Michael Ledo
PLOT SPOILERS, although you can guess the ending, I won't state it.This is a film that is something a high school kid could come up with for a Lifetime film. James (Dan Stevens) a nice guy who is blind, gets the miracle of sight and quickly alienates everyone climbing the ladder of success. The title if from a well know blonde joke that they ruined by taking out the blonde. Oh the political correctness of it all. And yes I saw the ending coming with the sad music and the fade out and that oh we are supposed to be moved about life feeling... which the cynic in me didn't get because I have seen these types of films too many times before and this one didn't add anything new other than the blind aspect which spared the camera man from using the focus.A sappy film for people who think sappy films are deep.Guide: No swearing. Implied sex. No nudity. Does Dan Stevens look like Trump's son?
TomSawyer 2112
That's what I conclude. So he marries a woman when he was blind, and then sees there is more attractive around. So he was stuck in his career, and sees how he gets promoted when he sees how to manipulate people with financial problems?Jesus, this movie calls up to God so many times, and the rhythm is really slow and boring.Every scene is so moralistic, so foreseeable. No wit in sight. Except the confrontation with his old blind job buddy in the café.Of course you would expect him to become blind again. At the beginning of the movie, you see him recovering light from the dark.At the end, I expected nothing but a black screen for 10 minutes I think the producers probably refused the intellectual idea, because the director's name wasn't Lars van Trier.Shame, it was a good project, and the acting of Dan Stevens was really brilliant, but he was very lonesome.
Laiath
It's always sad to see good actors in badly made movies, and this is one of those. The story in itself isn't half bad, but there's simply too much to adequately cover in less than two hours. If every plot arc in this movie were made into a TV episode, it would be worth watching. As it stands, however, I found myself questioning the characters' common sense at best and IQ levels at worst.As for the ending: it's a blatant disregard of the ego; humans simply don't work that way. Just saying.
midas-jacobs
In "The Ticket" we get to meet a blind man, who regains his vision in the beginning of the film. When he does, he starts to pay more attention to his exterior, starts to buy fancier things and basically becomes an asshole.The film was directed by Ido Fluk in a visually fine way, but in other ways lesser good. The shots looked nice, with some good use of shadow. They also play around with the use of focus and lighting, which really fits the film. The color grading was nice and it reminded me quite a lot of the film "Demolition", staring Jake Gyllenhaal, which was a notable better film than this one. But it did make sense that the film would look very good, because the main character is able to see again, so the world must look gorgeous to him, which the film succeeded at doing. I liked what they did in the beginning of the film: they put us in complete darkness, with only the voices of characters in the background. From that moment we know that we're seeing things from the perspective of Dan Stevens' character: blind. But slowly the light starts to come through the iris of Stevens, and we feel how he regains his sight. They really sold me on that opening scene, but what was to come, was quite disappointing in comparison to that. What the director tried to do was to give the film a deeper meaning, which I thoroughly understand. It's an independent film and it wants to draw attention, so why not do it by making the film a bit odd, and by having it have a deeper meaning. This deeper meaning though, wasn't as deep as it wants to be. It's pretty obvious from the get-go, namely: when man is granted something big, it's doomed to fail. The film also does get boring pretty fast. The way characters speak in a very soft manner, the soft colors and the slow soundtrack all made the film feel longer than it was and made it feel very boring.The acting wasn't a flaw, though. It was one of the best parts of the film even. Dan Stevens, who played the main character, has proved since 2014 in "The Guest" that he's a wonderful actor. Since then he's only been growing. This year he was phenomenal in "Legion" and in this film to he really sold it. The kid actor, Skylar Gaertner too was pretty good, just not as good as Dan Stevens, as he overshadows quite a lot of the cast. Skylar Gaertner played the son of Dan Stevens and there was a fun dynamic between the two of them. Someone else who was pretty good is Oliver Platt, who played the blind friend of James (Dan Stevens). The rest of the supporting cast also did quite a good job, but just like the kid actor they were overshadowed by the wonderful acting of Dan Stevens. The main premise was good, but not well enough explored, which is quite a shame, because it all sounds so interesting. They only bring it up to create some tension between Oliver Platt and Dan Stevens, because Platt is still blind, whereas Stevens has regained sight. They glance over the regaining sight, which I would've liked to see a more in depth approach to. The screenplay by the way was also written by the director, Ido Fluk. I like when directors do this, because it shows the dedication that they put into this film, and it shows in the final result. I liked that they evolve Dan Stevens' character, but I don't like how they do it. We get introduced to James when he regains his vison, it was a good scene, but due to this we don't get to know him when he was blind, because when he regains his sight he turns into a total asshole and I don't really get the motivation for becoming one. So I believe that if we got introduced to him earlier, we got to sympathize with him, so we later could understand why he changed and by doing that the development wouldn't be as abrupt as it was now. But only the part where he turns into an asshole was handled badly, the other developments were more subtle and made me care more for James. The other characters weren't highlighted as much as Stevens, which is really understandable, because the film is told from his perspective and the other characters really don't need any development, so I found no problem in that. In the end "The Ticket" was an OK film that's worth your time. The deeper lying message was pretty obvious, but the visuals totally make up for it. The acting was wonderful, but at times the character motivation is lacking. That's why this film gets a 6.5/10 from me.
