Infamousta brilliant actors, brilliant editing

Kidskycom It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Marva-nova Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Aalok Das Really a most thought-provoking dystopia film with a bizarre ending that like most great movies - leaving you wondering...It drags a bit and is quite silly in the first half hour, but then it picks up, adding elements, symbolism, styles and phrases of dystopian regimes throughout the past 2-300 years. The basic plot tells of a shift between an aristocratic fascist consumerist decadent regime to a fundamentalist communist anti-knowledge mobocratic one - most similar in style to what happened in Russia post 1917, the first part, and China post 1949 or even Iran post 1979, the second part.Throughout, the film intersperses bits of rhetoric that make you ponder as to what its message might be. Unexplained vignettes of Elephants and Schizophrenia deepen the message and add layers to what might originally come across as popcorn-satire with a powerful cast. The apparent twist towards the end is well executed and is the cherry on top. But it certainly could have been made with more finesse, but then perhaps it would have been too serious to hold any box-office appeal, which political satire always must capture - for otherwise it would not be of much purpose.

edwagreen 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.

lionel-libson-1 As I scanned earlier comments about "Land of the Blind" I was struck by the failure to recognize that this film cobbles together elements of Orwell,"1984", "Z", "Clockwork Orange", "Marat/Sade", etc..I suppose when one lives long enough(72), there is no surprise when others find novelty in a regurgitated past. Even the music,(particularly Schubert's trio theme) presents us with a Kubrick/Proustian remembrance without the substance.Although many seem to find an echo of the W Bush years, I find myself sensing a brave new world aspect to our new President. Mantras for "change", iconic adulation, even an Inaugural speech in which we are referred to as "My fellow citizens"--Robespierre redux.Fiennes, as usual, is compelling, even when it's not clear that his own actions were spurred by a higher morality. Castro was indeed a hero in the 50's, but his half-century left a river of blood and suppression. It is clear in the film that principles are the first victims of power.I think that before audiences stand and applaud this film, they should ask themselves if they are ready to stand up to tyranny, even if it is well-spoken and attractive. I doubt if most viewers were alive during the McCarthy years, or recall Hollywood's total capitulation to the witch hunts or blacklists. Nor do they remember Stalin's trials, Mao's re-education programs, or so many other acts of oppression.I realize that I've strayed from a direct review of this film, but I'm dismayed at all that has been forgotten or overlooked by those who seem anxious to fight for freedom.

ifheringa I wont devote too much time to reviewing this film for the following reason:There's nothing wrong with a political message if you respect the medium that's being used to express it.This film has bad cinematography, bad directing, bad lighting, very average music, a bad pace , bad dialogue, and none devoted actors... What are Fiennes and Sutherland doing in this film?Robert Edwards may be a more intellectual type than Uwe Boll but his directing and writing skills are of no higher standard.Please Edwards, do better next time or make use of other mediums for your idea's. I don't however believe you'd be very successful with such a horrible movie on your resume.