Commentaires des utilisateurs

The Ticket (2016)

A serious movie, and sincere. The obvious thrust is the poster lines, and this is no spoiler—a man who has been blind for a decade gains his sight back. The metaphor here (and repeated throughout) is that it's like winning the lottery (hence the title of the film).

Now what?

Slowly (too slowly for most of us) the man goes through several broad phases as he reassesses his world, both personally and physically (viusally) around him. The euphoria, the wanting more, the doubts, the challenges, each section is simple (to the point of simplistic, I think) but heartfelt. The leading character (played by Dan Stevens) is compelling enough as a regular guy swept up with things bigger than most of us encounter.

It's maybe unfair to say this isn't enough—but it isn't. It's a lot, but there needs to be other layers, complications of plot, but also nuances of feeling that someone in this situation would experience. It would not and could not be an easy arc from one zone to another. Disruption should be really ruinous and ecstatic, not a dull slow ride.

Also, and an odd comment but needed to be made—the audio is weird. A lot of the film is murmured, as if people are conversing their inner best. But much of the time a gentle music also plays and it's just plain hard to hear! Mood triumphs over content, but it's not enough.

James (Dan Stevens) is blind, married to Sam (Malin Akerman) with young son Jonah. He works at a call center with other blind people including his friend Bob (Oliver Platt). One morning, he wakes up cured of his blindness. His personality changes. His flirtations with co-worker Jessica (Kerry Bishé) get serious.

There are some good actors doing good work but this movie is stuck in a slow, disjointed, cold art-house world. It also fails as a character study for a simple reason. His change at the very start makes it hard to know James' personality before his turn. It's hard to know the degree of his change, or feel for Sam's loss. This film just leaves me feeling cold and pining for the lost potential.

A film with many details that lead nowhere, All movie scenes are predictable - and became to me a very slow paced melodrama that, I didn't really enjoy. the dialogue between the characters is dry, not developing, heavy. In general this movie is stuck in a slow is neither interesting nor intriguing.

Dan Stevens stars here as James, a man who suddenly regains his sight, after many years, when a pituitary brain tumor shrinks. At first, he celebrates with his loving wife Sam (Malin Akerman) and his 13-year-old son Jonah (Skylar Gaertner). However, soon James wants more in his life and this leads to strong marital discord and his engaging in shady and manipulative business practices at his real estate company job.

This will all eventually lead to predictable consequences, and the film became to me a very slow paced melodrama that I didn't really enjoy. The very vague and ambiguous ending certainly didn't help any either.

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.

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.

Streamed this based on a general interest in following Dan Stevens's post-"Downton" career. Owing to this film's totally amateur sound editing, I could not learn critical information about what these characters were like before the health change that became a key trigger for the whole story. Did not know how and why the marriage seemed to work despite hurdles that many would find crushing, or whether the Dan character had ever before shown signs of an aggressive, competitive personality. I just went from one mumbling, whispering personal scene after another to the not only clear but blasting country songs at the dance venue and totally audible phone sales pitches in the workplace. It's only in the indispensable character-developing scenes that this film leaves us high and dry and totally frustrated.

From his IMDb bio page, it looks as if director Ido Fluk has only one 2011 feature-length film to his credit before 2016's "The Ticket," with short films and writing credits (including this film) and assistant directorships in his history. I cannot see how Dan's early (and awkward for everyone!!) departure from "Downton" has led him to projects this lacking in production professionalism and I hope he can right his ship very, very soon. His and Oliver Platt's work is excellent, but how many times can he afford to risk straight-to-DVD oblivion while groping for a long-lasting film career?

We all ask ourselves if given the chance would we reach out and grab that lottery ticket if given to us? The idea of everything being handed to us after enduring for so long. Ido Fluk and Sharon Mashihi understand this and perhaps manipulate this into greed and lust - Perhaps? "The Ticket" presents this question, but like most thought provoking questions - This film has no answer for you.

