OWF’s original pre-release review of The Blind Side caused something of a storm a few months back [96 comments, the biggest response to any article in OWF history] just as the world was starting to fall for Sandra Bullock again after the whole All About Steve fiasco. On reflection it may have been a little over-inflammatory for its own good – giving an Oscar-winning movie half a star is one thing, but calling it “Sandra Bullock Says Adopt a Negro: Why The Blind Side Offends Me” and the overall sentiment was apparently a step too far for some readers.
Even ignoring its focus on the racial element of The Blind Side, the review was pretty much in the minority in its final evaluation of the movie, given the relatively good reception and Bullock’s subsequent Academy recognition (ranging between 65% and 80% across the board).
Personally, I don’t necessarily believe that the film is intentionally working towards a Christian propaganda agenda – I merely think that in an attempt to more overtly attach an accessible allegory to the real-life story of Michael Oher it creates a few too many overly-sentimental sequences and casts its vision to include universal appeal. So instead of telling the uplifting story of one man’s triumph over adversity helped by an incredibly charitable family, the over-riding message in places is one of religious redemption – the Tuohy family representing the wholesome, religious antithesis to Michael (Big Mike) Oher’s difficult background.
In all honesty, the film might have been even better had it gone with a more stripped approach similar to Precious- the film it arguably shares most aspects with- and remained far more humanist than the ultimately pretty sanctimonious final product became.
That isn’t to say I didn’t enjoy the film – far from it in fact. While there is a definite sense that the director had too much access to the sugar-bowl when it came to conveying emotional messages and the portrayal of the central relationships, both remain evenly and roundly developed on screen. Okay, it’s manipulative cinema, but there is a strong pervading heart at the centre of all the schmaltz, and the story of Big Mike is compelling enough to make even the most sentimental or border-line racist passages forgivable.
In response to those who didn’t believe that Bullock deserved her Oscar, I would say that the film itself is the perfect answer.
When you take time to consider Bullock’s career, she has largely played the same character since way back with Speed in 1994- slightly cooky, comedic but individual type – and any break from that tradition like the hugely popular The Proposal (okay, so it was a minor departure) has been welcomed with both hands. The fact that Bullock is able to cast off the shackles of type-casting and present a character who doesn’t immediately appear to be just another version of the archetypal Bullock-figure is not something to be sniffed at (take heed Ryan Reynolds).
Her performance as Leigh Anne Tuohy, as indicated by almost all of the pre-release marketing and publicity, is what the film lives on: and although it purports to be a biopic of Oher, The Blind Side is definitely Bullock’s movie.
Big Mike himself is admirably played by Quinton Aaron, his broad shoulders carrying the responsibility of being the emotional balance to Bullock’s Tuohy without disappearing and becoming merely a cipher for everything that is wrong with the world in her charitable eyes. He doesn’t have a great deal in terms of dialogue, but in his locker he does have the same invaluable ability to wear the emotional scars of his character emblazoned in his eyes that made Michael Clarke Duncan such a (flash in the pan) hot commodity after his comparable role in The Green Mile, and will no doubt enjoy a similar wave of good tidings as Gabourey Sidibe did in the aftermath of Precious last year.
The key is, neither Aaron or Bullock’s performances are obviously award-baiting: there is none of the flamboyance or hysterics that one might expect of such a film, and that is enormously refreshing.
Elsewhere, the other acting performances are good without ever intruding on Bullock’s screen space- although really they are essentially just furniture to Bullock and Aaron’s performances. This is the filmic journey of their relationship after all.
And, to top off all of that, the film’s about American football. And oddly for a British lad brought up as an avid (often painfully passionate) soccer fan, that usually spells good news for a movie. I can barely think of an American football film that I haven’t enjoyed – from teen classic (I know I’m definitely on my own here) Varsity Blues, to the uplifting social commentary of Remember The Titans, Disney-fied biopics like Invincible and excellent straight sports movies like Friday Night Lights and Any Given Sunday. Hell, I even liked The Game Plan a little.
I don’t know what it is, but it seems American Football is the easiest sport to bring to the big screen. Traditionally British sports like football and rugby suffer on film because of a ridiculous lack of good technical advisors on-set, so the action never gets anywhere near an authentic or even believable level, which is occasionally made even worse by the use of actual footage that served only to emphasise the shortcomings of the staged sequences (the horrible Goal did it most spectacularly).
