Perhaps my opinion stems from my love of Tarantino’s work so far, but Inglourious Basterds was easily the best film I’ve seen this year.

Inglourious Basterds

Starring: Brad Pitt, Diane Kruger, B.J. Novak, Sam Levine (“Freaks and Geeks” represent!), Christoph Waltz, and many more.

Rated: R (for violence, language, a brief (but hilarious) sex scene, and lots of Nazi-killin’.

IMDb Rating: 8.3
RottenTomatoes: 82%

The film is told in the standard five chapter plot that viewers have come to expect from Tarantino (see: Kill Bill). It begins in the Nazi-occupied French countryside, where a dairy farmer must choose between the safety of his family and revealing the whereabouts of a missing Jewish family.

From there, the film flash-forwards four years to 1944, to the last struggles of the war. Aldo Raine, played by the continually surprising Brad Pitt, gathers a team of very angry Jewish Americans to show the Nazis just how angry they are. There is some excellent violence, and, of course, the by turns funny and grave dialogue that audiences have come to love.

The film definitely kept me guessing. Just when I was busting a gut laughing, someone would be killed off, or a tense scene would be cut with something funny and I couldn’t help but laugh. I loved that I was never really settled into the movie. Another thing that I loved was that this film featured two very strong female characters.

The movie’s greatest strength was the acting. I mentioned that Brad Pitt was great, but Diane Kruger, who played a turncoat actress named Bridget Von Hammersmark, surprised me as well. She spoke German through much of the film, and when she switched to English she maintained a beautifully subtle accent. Not only is she stunning, her acting was remarkable. Even director Eli Roth, who plays the vengeful “Bear Jew,” was not as awful as I predicted!

But the actor who stole the show was Christoph Waltz as the “Jew Hunter” Hans Lander. He is the lead villain, not Hilter as I initially thought. He played the role brilliantly: frightening, perceptive, ironic, sardonic, and even humorous. He toyed with almost everyone in the movie, but in the end got what was coming to him. He won the best actor award at Cannes Film Festival this year. Expect him to earn a nomination, if not win, for Best Supporting Actor at the Oscars.

A great film, and one that I will surely be adding to my collection when it is released on DVD. I may even go to the theater to watch it again. It’s well worth the price of admission and then some.

The original Boondock Saints is something of a cult classic. It bombed in theaters, but has since gained a considerable following, mostly for its dark comedy. The sequel has long been in the works, and finally some information will be made available to the fans at Comic Con this year.

In addition to the film’s stars, CC will be premiering the trailer. The film’s promoters issued this press release about the film:

The following talent will be available at Comic-Con for press junket
style interviews from 10am to 1pm on Saturday, July 25th at the Westin
Hotel.

Talent in attendance:

* Troy Duffy (writer/director)
* Billy Connolly (Noah ‘Il Duce’ McManus)
* Norman Reedus (Murphy McManus)
* Sean Patrick Flannery (Connor McManus)
* Julie Benz (Eunice Bloom)
* Clifton Collins, Jr. (Romeo)
* David Della Rocco (Rocco)

Additionally, at 3:30 pm, they will be holding a panel discussion which
will feature the world premiere of the film’s trailer.

Warning: This review contains spoilers and some adult conversation that may cause itching and burning sensations, specifically in the ocular area. Proceed with caution.

Blindness

Rated R: For disturbing violence, disturbing sexuality, and disturbing images. (Did I mention it’s disturbing? Because yes.)

Starring: Julianne Moore, Mark Ruffalo, Gael Garcia Bernal, Maury Chaykin (!), and Danny Glover.

IMDb Rating: 7.2
RottenTomatoes: 42% Rotten

Sample Review:

A stark, uncompromising look at a dark part of human existence exposed when the most basic sense is taken away.

Obviously there is a fair bit of discrepancy between the entirely user-driven IMDb rating and the RottenTomatoes meter, which is based completely on critics’ rating. I’m not entirely sure why, but I’ll venture a guess that it has something to do with the way this film was marketed.

The trailer for Blindness was spooky. It promised a world-wide epic disaster film on par with The Happening or The Stand. It was neither of those things. Blindness is a deeply resonant character study that comments on the degradation of a society due to hysteria and social control. I equate it more to the film Children of Men. Yes, at times the film is spooky, but the discomfort comes not from the affliction itself, but from the animalistic behavior of those who suffer from it.

