lohrasb What all revolutions have in common is idealists overthrowing a tyranny, only to replaces it by what makes atrocities committed by former villains, pale in comparison. Another distinguishing characteristic of such tectonic shifts in the geopolitical landscape is the existence of an odd bunch, its members having an awkward sense of right and wrong. As a result, they always fall foul of the el comandante, no matter who it is. Lastly, it's been quite unfair to make Donald Sutherland resemble Karl Marx in the movie poster. Karl Marx pointed out the short comings of a capitalist system, warned the stinking rich against what could happen to them if they don't alter their practice. But at the same time, he discouraged radical revolutionaries who sought his blessing for their actions.

Nullness The Land of the Blind is a rather decent first movie and script, yet it has many glaring faults, the most obvious one simply being it doesn't know where it wants to go halfway through. One gets the impression that if the creator had it his way, the film would be two hours longer.The first hour of the movie is more or less superb. Especially crafty are the news broadcasts (reminiscent of the forced lightheartedness of Japanese television) that include advertisements of products. The news segments are irreverent, silly lampoonery, and could have easily been situated in Mike Judge's Idiocracy world- yet somehow, unbelievably, the news segments and other over-the-top lampoons are never taken for being quite as idiotic as they could be, which I think is a great testament to the overall serious tone the movie holds. Like Catch-22, the more absurd moments in the first half of the movie might make us laugh, but if they do it is at our own expense.Yet after Joe's fateful decision, and the changing of the guard, the movie diddles and pops out of cohesiveness and all but loses its footing. The difficulty the creators of this film face is fierce: how do they show things haven't changed while changing things enough so we're not bored? Their answer is a muddy montage of images that take us more out of reality and into a confusing state that lacks any emotional effect. No new insight that hasn't been told by the simplest morality Utopian tale is offered; the last quarter of the movie seems like the beginning of Papillon.And indeed, where once the satirical elements of the first half were inspiring, now they become grating. It becomes sadly obvious that Joe and Donald Sutherland are the only characters in the film's world with any semblance of intelligence or free will; everyone else is mere blind sheep, ciphers, straw men. The serious satirical tone the film mastered in the first half fizzles into parody, a Green Acres squalor of familiar set pieces and situations. The movie's credibility is totally lost. The Land of The Blind is a satirical place, and its inhabitants aren't to be taken as anything more than straw men, but by the second half the pathos and music montages and fancy CG cuts are sprinkled a little too graciously to spice the film up, and the viewer's patience and involvement with any sort of parallel reality wears too thin.I enjoyed the settings, and how they were filmed. All the acting was brilliant, especially Junior as the Vista Street-directing little tyrant and Donald Sutherland as the complicated revolutionary. Even Ralph Fiennes (who I've always though looks a little bit like Mrs. Doubtfire) was in top form. But I did not like the puzzlement aspect of some things. Too many puzzle and references may make the audience feel smart, but ultimately they are a magic trick, hiding the lack of original content. And ultimately there is nothing very original about Land of the Blind, and there will be little consequence to its lack of fanfare.

Willemite The casting was most appealing and raised hopes far beyond what was actually delivered. I found that watching this film was a bit like listening to American Pie back in the day, trying to figure out the reference point for each line. Maybe one can ask, "how many dictators can dance on the point of a needle?" The Reagan references were pretty obvious, the tarot cards (Ron and Nancy relied on an astrologer), Max calling his wife "Mommy," also a known Reaganism. I don't think I want to know what the basis was, if any, for the perverse private practices of Max and spouse. Presenting Max in the opening sequence in a silly hat may have made him laughable, a possible reference to the malapropisms of 43, but once his dark core was revealed such lightness was merely annoying. There is clearly considerable content here about the nature of liberty and power, and how and when one should act when faced with immoral leadership. References abound, but I felt as if it were almost more of a parlor game for the makers of the film than a serious querying of human responsibility or a wise, satirical look at power and politics. The references to Iran and to extremists of both the right and left substituted a blunt instrument for a sharp one. I was waiting for them to quote the Who on the character of bosses. Is all power really the same? Are all who attempt to lead so inherently flawed? Are all who achieve leadership evil or wrong-headed? Surely there are some who are better than that. Ultimately, the film offers a well-educated cynicism, which seems a waste of a good education.

emuir-1 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.