciate if you haven't already slit your wrists.

Blindness is a masterpiece from its very core. The book that originated it is outstanding, as the majority of Josà Saramgo's work is. That being said, let me justify myself: somethings are undeniable when watching the movie, first thing is the language (don't really know if this is the right term) chosen. Meirelle's camera behave as a blind man, choosing spots that never reveal all the scene, as if not giving importance to how we see the scene. This choice gives a very dark (or gloomy someone said) mood to the film. This mood is of the most importance. We have to think that we are talking about something like a social blindness, about our incapability to think and to reason some questions that can change everything. Another important point is the choice to work only the video and audio aspects of the story, that may sound strange but if you've read the book you'll surely remember that the book uses scents and dirtiness as tools to create the sensation of loathing and since cinema can't work with scent, yet, he chose not to use it. The video and audio work in the movie is amazing there are times when we, the watchers, experience total blindness in the movie and the movie trust completely in the sound work to guide as through the scene it is a crazy experience. Ok. I think I've gone a little bit to far here. Enough. I hope that I can convince some people to re-watch the movie with a more critic eye. It saddens me to see such a great movie rated 45 and 56 on Metacritic. Enjoy.

A must-read for the COVID era. Again I saw the movie & then read the book. 10 years ago the movie was intriguing as this country was coming off its first wave of blindness (a.k.a. the 'aughts) but things were on the mend even as the economy was tanking. The book worked as an analogy of the early/mid-2000s on one level. A rueful look back, perhaps? No. Ten years later it is unfortunately much more relevant as a second wave of blindness (Political, social) had this country on the brink in a different way. Against the backdrop of the COVID epidemic the book & to a lesser extent the movie keeps getting more & more relevant by the minute. The story should be mandatory reading as "1984" was 70 years ago. A summary of the plot; The plague initiates at an intersection when a driver is struck blind & is forced aside by angry fellow drivers. The cycle of abuser & abused starts early when the driver has his car stolen by a "good Samaritan" who in turn goes blind himself. The blind driver is examined by a doctor who in turn goes blind himself. Meanwhile, the plague initializes in earnest. Hundreds of blind people are quarantined. As are the doctor & his wife. However, his wife only feigned blindness so as to accompany him for his protection. As the quarantined population increases, society unravels first inside the hospital & then with society at large; police & security dissipate while inside the hospital an armed man forms a posse that doles out food for sexual favors. I will not reveal the middle or the ending except to say that a portion of the afflicted population learns to hang together..... I will say that Mr. Saramago's method of inserting you in the story involves not giving formal names to any of the story's characters. They are referred to as "the Driver", "the Doctor", "the Armed man". This lends the effect of detachment & by extension a kind of blindness is experienced by the reader. Minor gripes with the movie; When the initial victim regains his sight it drew an unwanted laugh from me given it's resemblance to a Folger's coffee commercial. ALSO the Doctor's wife was overplayed up as an "Angel of Mercy", with the exception of when she kills the "Armed Man". The book revealed darker thoughts inside her head. Overall Director Fernando Meirelles & scriptwriter Don McKellar did a bang-up job streamlining the book, but the man I wanted to see do this would have been Roman Polanski. Yes the guy's a bit of a creep but his films 90% of the time showed a marked empathy for the women who populated his films. It would have fit his credo beautifully (except as the perv who drugged a 13-year-old girl, unfortunately)

I read various reviews of Blindness and they reminded me of some people's reaction to District 9, so I decided to give it a view and see what it was about. Blindness is a relatively straightforward movie and is not particularly good or bad. It is ironic how a film about how ugly humans can become when there are no laws or institutions (why do you think we need them?) gets a strong negative reaction from those that don't want to see that reality, much like the characters don't see what they are doing and what they've become. I didn't find it very insightful or poignant. I can only recommend it as an exercise for those who would consider what they would do in a worst case scenario. Blindness is not really entertainment nor is it very artistic but it is not the worst film ever made either.

It wasn't very bad, but a lot of unrealistic action. I expected so much more from Julienne Moore's character. I didnt understood the role of her husband having sex with another women and her reaction to it, also the ending didnt bring any light as I expected.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]