MovieChat Forums > Blind Flight (2004) Discussion > Blind Flight mini review

Blind Flight mini review


I saw the film at the Reading Film theatre and was asked to write a review for the student newspaper. This is what I wrote, I hope you enjoy it!

Blind Flight screened at the Reading Film Theatre on Tuesday in a special screening that was attended by the John Furse, Ian Hart and ex-hostage John McCarthy. It follows the true story of Mr McCarthy (Roache) and his companion Brian Keenan (Hart) as they focus all of their energy on surviving being taken hostage by a group of Lebanese extremists. The film follows them as they are moved from place to place by their captors, and spans their entire five years as hostages.

The first thing that becomes apparent watching the film is the acting talent. Both Hart and Roache have starred in far bigger budget productions (Hart in particular has starred in such films as Harry Potter and Enemy of the State), and to see this acting talent in such a small film is refreshing. Hart and Roache go very well together on camera, which all plays a part in making their relationship more believable, which is the one word I would use to sum the film up. Never once does it seem too bizarre or surreal, even in some of the more lighthearted scenes when the two men can joke with each other and even with their captors! In fact, concessions in the plot were made as some of the events that really did take place over those five years were deemed far too strange for the viewers to take seriously.

Another nice thing is the film’s ability to provoke emotion. There are times throughout where you’ll feel as though you are with them, pretending they’re walking through the south of France, or staring up at the ceiling imagining the constellations. Other times, you’ll look on in shock as their captors beat them with butts of rifles. The scenes come together in such a way as to get the balance correct, livening up the film without ever risking becoming flippant.

The film also excels in the correct use of special effects, which are used occasionally throughout, but unlike so many others are used to complement the atmosphere of the film, rather than take over from it completely.

The central theme of the film is something we can all learn from- the notion of mind over matter: however bad things get, the only person who can control how you react to the situation is you. The subject matter seems entirely as relevant today as it did thirteen years ago as it started production, perhaps even moreso with the current situation in Iraq.

The only real criticism I have of the film is that of it’s length. Attempting to fit the events of five long years into any length of film is a very difficult if not impossible task, and in a way the film copes admirably, but the fact remains that there are some elements of the story I wish the film makers had managed to keep. One of the original drafts had the lives of the two men before their capture, something that I would have liked to see. Also, the film is very much from Brian Keenan’s perspective. Again, this is understandable, as the script was started before the release of John McCarthy, but it does pose some questions about the year that McCarthy spent alone without his friend of five years.

After the screening was a short Q&A session. Most questions were fielded to Mr McCarthy, but much of the film’s turbulent history was explained during it. Personally, I’m glad they got it through.

8/10

reply

[deleted]

Thats a pointless remark. Its set largely in Beirut. And to call it a stereotype is a nonsense; it was a reality. Belfast needs to move on from the perception of the Troubles, but lets be fair, this was a film about a man who had been part of the struggles, but had left for that reason. How much time was spent in Belfast during the film?

reply

i saw the film this morning. you'd think a film about two political hostages that is shot almost entirely within the confines of the hostages' cells would either be boring or extremely depressing. i think this film is neither. though they do squeeze quite a bit of the time during which these two men were captives into a short period of movie time, the film leaves you with a remarkable sense of, first and foremost, the level of uncertainty (about their fate, the length of their captivity, events going on outside with their families and world politics, etc.) they must have had during their imprisonment, and how they could develop a strong friendship that would cut across their social (irish and british) boundaries.
in that, it's maybe a film all people/filmgoers who are on opposite sides of some social, political or religious divide, should see.

gregory 22009.

reply