Just what I expected

Beautiful, moving film.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

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.

This movie is great ! I saw good comments already left here about this film, but I just had to spill this out - even though I don't do it usually. It leaves you with enough space to freely follow delusions about things around you, without having problems with deliberately abstracted characters tied to a specific country or political order. Bitter satire, yet spiced with some subtle humour enough to overcome inevitable brutal scenes for unprepared sensitive stomachs. The essence of the story is scrupulously followed to the very end of the film, despite of uncovering an indication about all this being just some writer's imagination. Reading Huxley's "Brave New World", Orwell's "1984", or watching Terry Gilliam's "Brazil", or even a movie like "Matrix" moved me and gave me similar thrill, and left me thinking about that stuff and other things some while - just to give hint about this film, but not to compare with.

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.

OK, I admit to be the ignorant one who "grew up in a mushroom" (quote axon50). Never seen "1984", or other artwork that this film has been accused of "borrowing" from. But hey, what can I do? They were (still are) all banned where I grew up. Now I find myself extremely lucky to have come cross this underrated, poorly advertised film.For a person who has a good idea of, or lived under the "red terror", this hits right home. If you think the villains in LOTB are exaggerated, wait till you learn the real deeds of Chairman Mao, Kim Jong-il, Fidel Castro, Khomeini, Joseph Stalin… Yes, the characters are simplified & the story is abstract, but how much can one fit in 1 hour of what he sees of the world political history + current conflicts? This is a drama, not a documentary. If a story can be told in a news report, it can also be told in a poem – and this is that poem.The director's symbolic depiction of the "gray muddy world" is in high contrast blank & white, with a cynical, almost comical mood. Compared to other recent political thrillers like "Munich", "Syriana", "Savior"… this is high art. If those are Jazz or Classical, this is Rock n' Roll - and I'm a fan!