Perhaps it is my ignorance of the sport – I am a fan, though one who cannot claim to fully grasp the rules, and I marvel at it as a sometimes startled outsider, amazed by the spectacle- but it always looks authentic on screen. Even the limited on-screen football action of The Blind Side works well, which ultimately (at least partially) helps to sell Michael’s redemption through his love of the sport: it seems that the sport lends itself to being an excellent backdrop to an emotionally compelling narrative.
Whatever the reason, the film works, both as an American football flick and as an involving personal tale of redemption. Ignore the slushiness, and the attempt at a broader message (because its just not handled well enough), and enjoy it, as I did for the human relationships on show. And to see by far Sandra Bullock’s finest work to date.
Quality
The transfer is bloody impressive overall: it looks beautiful, thanks to a cracking level of clarity that doesn’t rob too much of the grain from the original thankfully. The transfer also sticks to a natural palette (with flesh tones remaining authentic), but colour levels are distinct enough to give every pixel good depth, particularly the black tones, which is one of those simple achievements that makes all the difference.
All in all there are no clear signs of doctoring, and the transfer adds a good deal to the viewing quality, which has got to earn it a huge thumbs up.
Extras
A pretty good selection of featurettes, including a BR Exclusive interview with Michael Oher, which is welcome though a little limited, considering the amount of reality-based movies that neglect to even reference their subject matter in the Extras.
The “Sideline Conversations” featurette holds conversations between director John Lee Hancock and writer of the novel, and Bullock and Leigh Anne Tuohy which is similarly interesting, and adds a little more depth to the otherwise pretty pedestrian Extras. If you’re buying the DVD version, all you’ll get are the four deleted scenes and the Free Willy: Escape From Pirate’s Cove starring Steve Irwin‘s daughter Bindi.
That content in full:
- Deleted Scenes (7 mins)
- Theatrical Trailer (of bloody Free Willy 19 or whatever it is now)
- Exclusive Interview: The Real Michael Oher (10 mins)
- Featurette: “Acting Coaches: Behind The Blind Side” (5 mins)
- Featurette: “The Story of Big Quinton” (14 mins)
- “Sideline Conversations” (32 mins)
- Digital Copy/DVD Copy
The Blind Side is out now on Blu-Ray and DVD.
All Blu-ray screenshots come from the excellent DVD Beaver resource.
Want to write about this topic and have your work read by thousands every day? Click here to become a contributor to WhatCulture.












12 Comments
Warning: Rant follows. Truth hurts, so read at your own risk.
First off. OWF. Amazing how this website takes the only principled stand it’s EVER taken on a movie –and ironically the right stance at that!!– and decides to castigate themselves for it.
Way to go guys. Why don’t you go back to wasting our time telling us what an awesome film Kick-Ass. You haven’t done that in 24 whole hours. You must be suffering from KA-praise withdrawal.
Look, the Blind Side was a bad movie not merely for it’s racial conceits, but because it wasn’t a story. It was psychological porn for white suburbanites. This film was a celebration of the myth of the good white christian. A character as fake as the easter bunny.
Allow me to tell you how stories work, as opposed to propaganda.
1.) Stories involve “character arcs.” That means the character MUST be different at end of the story than the beginning.
Sandra Bullock starts the movie off as a painfully-decent Christian white woman sitting on her child’s bed reading him a story. Atthe end of the film she’s still excrutiatingly-”decent” and Chrisitian, only now there’s a large black person on the bed too. This is a distinction without a difference. The large black youth is a plot device. He could have been a lost puppy, a house that needs to be fixed up, or the proverbial small business and plot wise this “story” would not have been affected one bit.
2.) Stories require an obstacle. Something to keep the protagonist from getting what he wants. WHAT THE HELL WAS THERE TO KEEP BULLOCK FROM GETTING WHAT SHE WANTED?
A better question would be: what the hell DID she want?
3.) Characters need dimension. They must be revealed to be more than they appear. Bullock appears to be a hyper-nice white chrisitan woman, and at NO point in the story is she even hinted at being anything else. Nobody in the story is.
