Before this premise starts to interest you too much, please note that the investigator given us to solve the murder first encounters the blind woman while he's doing a striptease for his buddies when she's playing the violin at a pub. And who was he trying to attract: this well-groomed, perfectly coiffed blind lady with a perfect body who goes around asking questions like: "Am I pretty?"

Her mother pushed her face into a mirror when she was playing dress-up so now she is a harridan prone to tantrums, drinking, and acting out dependency issues, none of which is ever presented as qualities in need of psychotherapy (which they all are) but presented as NORMAL. Our hero, the drunken detective, finds these qualities "fascinating" and falls madly in lust with her. When is an irrational, emotional, yowling female throwing things ever anything BUT fascinating!

Yet her doctor has fallen in love with her too! Rather than having us focus on the murder conflict, we get two pedestrian love-interests on which to focus during the muddled middle of this twisted train wreck of a film. You'll almost forget there was a murder and a few good scares in the beginning. Her psychiatric therapy and subsequent medication with anti-depressants would've been much more interesting, dramatic, and realistic.

Can people really behave like this and expect to solve murder mysteries, play the violin, and heal the blind! Am I supposed to care about such unrealistic and fake people! Anyone of them could have been run over by a Cadillac and I would've cheered. The only character in the film I liked was her seeing- eye dog and HE was the one who was hit by a Cadillac!

By the end of this bilge the investigator, rendered impotent at solving the crime by his immaturity and poor taste in "fascinations", winds up the doormat for the irrational, emotional, blind vixen after she finds and kills the murderer herself. But by that time you'll be mopping up spew and have completely forgotten the cool premise that made you watch this film in the first place.

Whoever came up with the original premise deserves 10 stars. The writers who fleshed out the characters need to take some advice: We the audience are not the idiots you think we are! We can't sympathize with someone because she is blind if she is an irrational harpy making stupid decisions. We don't buy it that such a shrew can be found "Fascinating". We can't admire people who put "play" before work and "play" before "plot". We can't accept as sympathetic a disabled character disabling those who are trying to do their jobs, help others as well as herself. This makes it too evident that she is reducing the world to her level so she can function on higher planes of existence. This serves no one's interests. Don't try to cover this up by portraying the character as self-sufficient when the whole crux of the story hinges on the fact that she is not yet completely competent and has even more issues to overcome psychologically than physically. Sorry comrades, but you just can't pull it off!

What we have here in "Blink" is a film so bad you'll have to scrub the stains out of the whites of your eyes with laundry soap. But then...you'll go blind. That's probably the entire point. Wink Wink.

Before this premise starts to interest you too much, please note that the investigator given us to solve the murder first encounters the blind woman while he's doing a striptease for his buddies when she's playing the violin at a pub. And who was he trying to attract: this well-groomed, perfectly coiffed blind lady with a perfect body who goes around asking questions like: "Am I pretty?"

Her mother pushed her face into a mirror when she was playing dress-up so now she is a harridan prone to tantrums, drinking, and acting out dependency issues, none of which is ever presented as qualities in need of psychotherapy (which they all are) but presented as NORMAL. Our hero, the drunken detective, finds these qualities "fascinating" and falls madly in lust with her. When is an irrational, emotional, yowling female throwing things ever anything BUT fascinating!

Yet her doctor has fallen in love with her too! Rather than having us focus on the murder conflict, we get two pedestrian love-interests on which to focus during the muddled middle of this twisted train wreck of a film. You'll almost forget there was a murder and a few good scares in the beginning. Her psychiatric therapy and subsequent medication with anti-depressants would've been much more interesting, dramatic, and realistic.

Can people really behave like this and expect to solve murder mysteries, play the violin, and heal the blind! Am I supposed to care about such unrealistic and fake people! Anyone of them could have been run over by a Cadillac and I would've cheered. The only character in the film I liked was her seeing- eye dog and HE was the one who was hit by a Cadillac!

By the end of this bilge the investigator, rendered impotent at solving the crime by his immaturity and poor taste in "fascinations", winds up the doormat for the irrational, emotional, blind vixen after she finds and kills the murder herself. But by that time you'll be mopping up spew and have completely forgotten the cool premise that made you watch this film in the first place.

Whoever came up with the original premise deserves 10 stars. The writers who fleshed out the characters need to take some advice: We the audience are not the idiots you think we are! We can't sympathize with someone just because she is blind (especially if she is an irrational harpy making stupid decisions). We don't buy it that such a shrew can be found "Fascinating". We can't admire people who put "play" before work and "play" before "plot". We can't accept as sympathetic a disabled character disabling those who are trying to do their jobs, help others as well as herself. This makes it too evident that she is reducing the world to her level so she can function on higher planes of existence. This serves no one's interests. Don't try to cover this up by portraying the character as self-sufficient when the whole crux of the story hinges on the fact that she is not yet completely competent and has even more issues to overcome psychologically than physically. Sorry comrades, but you just can't pull it off!

What we have here in "Blink" is a film so bad you'll have to scrub the stains out of the whites of your eyes with laundry soap. But then...you'll go blind. That's probably the entire point. Wink Wink.

Before this premise starts to interest you too much, please note that the investigator given us to solve the murder first enounters the blind woman while he's doing a striptease for his buddies when she's playing the violin at a pub. And who was he trying to attract: this well-groomed, perfectly coiffed blind lady with a perfect body who goes around asking questions like: "Am I pretty?"

Her mother pushed her face into a mirror when she was playing dress-up so now she is a harridan prone to tantrums, drinking, and acting out dependency issues, none of which is ever presented as qualities in need of psychotherapy (which they all are) but presented as NORMAL. Our hero, the drunken detective, finds these qualities "fascinating" and falls madly in lust with her. When is an irrational, emotional, yowling female throwing things ever anything BUT fascinating!

Yet her doctor has fallen in love with her too! Rather than having us focus on the murder conflict, we get two pedestrian love-interests on which to focus during the muddled middle of this twisted train wreck of a film. You'll almost forget there was a murder and a few good scares in the beginning. Her psychiatric therapy and subsequent medication with anti-depressants would've been much more interesting, dramatic, and realistic.

Can people really behave like this and expect to solve murder mysteries, play the violin, and heal the blind! Am I supposed to care about such unrealistic and fake people! Anyone of them could have been run over by a Cadillac and I would've cheered. The only character in the film I liked was her seeing- eye dog and HE was the one who was hit by a Cadillac!

By the end of this bilge the investigator, rendered impotent at solving the crime by his immaturity and poor taste in "fascinations", winds up the doormat for the irrational, emotional, blind vixen after she finds and kills the murder herself. But by that time you'll be mopping up spew and have completely forgotten the cool premise that made you watch this film in the first place.

Whoever came up with the original premise deserves 10 stars. The writers who fleshed out the characters need to take some advice: We the audience are not the idiots you think we are! We can't sympathize with someone just because she is blind (especially if she is an irrational harpie making stupid decisions). We don't buy it that such a shrew can be found "Fascinating". We can't admire people who put "play" before work and "play" before "plot". We can't accept as sympathetic a disabled character disabling those who are trying to do their jobs, help others as well as herself. This makes it too evident that she is reducing the world to her level so she can function on higher planes of existence. This serves no one's interests. Don't try to cover this up by portraying the character as self-sufficient when the whole crux of the story hinges on the fact that she is not yet completely competent and has even more issues to overcome psychologically than physically. Sorry comrades, but you just can't pull it off!

What we have here in "Blink" is a film so bad you'll have to scrub the stains out of the whites of your eyes with laundry soap. But then...you'll go blind. That's probably the entire point. Wink Wink.