Skip over navigation

Blindness

Rated - 3 stars

It opens beautifully: a car stalled at a traffic light that’s showing green. The cars behind honking in frustration. Pedestrians glancing to gauge the severity of the problem – then taking a harder look, because this doesn’t seem to be an automotive malfunction, the driver appears to be in some distress. A passer-by goes up to him to see if he can help (he’s played the Canadian actor Don McKellar, who also adapted Nobel prizewinner Jose Saramago’s novel for the screen). The driver – an Asian man – says he’s gone blind, just like that, waiting for the light to change.

“Showing”. “Glancing”. “Look”. “Seem”. “See”. “Light”. Vision is such an active means of engaging with the world, to be deprived of sight strikes us as a particularly cruel calamity. But that’s exactly what happens to this Asian man, out of the blue, for no apparent reason. The passerby – McKellar – volunteers to drive him home, and he does. Then threatens to steal the car (or is it just a misunderstanding?). He escorts the blind man to his apartment. Checks out the minimalist zen. Unimpressed. He leaves him there. He steals the car.

All this is from the novel, and it’s… not quite dazzling, perhaps, but intriguingly poised between promise and threat, and shrewdly located in a cosmopolitan twenty-first century city that’s both familiar and not (it could be South America? Canada? Asia?).

More good things: the blind man is taken to an eye doctor (Mark Ruffalo) who is stumped by his explanation. The next day, the doctor wakes up to find he too has been struck blind. And so, we discover, has every one of the patients in his waiting room at the time of the Asian’s visit. The contagion spreads faster than panic. The car thief goes blind. It seems like half the population is herded into an empty hospital, where they are surrounded by the military and left to fend for themselves… (By weird coincidence, there is a very similar situation in this week’s horror release, Quarantine – the US remake of Rec.)

Not everyone is afflicted though. The doctor’s wife – none of the characters is named – retains her vision, but pretends to be blind so that she may stay by his side. Played by Julianne Moore, she’s a plucky everywoman, quietly taking care of everyone in her ward (they include prostitute Alice Braga, the Asian and his wife, Iseya Yusuke and Kimura Yoshino, and McKellar the thief) and trying to see that the overcrowded building doesn’t descend into anarchy.

It’s at this point, I think, that Blindness begins to go off the rails. A novel – in the hands of a writer as prodigious as Saramago – can take us into so many interior worlds, but the film has to stay on the outside, with the exterior appearance.

Fernando Meirelles – the Brazilian director of City of God and The Constant Gardener – attempts to go beyond this with several distorting lenses and “white out” effects. In the festival version I saw he also fell back very late in the day on a voice over narration by Danny Glover’s character, but from what I understand he may have dropped this rather half-hearted device.

At any rate, the story’s pretentiously vague allegorical nature begins to eclipse what might have been – in the hands of someone like George Romero – a gripping, visceral horror thriller. It’s an irritation that Moore’s immunity is never explained, but it’s more problematic that the social breakdown that follows feels more like a claustrophobic adaptation of Lord of the Flies performed by an over-aged cast.

Gael Garcia Bernal is suitably loathsome as the fascistic “King of Ward Three”, who starts hogging the food and demanding tithes from the other wards – but Meirelles fails to convince us of this prison-world or the rules the people in it live by.

The ending feels equally arbitrary and unsatisfying. Blindness may be great literature, but as a movie it just left me nostalgic for The Day of the Triffids.

Tom Charity
Tom.charity@lovefilm.com

View Details

More information about Blindness »

Members' Reviews

Reviews Voted Most Helpful

Rated - 2 starsBe wary of kind reviews of this film...

Possfimh Possfimh from Balham [Highly rated reviewer] , 07/11/2008

I found the irony of wanting to claw my eyes out more entertaining that any aspect of this bland insight into human nature. It was alarming that such an exceptionally talented cast could be such a chore to watch, what went wrong?

The story is nothing special but the promise a high concept 'scifi' thriller really begged you to stay in your seat. Once the first act comes to a monotonous and predictable close you find yourself in familiar TV movie territory, 'lord of the flies' morality frothing to the surface so early that by the time you get half way through you can only wonder how long it will vacantly stare out before the end finally inches away from the horizon.

The film does do a few things well. Its sells the possibility of a 'blind' outbreak with some great photography and set dressing. It tackles the solitude of blindness very well and the washed out color palette is a bold visual throughout. But the plot is really overwhelmingly bad and it tramples on everything like a dirty hoof and nothing except mace can help you forget the pain you made yourself suffer for two hours.

  83 out of 87 people found this review helpful

Read all reviews

Rated - 0 starsPure gloom

Smiffsta from Luton [Highly rated reviewer] , 07/02/2009

2 hours which felt like a depressing 8. Aside from the final minute (yes 1 minute), there was nothing about this film I enjoyed. Gut wrenching, moody, depressing and huge holes in the plot just end up getting you depressed and angry. It's not often I want to walk out of a movie but I can safely say that I would be happy to never see this gloomy pap again. All the qualities of a toothache and all the joy of a stomach ache make this one of the worst pieces of rubbish I've ever sat through. If you want 2 hours of gloomy boredom you're in luck. If not avoid.

  18 out of 19 people found this review helpful

Read all reviews

Rated - 1 starnasty and disappointing!

A customer from London, England , 14/04/2009

great cast, well shot, promising trailer with connotations of children of men - which was a fabulous film....

BUT

i was totally horrified to see the way the plot degenerated into a concentration camp style film about gang rape!?!?!?

I expect there will be many positive reviews about how this film highlights the animal-like aspects of human nature or some other tripe but trust me, avoid avoid AVOID this film!!

  13 out of 13 people found this review helpful

Read all reviews

Rated - 1 starNot worth a watch!

A customer from uk , 04/04/2009

I found this bland and uninspiring. The acting in the initial stages was dreadful and the film itself just dragged on. I ran through some of the scenes on fast forward just to get it over with.

  10 out of 10 people found this review helpful

Read all reviews

Most Recent Reviews

Rated - 1 starNot what I envisioned

Firethorn from Barnet [Highly rated reviewer] , 16/04/2009

This is an obvious, ponderous, dull and unpleasing allegory, hardly worthy of the talents involved. A real disappointment. A kind of substandard Lord of the Flies I suppose. I rarely dislike a film as much as this one.

  1 out of 1 person found this review helpful

Read all highest rated reviews

Rated - 2 starsDeep and meaning full

nellynora from Colchester , 04/05/2009

This isn't a bad film if you have an idea on what to expect from it. Me and my sister rented it thinking it would be a little errie and jumpy. It's not! the pace of the film is much slower than expected and you wait for something big to happen, which it doesn't. But having said that it wasn't a bad film, more edging on the moral aspect of life. A bit of a deep meaning full film.

  3 out of 3 people found this review helpful

Read all highest rated reviews