Anny Tuhouy lives in a city overrun with poverty and drugs. She is rich and secluded in her gated community. Rather than tell her hubby they have a responsibility to give something back to the city that has given them everything instead she says “Nope, one act of meaningless charity is enough for this good white christian!”
Instead of buying up the properties where the drug dealers have set up shop and converting them to businesses so people can make money legally, instead she threatens the OG’s –whose portrayal CLEARLY came from the nightly-news inspired imaginations of whites with NO contact with minorities whatsoever– with prosecution by the DA.
This white woman crawls out of her suburban cave for the first time in DECADES and she acts like she owns a town that she has fought to avoid all of her life?
And this is supposed to be the good guy of the film? Piece of advice to aspiring white writers. If you want to call yourself writing about black thugs don’t do your “research” by watching rap videos.
This “movie” has ALL the hallmarks of propaganda. It is strident, didactic and heavy-handed it’s relentless quest to bludgeon us with it’s point. It doesn’t exist to tell a story, or to reveal an artistic vision. It’s purpose is to indoctrinate, to validate a pre-existing ideology for it’s target audience.
Every scene is meant to scream loud and clear “See how great white people are? Why they’re God’s gift to humanity. No one is more decent or caring than a white person.”
This movie is the direct cinematic descendant of Birth of a Nation. Deny it, if you can!
If you’re a white person who has certain ideas about the White Man’s Burden, non-whites –blacks in specific– being child races then you loved this movie though you’ll never truly admit why.
On the other hand if you care about plot, character, structure or artistic depth then you saw this movie for the white-pride propaganda it is and panned it accordingly.
There is no plot. They take the least interesting character –the white wife– and make her the main character who does…nothing!
She lives in a city her whole life but she’s MIDDLE-AGED before she realizes there’s poverty and drugs in it?
Her money has gone to benefit no one but herself and by the time the film’s over, with her husbands 70-plus fast food joints and the millions of dollars she has at her disposal, she has managed…to get one measly guy into a college that is her alma mater.
This was her own vanity project, nothing more.
She could have done more by setting up a scholarship fund. Ah, but she wasn’t interested in that, now was she?
Suppose somebody made a movie starring say Denzel Washington and Angela Bassett taking in an indigent white punk and getting him into a college? The Blind Side boosters would be screaming their empty heads off.
Don’t believe it? Consider this. Monster’s Ball (shit on a stick cinema-wise) was given awards and praise but Black Snake Moan, a truly good film was ignored or ho-hummed. Guess when the man in control is black and the sexually voracious woman he’s controlling is white the story suddenly becomes less appealing. LOL
You made the right call the first time OWF. Of course there was the predictable caterwauling from the white-pride corner. They were in the middle of a psychological orgasm and you interrupted it with the truth. OWF was one of the few venues on the net to do so.
The fact that you’re back-peddling –ever so softly– from your stance says more about you than it does the handful of loudmouths who didn’t like being called on their bullshit.
Jay – I have to agree – OWF lately tries to much to match their reviews to the word on the street (or the rotten tomato meter). I want people with their own opinions because then even if I dont agree with someone I know what they like and what they dont so I can get some info from the review. The majority review is as usefull as going to a gypsy and ask her what the glass ball tells about the newest releases.
I never thought Im gonna say it but I miss Ray
Guys,
I completely disagree with Simon’s review. The Blind Side is a fucking awful movie. If you search for The Blind Side and Matt Holmes, you might be able to see how many times I called the movie out – especially on Oscar night when Sandra Bullock shamefully received the statue for her career, rather than one single performance. A practice I fucking hate.
It’s funny, I was having a conversation with Simon last night about The Proposal just as he was publishing this review and I told him that I didn’t agree with him at all and that I would have felt more comfortable if Bullock had won an Oscar for that rom-com, than this. I should have saved the convo as we went back-and-forth over our feelings on this film but I WOULD NEVER TELL HIM TO WHAT THINK ABOUT A FILM.
It’s obvious what has happened with this review. He’ll only partially deny it but Simon is prone to LOOOOOOOVE American football movies. So he’s been seduced into liking it because of that. Same thing happened with Invictus. Hell, Varsity Blues is one of his obsessive favourites.
