Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Pretty Good

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Just one step below awful. It's basically a satire on the idea that when a revolution comes to a country, the new leaders may turn out to be just as bad if not worse than those they usurped power from.The scenery and mood make this picture very dull. It is as if it has been shot circa 1927 when the film industry was just finding sound.Ralph Fiennes gives his all but the writing is so convoluted as well as dull. Ditto for Donald Sutherland. Note how a writer eventually attains power and becomes worse than his predecessor.Which beast of history does the wife of the first dictator represent? She is supposed to represent the idea that there is a woman behind every man. Conniving and vicious, she meets her her just end. Note how the film emphasizes the idea the violence begets more violence. All of our dictators die through assassination.

A transparent, shallow statement about political process that reeks with that unmistakable bias of the easily-blurred eye of American perspective on its ever-bleak forecast of its ongoing tumble into the abyss of stupidocracy. Grow up, already.While I found the film predictable and agreeing with pretty much everything Mr. Robbie Hamilton from London had aforementioned, the most annoying part of this film going misaddressed is that tacit message the script writers make: namely the invalid assumption being made that a government only has two preposterously extremist courses that are inexplicably parallel in outcome. Stereotypical, self-destructive American paranoia being spouted that's clearly designed to promote more irrational fear-mongering about religion and other authoritarian figureheads in general. So much for In God We Trust, or anyone else...ever. Its this certain pathological mistrust of anything not directly decided by the individual taken, as always, to ridiculous extremes. Not to mention the nonsensical Marxist template that's somehow slapped onto Donald Sutherland's character all the while. That doesn't even make any historical sense. Just worthless.Its such a trite theme in these pieces of obvious and boring moral-atheist, pseudo-intellectual, contemporary propaganda that seem all too eager to reach out with its tentacles of questionable, subtle behavioral conditioning. There's never a middle ground of realistic attempts at political negotiation with encouraged mutual symbiosis, or even a hint of political amicability; but only the less worse of two bloodthirsty avenues from which to despondently choose. Oh no everyone; the revolution is just as evil as the dictators, now we're really, really depressed; more than before. I suppose we should just succumb to this false dilemma about the futility of life; let's all kill ourselves since we can only lament over how history never seems to change. Would that make you happy? A true feast for the weak-minded in the throes of the great and churlish American identity crisis. Aren't the Americans tired yet of being fed these deliberate farces: thinly obfuscated as unavoidable, political "fact"-themes that only seem to triumph one over the other in Hollywood in vying for overly-generalizing ignorance? Where have all the real films gone? The classics that situationally question; asking the viewer think for oneself are all but replaced by these diluted garbage like Land of the Blind that shamelessly attempts to think FOR you. Its not even entertaining or thought-provoking; its just pathetic. Just watching this film gave me that pain in the anterior surface of my left frontal lobe. That's right; I could actually feel myself getting stupider for having to watch this film just to make sure that there were, in fact, no good parts to it. If I could vote for one thing, I vote for a resolution that limits how much these armchair engineers can afford to waste our time by tirelessly churning out delusional, half-baked scripts of poorly re-hashed Animal Farm allegory. Orwell already told the story more than brilliantly; let's keep it that way.Ditch this hyperbolic waste of film.

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.

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.