hasnoform This was an extremely powerful film in so many ways and I'm somewhat surprised it wasn't hailed more than it was and that it didn't get the extent of theatrical releases that it actually deserved. Fundamentally about the fact that power can certainly corrupt and absolutely power even more so, Land of the Blind is often a very bleak vision of how humans will feel perfectly justified in going to extreme lengths to ensure that their end-goals are realised and that the means to achieve those ends become immaterial. Ralph Fiennes is a brave an excellent actor who I've seen astound me on stage on many occasions (let alone his excellent film-work) and he doesn't disappoint at all in this hugely powerful role. Tom Hollander once again probably steals the show with his psychotic portrayal - a truly frightening character and a marvellously brave performance yet again from this amazing actor who seems able to be brilliant in every single role he ever does and all the roles are so hugely different.

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.

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.

jmh2350 This movie is a real mess...where to begin describing how? Well, first is the country it is (or is not -- no way to know!) set in; stock footage as background is shown from third world countries, middle-eastern countries, and a jumble of others, but when the characters appear, they are: NONE OF THE ABOVE. And worse, most of them as part of the government, would not all fit together cohesively in the capacities in which they are portrayed inside a country ruled by a maniacal dictator, as in this film, in today's world. And make no mistake, the movie takes place in today's world, based on most references throughout the film -- so, elements just don't fit. And the characters...all supposedly natives of this implausible land -- well, some have British accents, some do not...go figure. And, of course, there are segments and characters that are not fully developed, and scenes not adequately explained. Worst of all is the fact that this movie cannot make up its mind whether to be exaggerated black comedy, biting satire, or serious compelling drama...bits of each are all stirred together to make mostly a mess. One small example: the exterior design of the dictator's palace looks to be middle eastern, while the dictator himself is not, nor does he resemble his father, a western European-possibly-Mussolini type. Judging from some of the scripted language and overall message of the film about what type of leader replaces the leader he deposes, I believe that the true and witty vision in the mind of the writer became lost when he, as director, tried to put it on screen.