The same thing happens to me with some genre’s too. I tend to go easy on detective and mordern day noir’s, I can’t help it.
This is my point. I’m not going to tell any of my writers to talk in a different style, or change their opinion on a film. It’s not happening. It took balls for Simon to go against the feeling another OWF writer had already put down on the movie because he knew this kind of ‘sell out’ reaction was forthcoming.
And we certainly don’t go with the crowd. Our review of The Expendables was one of the very first on the web… we went live at the Embargo. We had no idea how the coin would fall until the following morning.
My favourite movie of last year was Public Enemies. I didn’t even see it make many means Top Ten lists. The year previous one of my favourites was Elegy. What? Yeah… how many sites gave that movie the coverage we did?
I didn’t go crazy over Avatar, and neither did Mike.
We are completely our own voice.
Jay- the ONLY principled thing we have ever posted? Are you mental? Matt’s already called you out in his response article, but Ill add to it- we had Ray on board for ages (though his principles were rather skewed usually)who is the least likely sheep writer ever. I have never looked at anyone else’s review before writing mine or even before seeing the film, because I want to form my own opinion. So Norbert saying its just going along with mass- sentiment is a load of shit basically.
I am my own man, and have my own opinions- if I were to just accept Mike’s review despite not agreeing I would be the so-called sheep Im being accused of. God damn me for having an opinion counter to your own.
And also, your breakdown of The Blind Side is your opinionm just as the review is mine, but you cant argue in any reality that a film based on real events is a complete paradigm/propoganda.
Just because events dont sit easily with you doesnt make them fake- I think you will find that Leigh Anne Tuohy is as real as you are. And dude, the film is based on real life (a key thing to remember that you seem to entirely have forgotten in your rant, considering you repeatedly refer to Bullock as if the character is a complete fabrication)and real life doesnt always follow the comfortable model of linear resolved narratives. Not even all films do, so dont get so upset.
Norbert- so you basically just said you only value a review if it doesnt match any others already published. Way to undermine the value of 90% of the critical industry- some people dont agree with you, and some people agree with other people. It is a fact of criticism. If we purposefully bashed films to get a rise out of people of your ilk (like your pal Ray often did- look at how he goads people in comments, he had a lot of fun here) we would be of absolutely no critical value.
And your definition of a story is occassionally laughable- character arcs do not HAVE to exist at all. And in the context of the events of The Blind Side- how can you not see that Tuohy is the product of a society that doesnt openly show its members its dirtier underbelly?
And Jay, get over your Kick-Ass issue. Some people (fucking loads in fact) loved it. You are entitled to your own opinion so castigating the majority who loved it is just bloody idiotic!
Simon. Learn not to take every critique as a personal indictment of your value as a human being. Sometimes when somebody shoots down a review they’re shooting the message, not the messenger.
Now that said, you’ll have to make up your mind. Blind Side is NOT a documentary. It is a FICTIONAL story “based” on real events.
If you want to reference the real events I’m afriad you’ll have to wait until somebody makes a documentary about it, or until someone critques/criticizes the real events.
Neither has happened yet. So you don’t get to pull the “but it’s based on a true story” card. We’re talking about the movie here. At least I am.
And your refutation of my points is summed up by saying character arcs are inessential? Talk about laughable! You’ve just shown you don’t know what a fully-realized character is, without which you can’t have a story –not one of any quality at least –which explains the Kick-Ass fetish around here.
Stories need characters and changing is key to their being a part of their story world. Doesn’t matter if it’s Citizen Kane, Batman Begins or The little Engine That Could. Character Arcs are indispensable to EVERY story, unless it’s got Michael Bay’s name on it.
Re-read my rant. It was not an attack on you personally, (it didn’t even mention you!) and you’ve jumped the gun by taking it as such. Hell, until you made your reply above I didn’t even notice that you weren’t the same guy who wrote the original review because I didn’t care! The blu-ray review mattered, not who wrote it.
OWF made the right moral and artisitic judgment with panning BS in it’s movie review. I have noted this repeatedly though nobody seems to care. I actually was proud of how you guys surprised me by bucking the trend. It’s no secret that Matt thinks highly of Bullock’s acting chops –though not her choice in roles, which I also agree has been poor– so to allow her only critically acclaimed role to be revealed in such stark terms was refreshing and pleaseantly surprising.