Directed Ido Fluk, from a script written by Fluk and Sharon Mashihi. "The Ticket" stars Dan Stevens (The Guest) as James, a man blind from youth, with a comfortable life with his wife Sam (Malin Åkerman) and son Jonah (Skylar Gaertner). One day he regains his vision discovering he's not happy or contempt with his life - grabbing a promotion at work, leaves his wife for Jessica (Kerry Bishé) an employee where he works, and mistreating his friend Bob (Oliver Platt) one of James's blind co- workers.

Dan Stevens as always is fierce and enigmatic as James. Stevens is careful not to have you sympathize with James and the choices he makes along the way - But to ponder on each choice and wonder what's driving him. See, like each character in "The Ticket" (And there aren't many) they all have something driving them - something they want. Sam is fine and happy with going dancing, rather than an eloquent restaurant. She's also tired and Malin shows this beautifully. James, however, wants more, and Stevens never slows down giving us a moment to blame James for his choices.

Director Ido Flunk beautifully directs, with a unique visual flare centering around James's point of view. Where the film falls would be the predictability of its plot and lack of motivation for its characters.

"The Ticket" is a well made film with a deeply moving performance from Stevens.

"If you leave, you can't come back."

How would you react when you lose your eyesight at a young age, leaving you the rest of your life depending on others, never having seen your wife and child, with no idea how your environment looks like and working as a blind in a Call center for a real estate company (in other words, a hopeless job). And then one day you wake up and you realize you can see again. I'm convinced that it'll be a shock. Finally you can see how attractive your wife is and at the same time find out she's a real control freak. You discover you have a cute little son who's being bullied at school for some time and you're wife never told you about it. And the house you live in looks quite dusty and old fashioned with that flower wallpaper. And on top of that, you are satisfied because you see a pretty attractive guy when looking in the mirror. Time to shape up and become the better flirt, I'd say.

This all sounds quite plausible. But James (Dan Stevens) turning into an arrogant, egocentric jerk who only wants to enrich his personal life and get that promotion as soon as possible so that he can improve his materialistic life, felt a little exaggerated to me. Sorry, but the first thing I would do was to go to a zoo, an amusement park or the cinema for example, so I could admire what I missed all those years. But no. James rather starts an ego trip, forsaking those who supported him all these years. A beautiful example of someone who exchanged his physical blindness for a total emotional blindness.

The question is, of course, whether this was a natural healing or a divine intervention. James' daily prayer, with him thanking the Lord for his rich life full of well-meaning people, perhaps finally paid off. Maybe that's the reason why he came up with this luminous idea to convince people in church to sell their homes right now and get rid of everlasting debts. In his sales talk, he always uses the story about the person who desperately wants to win the lottery and prays for it every day. But he never buys a lottery ticket. I think the message is as follows : if you want to change your life, you also need to act in such a way that this change is possible. In my opinion, James is convinced he has won that winning ticket, after piously praying for years. But the actions he undertakes afterwards, are dramatically exaggerated in my opinion.

And how unlikely the turnaround is at the beginning, the more unlikely the turnaround is at the end. Eventually, it seemed the winning ticket was only valid temporarily. Or was it a divine punishment because James let the dark side of his personality dominate? Anyway, I saw the outcome coming a mile away (pun not intended). Personally, I thought the footage where nothing was to be seen, the most fascinating. An impression of how James looked at the world. A black spot with stroboscopic light effects and misty reflections. A successful demonstration of how a blind person experiences his sight. The most emotional moment was the turning point in the dusty dance cafe where James dances one last time with his wife Sam (Malin Akerman) intimately. Despite the artistic character, the many dead moments and the slow pace, Dan Stevens and Malin Akerman know how to give a lively and fascinating performance. "The ticket" won't be a blockbuster like "Beauty and the Beast", but will show a glimpse of Dan Stevens' versatility.

