Comments on: Toronto ‘08: ‘Blindness,’ ‘Me and Orson Welles,’ ‘Miracle at St. Anna’ & ‘Religulous’

By: J.D.

J.D. — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:57:26 +0000

Zac Efron!

*had to*

By: Sam Juliano

Sam Juliano — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:48:26 +0000

Wow, this bunch are not only astute, but many have seen these much-anticipated films already at festivals! I am most excited about BLINDNESS, as I’ve read (and loved) the book and am a big Julianne Moore fan as well as an afficianado of Fernando Meirelles. But the film adaptation of a masterful work of literature is more than enough to raise the adreneline. I agree with Nick that ME AND ORSON WELLES and ST. ANNA are also promising works.

By: Nick Plowman

Nick Plowman — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:42:09 +0000

Thanks for the words Dave and Kerry!

I want to see Me and Orson Welles the most out of this lot, then Blindess, then St. Anna and then Religulous. I am very glad to hear that Blindness is better now than it was before, not that it’d matter much to me in terms of whether or not I would want to see it. The book was amazing, and the film is a must-see for me no matter what.

By: Salmaya

Salmaya — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:11:58 +0000

I think Blindness and Me and Orson Welles sound great, Religulous could be interesting, and St. Anna skippable.

By: Olivier

Olivier — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:06:26 +0000

Having seen Blindness at Cannes, and liking it, and now seeing it at Toronto and liking it even more, I think the chatter about the editing being beneficial to the final product are spot on. That narration was so annoying and pieces of the film seemed out of place and it all moved along at the most laborious of paces. Now it is taut, exciting, with a stronger, more balanced dramatic structure. I urge all to see it as soon as possible.

By: Joel Doyle

Joel Doyle — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:56:22 +0000

You know, St. Anna is a fictional piece of work, but Lee insists on treating it like fact. I saw it last month in New York at a private screening and felt completely bored even though I was looking forward to it so much. The racial aspects seem to be forced and therefore it is more of a joke than a film. Poor Spike, he wouldn’t know the meaning of a even-handed film even if it slapped him in the face. Which is a shame because the foundations of this story could have really amounted to a far superior film.

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:50:55 +0000

Unlike you Kerry, I have not yet seen St. Anna but I have seen the other three listed here.

Blindness is an exceptionally complex film, one that deserves a more analytical review than most TIFF critics have been offering. It is hard to watch because it is so powerful, just like the novel, but it is gripping nonetheless.

Me and Orson Welles is great. Light, breezy, entertaining from start to finish with great directing, acting and techs. Definitely one to look out for.

Religulous. Funny, but Maher is awful. Stuck up, self-righteous, a real pain in the ass. I would like to see him mocked in a movie without him knowing it.

By: Kerry

Kerry — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:41:08 +0000

“St. Anna” is very long, but what a lazy criticism to make! It is very flawed, very amateur in its approach and Spike Lee was far more focused in showing black people’s involvement in war than creating an interesting, coherent story.

“Blindness” is still not as good as the book, but it is a fine film and Moore is great. It is briskly paced and thrilling from start to finish.

I have yet to see “Religulous” or “Me and Orson Welles.” Can’t wait though.

By: David H.

David H. — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:36:01 +0000

I am looking forward to Religulous very much but the reviews are not very good.