OWF was the only place on the net that called a spade a spade.
However your Blu-Ray review backs down from that and I won’t pretend I don’t notice.
So what changed? Did the movie become less offensive simply because it’s on disc now instead of celluloid?
Blind Side is garbage any way you cut it. Yes it pushes the buttons of most whites who see it, and it’s supposed to. But once you get past the self-congratulatory, feel-good aspects of it you see it’s atrocious. It’s indefensible. There’s no other way to put it.
BTW, not to stir the pot, but I listed 3 reasons Blind Side isn’t a true story. You only denied one of them.
Can I take it that you at least give tacit agreement with the other two points, which would be quite heartening considering.
Of this movies’ narrative failings lack of character arc was the least egregious.
OMG Kick Ass! <3
Never took as a personal attack Jay, don’t worry, and I actually do value your input. I was saying that my opinion is the one on show, not the general OWF one (which on a straw poll unanimously disagreed with me!), so it’s pretty easy to take it as a criticism of my opinion. Noone backpeddled, because I didnt feel the same way Mike did about the film in the first place. I felt it was important to tell you that, to draw a distinction.
My review doesnt actually say the film is that great, it is enjoyable to my simple mind because I preferred to ignore the really badly handled attempt at portraying the wider concern of racism. And I did say that I recognised those problems. I genuinely see the merits of the story (perhaps because I ignore the political inferences?).
My biggest issue with your argument about character arcs is that they definitely arent completely necessary in the way you described it- with characters having to be different at the end to the start. If that was the case the Action genre wouldnt exist, large parts of the Horror genre wouldnt exist and pretty much everything apart from conventional resolved narratives wouldnt be deemed “good”. That also discounts snap-shot films like the entire portfolio of Mike Leigh, as well as kitchen sink realism films which dont always offer character development in the same way.
And I think your point about it not being a documentary misses the point that a film tells you that the real events need to be considered by adding the disclaimer “Based on Real Events” or something similar. Are we supposed to ignore that?
Okay Simon, glad to see we could clear up the whole me attakcing you deal. Now if somebody would point out to the dim bulbs in Matt’s reply piece that there were others who agreed with me as well…
That said. You’re still wanting to have it both ways. Someone points out how the screen STORY is racially offensive and you dismiss it by saying, it was merely a “really badly handled attempt at portraying the wider concern of racism.”
So you at least concede that it’s a work of fiction and not a documentary. At least for the sake of dismissing how racism was handled in the movie. But in doing so you also admit this movie is indeed a work of racial bias in and of itself.
But rather than wash your hands of it you then turn right around and say, “but it’s based on real events. How can it be racist when it actually happened?”
That’s the whole point! This isn’t a documentary! Most of the material in the flim DIDN’T happen in real life. You cannot use the “but it happened in real life” card, because this is a MOVIE!
The American Revolution happened but The Patriot shouldn’t be immune from the charge of Anglo-phobia simply because it’s “based on real events.”
You asked, do we ignore the phrase “based on real events” then? Absolutely! “Based on a real event” is a marketing catchphrase meant to add gravitas. Pay attention to this flick! Why? Because it’s “based on real events,” so it must be serious stuff.
This movie is not meant to be a reenactment of the real events, and so the “real events” are irrelevant, because the filmmakers were making their own story. It’s no different than you being inspired by some story you saw on the nightly news and writing a tale in the same vein.
Hell the TV show Law & Order has been doing it for 20 years! And even Dick Wolf doesn’t use the “but it’s based on real events” defense.
Defend the story if you like it, but you’re going to have to do so based on the story’s merits. Anything else is irrelevant because nobody’s talking about anything else.
Blind side sucked dog’s ass. My review in a sentence.
I wouldn’t even attempt to go to a movie such as this absurd one just has to be. I mean, the whole idea of a white family raising “the poor forgotten black boy” is way to disgusting to even think about, must less actualize.
There is something real wrong w/ this entire idea. It’s very very disturbing. To say the least. It sickens me.
How could Sandra Bullock involve herself w/ this uglyness? Well, we all know why.
And when did she become so physically ugly? She used to be nice looking.
I think some of it is just plain bad surgery.