So the movie isn’t a horror or a thriller, though there is tension throughout. It begins on a relatively normal day in a normal city, where a man becomes caught in traffic…and goes blind. But this isn’t the typical darkness that most people attribute to blindness. Instead, we get a glimpse of his perspective, and are greeted by a milky white film that permeates his vision. Immediately, concerned citizens flock to help him, and one in particular drives him home, before promptly stealing the blind man’s car. This theme of being taken advantage of becomes a thread throughout the rest of the film.

The man’s wife takes him to the optometrist (Ruffalo) who is flummoxed; he has never been exposed to this kind of instant white blindness. Except that he has, because the next morning he wakes up and cannot see.

His wife, Julianne Moore, shows no symptoms of the apparent disease that is causing cases of blindness to spring up all over the city, and accompanies her husband to be quarantined under the false pretense that she is blind as well.

The disease is a quiet one, infecting almost everyone who comes in contact with the carrier. The CDC swiftly dispatches to clean up the mess before it can spread further, collecting the carriers and depositing them in an abandoned hospital. Soon, the ward is crowded and locked, guarded twenty-four hours a day to ensure that no one escapes. Now, the blind are no longer locked up for precaution…they are prisoners.

This is when the film takes a turn from intriguing to down-right depressing. The ward of the blind becomes a festering, putrid place. Though the doctor’s wife attempts to retain order and keep the place clean, she is merely one person in a sea of confusion. She maintains the deceit, attempting to keep the peace.

A group of trouble-makers in Ward 3 declares themselves the rulers of the food supply and demand money and goods. Soon, The King of Ward 3 (Bernal) goes a step further, demanding women be sent up in exchange for food. Apparently, the brutal (though blurry and confused) group rape scene that ensues affected American audiences in a profound way. The boards on the IMDb are full of commentary about how uncomfortable the scene made audiences.

I was affected by the scene, but not in an uncomfortable way. It felt, at its core, entirely realistic, and cruelly sad. Without this scene, I felt the film would have lacked the power of simply how animalistic those trapped in this enclosed Hell had become.

The performances were very good in the film, especially from Julianne Moore. Her anguish and despair at being the only sighted person trying to care for the blind masses is palpable, and her heartbreak runs deep. I was especially surprised to see Maury Chaykin (the suicidal General from the first few minutes of Dances with Wolves) in a hilariously vile role.

If you enjoyed Children of Men, and its bleak, dystopian view of society, then this film is for you. While Blindness is not the caliber of the aforementioned, it certainly causes a lot of thought about the world and your fellow human beings. And sometimes those are the best films.

I want you think back to your favorite science fiction film. Perhaps it is 2001: A Space Odyssey, recently named the number one pick of the genre by the American Film Institute. Surely a film worthy of this title, but also one that is astonishingly slight of female viewpoint. Rather bleak of Kubrick to create a future which lacks women.

This is not to say that there are no women in the film. There is the suspiciously absent daughter of Dr. Floyd, to whom he makes a video call. Her sole purpose is to dazzle the audience with technology; what she says is of very little importance. Of course there is Elana, a rather inconspicuous scientist, but she, too, is neglected as the men set forth in search of the monolith. Truly this is a film devoted to the conflict of man vs. man in the truest sense.

It is difficult for me to enjoy a film that is purely male. It’s not that I despise every movie that is told from a male viewpoint. Instead, the movie must work that much harder to make me appreciate it. I attribute this fact to the idea that it is the filmmaker’s conscious choice to make a film that objectifies, or worse yet negates, female characters. Filmmakers are in control of their movie, and if they truly cared how the female characters acted or were treated, they have the power to change it. But the sad truth is that most filmmakers in the science fiction genre are male. They, in turn, recognize that their audience is comprised of mostly males. It is their primitive understanding that such an audience of men is most interested in explosions, killer robots, aliens, and boobs.

Too often, when women are portrayed in science fiction, they fall into the category of distressed victim. They must be rescued, saved, lovingly protected from evil in the arms of a bold, firmly muscled man. Or they are conniving bitches, hell-bent on destroying mankind. While I have a soft spot in my heart for the female villain, my purpose today is to promote female heroines.

There are a few female characters in science fiction that I feel have broken free of the confines of a male-dominated genre. They are vibrant, by turns tough and sensitive, kicking ass and being as far from silent as they could possibly manage. These women are sexy, too, without resorting to being a moon princess or a breast-baring slave girl. And, most importantly, they are smart, outwitting man and monster alike.

Trinity – The Matrix

I would like to focus on the first film of the Matrix Trilogy because I felt that the other two did not do her character justice. She is perhaps the most dynamic of the four women outlined in this article, but that is only because our perception of the character is constantly changing. When we first encounter Trinity, she is clad from head to toe in shiny black leather and latex, her eyes cloaked in mysteriously dark shades. She is fast, agile, her hair slicked back, giving her angular face a masculine appearance.

