Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Micah Lloyd Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

Brennan Camacho Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Ben Parker This little movie won AFI awards back in the day, yet I'd never heard of it, its become quite obscure. I found a VHS copy at my local good will and was pleased to find that it was not in any way terrible. Russell Crowe stands out, supremely likable; Hugo Weaving is kind of odd, a bit more creepy than perhaps he needed to be. Maybe a bit too much of the old Agent Smith, and not enough of the Priscilla Queen of the Desert. It is not, however, a great slice of life, and that comes down to the plot: allow me...Hugo Weaving plays a blind man with a penchant for taking photos and having people describe them to him. Now, he uses the photos as "proof" that what he sensed in the room was really there. Yet, he can't see the photos, so he's relying on the accuracy of people's descriptions of them. The concept is a bit fiddly. It reminds me a lot of Memento, I believe that character used polaroids as mementos, because he had a short-term memory problem. Its kind of strange here, because the photos I guess are some kind of weird truth contract for this guy. My issue is that there is never any way for Hugo Weaving's character to verify what is in the photos, so what is the point of them?This kind of far-fetched concept reminds me of a lot of the old arty novels I used to read about lonely people who find some strange way to connect with one special friend, in this case a lovable rascal played by Russell Crowe. The production style of the film has aged fairly well, and it contains some well written scenes, but I just think the basic concept is pretty flawed and silly. I guess if it was released with a descriptive audio track and rang true for blind audiences I'd be happy to admit I was wrong, but it rang fairly false to me, in a logical sense. As mentioned, I also found Hugo Weaving to be unnecessarily creepy.A strange one. I appreciated that it wasn't terrible, but found such a profound problem with its scenario. I don't know, 5/10?

zx_360 I just saw it and I'm so impressed with this movie. It's mostly a drama with some funny scenes (I literally laughed out loud at one scene particularly which i'm not going to spoil of course but you'll know it as you see it) about a blind man who takes photos (ironic isn't it?) and his relationship with his housekeeper and his new friend. As Russell Crowe one of my favorite actors I can't believe I haven't checked it out earlier, and he sure does a great supporting role but Hugo Weaving takes the prize for leading role in this movie. My only problem with this movie is that I thought it was too short, but like it is an independent film and all I give it a 9/10, watch whenever you can.

delphine090 This film was on cable TV in Los Angeles. It caught my eye because of the contrast of a very young Hugo Weaving and the man we've seen in later films. The relationship he has with his "housekeeper" had me staring at the t.v., then slowly sitting down engrossed in the film. Only later when he appeared on screen did I even know Russell Crowe was in the film. He, too, was quite young and rather a sweet character, although he's apparently supposed to be a troublemaker. He's very easy with Weaving's character, very kind, but real.Juxtaposed with the blind photographer having his life recorded in a series of snapshots (that others have to describe to him), is this story being revealed largely through visuals - because he is blind the dialog often has little to do with the activity that is going on around him. We learn more from the non verbal than the verbal. He doesn't have that luxury.His deadpan (because he has no idea what's going on) is priceless.*Spoiler* - For example, when he is at the housekeeper's house surrounded by photos of himself - We are dumbstruck; he is clueless. His lack of reaction makes the evidence of her obsession all the more creepy.In the end, the movie is about trust, and about the risk we take when we trust other people. And about the isolation that we face when we don't.

Doug (padawandoug) This is, simply put, a great movie. I won't go into the plot too much, as many other commenters do a good job of that. But suffice to say, the trio of Russell Crowe, Hugo Weaving and Genevieve Picot do more acting in this movie than is contained in all of the blockbusters the first two have made since. (I haven't seen Picot in anything else, so can't comment on her subsequent choices.)It is definitely a small movie. But that's not a bad thing. Most people's lives are small, and this movie is a good example of how even small events -- especially small events -- can have a huge impact on a person's life.The essential thing about the movie is not that it's about a blind guy. It's about a guy who is incapable (at the beginning, anyway) of trust. Which is why he must have "proof" of everything around him in the form of photographs (which he, paradoxically, cannot see himself, but must have described to him). By the end of the movie, he has grown enough, or become desperate enough, to try to trust Andy, and show him the most "most important photo I've ever taken."Genevieve Picot, as the suffering, love stricken housekeeper of Martin, is great. I wish I could see more of her work.This movie also has some really funny moments, and yes, the funniest line is "I forgot." The second funniest is "Brian." See the movie and you will understand (and laugh your ass off too). One final note: SEE THIS MOVIE!!!!! (Also: make sure to watch on a TV with good sound. It's important for the ending (the last moment before the credits roll).)