More reviews here : http://bit.ly/2qtGQoc

It's certainly not perfect, but this is a very interesting and extremely original film about a blind married man, apparently warm, kind and loving, who miraculously regains his sight and how it changes him. At first he is amazed at seeing many things for the first time, but he slowly grows to become vain, aggressive, materialistic, interested in better housing, other better looking women, leaves his wife after having inaccurate doubts about her reasoning for marrying a blind man (pitying & being in control of him). He is also somewhat cruel to his best friend when he was blind. He becomes an unlikeable person. I would like to say more as I have different thoughts about this transition, but I can't say much as it would give away too much of its ending, though a part of that ending is a tad unclear. Dan Stevens is a wonderful actor. I've seen him in a few things, most recently the fascinating German film, I'm Your Man (He's fluent in German) and he has a long list of theater, film and television credits. He is very good here and this is, again, a very interesting film.

I don't usually exert the effort to write a review, but it's something of a crime that this movie gets such low reviews on IMDb. The other reviewers are the type of people who feel the need to cast their judgment on a film just because it doesn't fit their very narrow definition of a worthwhile film. Does The Ticket ask more questions than it answers? Sure. But you could hardly say it moves too fast to adequately deal with them. One of the beauties of this film is its slow, methodical pace. And the cinematography alone is worth your time. Don't pass judgment based on this film's reviews and decide for yourself.

This film was really rather pointless and predictable in the end. If it wasn't so suffused with obvious religious morality (since the movie assumes it must be absolutely wrong to get a divorce, get promoted/make money at work and start a new life) it could have been an interesting drama. I think it's actually insulting to people with disabilities to present the idea that if they became able they would be 'superficial' and 'mean' as a result.

My own fault, I guess - I thought this was about someone winning the lottery. Did Dan Stevens just want to work on his American accent? If sloths were capable of creating movies, this would be their masterpiece. S-L-O-W, self-indulgent, pretentious "film."

This movie is the most insulting depiction of blind people I have ever seen, aside from some low-class comedies. It condemns blind people to dead end jobs. Speech-activated computers have been around for decades. I personally know a blind law professor. Blind people can be lawyers, doctors, teachers, musicians, scientists, car sales people, sculptors, politicians, rabbis, priests, the pope, President of the United States--in fact the only profession I don't think they can pursue is that of a painter. They can also be treacherous without having sight.

The main character could have pitched his idea, gotten the promotion, and manipulated people into selling their houses without sight. He could have cheated on his wife without sight. Since this particular character is handsome, people would have been attracted to him whether or not he was blind. That law professor I mentioned? He's a babe, and I'd love to go to bed with him.

The second star is only because the movie was realistic about what can happen to a relationship based on one partner thinking they need to take care of the other being deprived of that role. But the blind and deaf people I've met are fiercely independent. I mean seriously folks, Steven Hawkins was a quadriplegic. I seriously doubt that the script writer has ever met a blind person.

Dan, what were you thinking of?

The intention was good, but the film was not made right way to enjoy. Of course the story, the setting were not cheerful kind, but too slow, silent, dragged scenes, all made it even worse. Watching it from the beginning to the beginning of the final segment was challenging. Only at the final few minutes it all made sense. I thought at least it ended better.

A blind man happily married with a kid, one day wakes up in the morning with a miracle. He regained his vision, following that, all the sudden his life getting changed. That also leads him over taking some tough decisions. With his new lease of life, he has shaped his life as he wanted. Now a fresh trouble surfaces and its consequences are hard hitting. What his choices and how the story ends are the remaining parts.

Dan Stevens was good. You could say it was a one man show. But as I said, the screenplay lacked pace, as well as guessable overall storyline. Which makes it not for everybody. The rest of the cast was good, and so the direction. I don't dislike it, I just did not enjoy it, I got bored of it in parts. One time watchable film for the selected ones, but being not dozed off while watching it is what they have to look out for.

4/10

I wanted to watch this film as I loved Dan Stevens in Downtown Abbey but even with his acting the film couldn't be saved. I wanted to stop half way and delete it but I kept watching just in case it got better but to no avail. The story went nowhere and was so boring and monotonous so I don't advise you to waste your time on this.

Sooo Am i the only one that thinks this had a similar plot to the willow tree(2005) movie?!!