Then, we are transported to reality, where Trinity is simply a sharp-faced woman in home-spun clothing. Her eyes, when we finally glimpse them in full view, are filled with depth and sadness, her stony demeanor melted into tenderness as she cares for her fellow crew members. I find her fascinating because she determines how she appears inside the Matrix, and she has decreed herself the queen of awesome.

Sarah Connor – Terminator and Terminator 2: Judgement Day

Unlike The Matrix, the evolution of Sarah Connor takes place over the course of both movies. Yes, she begins as the helpless victim, barely outrunning the Terminator as he tries to prevent her from conceiving the man who will eventually save the world from machines. In the end, Sarah manages to overcome her fear and face her demons, destroying that which has been sent to destroy her.

When we catch up with her again, she has given birth, and has been parted from her son because the world has deemed her crazy. For the first part of the film, she nearly believes them, but a part of her still clings to the idea that what she experienced was real, and that a seven foot tall, muscular machine with an Austrian accent did, indeed, attempt to kill her.

After escaping from a mental institution, the clearly unstable Sarah is reunited with her son, and, with the help of the now-friendly Terminator, she is able to continue her mission of helping her son become the man he is destined to be. Truly a dynamic character, though the changes occur gradually.

Princess Leia – The Star Wars Trilogy

I would love to remember Leia as the opposite of what a princess should be. She is graceful, handling a laser gun with ease, and fashionable, sporting a pair of baked goods over her ears with aplomb. Wise-talking and sharp, Leia challenges authority, verbally spitting in the face of Darth Vader himself. It is her heartfelt message to Obi Wan Kenobi that sets the chain of events rolling in A New Hope.

There are times when I become angry at the way her character is exploited. The infamous metal bikini that she is forced to wear when she is chained to Jabba the Hut not only sickens me, it saddens me; this is the outfit that every woman seems to wear at conventions or costume contests when they dress up as Leia. True, she is able to choke the giant lizard with her own chain, but nobody remembers that. They’re too distracted by her sex appeal to remember that she is actually a worthy adversary. Oh, and the incestuous kisses don’t help her cause much, either.

Ellen Ripley – The Alien Quadrilogy

Where Trinity and Sarah Connor have conflicting characteristics and emotions, it appears that Lieutenant Ripley was, is, and forever will be a badass. She begins as the hardened crew member of the Nostromo, navigating deep space as second in command of a salvage team. Ripley has adopted a tough exterior; even in the future, women are still looked down upon for trying to do a “man’s work.”

But it is Ripley alone (well, aside from her cat), who survives the rogue alien that has smuggled itself aboard the Nostromo. She survives in hyper-sleep, awakening seventy years in the future to a far smoother, more advanced world. Claiming a job on the loading docks, she proves, once again, that she can survive in a world where all of the odds are against her.

And when Ripley is contacted by a group of marines to make contact with the now-inhabited planet which spawned the nightmare of the last film, there is a clear struggle in her mind. Part of her wants to turn and flee, to never return to that planet. Yet the other half of Ripley, the heroic part, wishes to save the people who have been manipulated into colonizing the planet.

Again she survives, clawing her way out of the bowels of the alien-infested planet, outrunning tough-as-nails marines left and right. When the little girl she has taken under her wing, insinuating that Ripley once had a daughter herself, slips into the egg chamber of the alien Queen, Ripley grabs a flame thrower and goes to town.

From there, the softer side of Ellen Ripley is seen far less often. Again she is frozen in time, crash-landing on a planet that inhabits a colony of criminals. Her head is shaved, she fights off a bevy of would-be rapists. Even her tryst with the colony’s doctor lacks any kind real tenderness; she is a woman with needs, and he just happens to be a pretty sexy dude.

The final film in the series, while a fun ride, adds very little to the character. For one thing, much of Ellen Ripley has been replaced with alien characteristics, as she has been reproduced as a hybrid of human and alien. The end of the film, however, does feature a touching moment between Ripley and her offspring, a somewhat humanoid walking ball of slime that utters her name before she blows it out of the goddamned airlock.

Throughout her trials, from the death of her adopted daughter Newt to the realization that she has been impregnated with an alien embryo, Ripley remains strong. She has moments of weakness, as with all realistic characters, but she never lets them overcome her. Survival is the name of her game, and she manages to do so admirably; she remains one of the greatest female characters in science fiction.