The other day, a blog entry from the cinetrix about "The Rule" evoked a flood of memories from my love-movies-hate-the-patriarchy college days. In 1989, my then-roommate's then-girlfriend showed me a comic strip from the series Dykes to Watch Out For by Alison Bechdel. The strip was called "The Rule" and it was about a character who explained that she only went to movies that met three criteria:

1. Two of the characters had to be women --
2. Who talked with each other --
3. About something other than a man.

Read the original strip for yourself. At the time, "The Rule" had a big impact on my life -- it explained a lot about what I found lacking in movies. I wanted to watch strong action heroines, but I also wanted to see movies with women who talked about ordinary stuff that didn't involve boyfriends or husbands.

Maybe you've seen them, maybe you haven't, but French thrillers are making a comeback in North America. That's good news for people uninterested in art houses solely for the sake of watching foreign films: You don't have to be a Francophile to appreciate smart, meticulously generated suspense, and that's exactly the appeal of several French movies hitting American theaters this year. A steady mixture of warm reviews and positive word-of-mouth appears to have helped Guillame Canet's breathlessly entertaining drama Tell No One land an impressive $240,858 at 18 locations. Earlier this year, veteran auteur Claude Lelouch, long known for his cinematic explorations of eroticism and lawbreaking, remained thematically consistent with a delightfully complex story of double-crossing novelists and dysfunctional families called Roman de Gare. The movie made over $25,000 on two New York screens when it opened in late April, and eventually pulled in more than $1.5 million after expanding to theaters around the country. It's not hard to argue that Tell No One and Roman de Gare put most recent American thrillers to shame. North America, once the haven of film noir, appears to be outsourcing.

As journalist Erica Abeel recently observed in an interview with Canet, "French filmmakers are currently making the best old-style Hollywood thrillers." It's not the first time for a country that has a long history of borrowing from American cinema, and often improving on it. At the beginning of the French New Wave in the early 1960s, former Cahiers du Cinema critics like Jean Luc-Godard discovered Hollywood genre films and decided to make their own loopy versions. The results were often strangely philosophical and experiment works, ranging from Godard's Breathless to François Truffaut's ambitious Shoot the Piano Player.

Let me tell you about a movie that outraged, angered, and sickened me -- and why it demands your attention.

The Free Will begins, basically, with a long, hideously-detailed and violent rape scene. Theo (Jürgen Vogel, who also produced and co-wrote) is convicted of his crime; the bulk of the film deals with his post-prison life, his struggles with rehabilitation, and his relationship with Nettie (Sabine Timoteo), seemingly a victim in waiting. I have strong reservations about The Free Will: it's filled with ugly, offensive actions, and I felt like I was dragged through the mire for 163 minutes for little reason other than to shove my face in the muck. Still, there is no denying the power of the performances or the talent of director Matthias Glasner. It is a provocative piece that inspires deep thinking about important issues.

Michael Guillén wrote a long and thoughtful review at The Evening Class -- my comments above are adapted from my response to his review -- which may help you decide whether to rent or buy The Free Will, which is out on DVD today. Benten Films has quickly developed a very fine reputation for their releases, so expect a good-quality transfer. Their edition includes an audio commentary by Glasner and Vogel, the original theatrical trailer, and a new critical essay by Time Out's David Fear.

Imagine if The Dark Knight or Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull initially opened in limited release, and then took a month or so to reach you in "flyover country." But on the same day that they hit those first theaters in New York and L.A., they were also available on your television, via Video on Demand. Would you wait a few weeks to see the blockbusters on the big screen or would you lack the patience and go ahead and download the movies to your cable box? Of course you would choose the VOD route. I probably would, as well.

Despite this column, I cannot claim to be a purist when it comes to theatrical film exhibition. I subscribe to Netflix and even sometimes watch old movies on the Watch Now streaming player. I now own a video iPod, and while I haven't yet tried watching a feature, I have had no problem watching shorts and television episodes on its small screen and am not totally against eventually downloading a whole movie from iTunes. And although New York's Film Forum is currently showing a ton of United Artists classics, many of which I've never seen at all and a number of which I've never seen on the big screen, I haven't been able to make my way to Manhattan to appreciate the retrospective.

Oh, grumble. One of my favorite movies of last year, Marjane Sartrapi's Persepolis, is being released in an English-language version. Alright, I know, I know. Probably releasing an English-language version will ensure this excellent film is seen by many people who would otherwise be turned off by the need to read subtitles. I get that, really I do. But still, a part of me cringes at the notion that a dubbed version of the film is coming out. I hate dubs, even of anime films (case in point: the charming Kiki's Delivery Service, which I absolutely loved in the original Japanese version, wasn't nearly as delightful in the English-dubbed version with Kirsten Dunst and Phil Hartman).

When I'm checking out a foreign film, I always go for the subtitled version over the dubbed. There's something about hearing the dialog in the orginal language that just makes it feel so much more authentic to me. Of course, when I'm reading the book version, such as with The Complete Persepolis, I need the English version, because I don't read French well (but I'd love to have a copy that has the words in French with an English translation!). For a movie, though, I'd much rather read the subtitles and hear the original language.

Okay. It's time to get down to brass tacks. I'm going to get up on my soapbox and hope that the right Academy members read the column this week, because it's time to re-do the rules of the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar category. Do you know how long it has been since a great film, a truly great film, won in this category? I'm talking about a film made by a genuinely great artist of the cinema, a film for the ages, and not just a perfectly good film, or a film about one of the great world wars. Here's your answer: twenty-five years ago. Ingmar Bergman's Fanny and Alexander (1983) was the last great one. That leaves 25 years of pretty good, just OK, forgettable, or flat-out awful winners (mostly forgettable). This year's winner, The Counterfeiters (41 screens) had to be one of the worst movies I saw all year; at it's center is a perfectly good (true) WWII concentration camp story, but it's warped by an entirely inept director, responsible for one of the worst movies I've ever seen, All the Queen's Men (2001). How did it win? How did it get past all the truly great films of 2007?

Call me an optimist, but I'm always hoping for Oscar reform. I've been rather excited about recent rumblings that the Academy is finally, finally considering changing its rules regarding foreign film consideration. I saw one of the new nominees last week, The Counterfeiters, and I have to say that there were at least 20 or 30 other, better foreign language films last year. In fact, I'd have to say that The Counterfeiters is a contender for my worst list of 2008; it takes on an interesting story, but cinematically it's sheer amateur hour. The only reason it got nominated is because it takes place in a concentration camp. I also need to mention that the director, Stefan Ruzowitzky, made one of the worst films I have ever seen, All the Queen's Men (2002), starring Matt LeBlanc and Eddie Izzard as soldiers who go undercover as drag queens in WWII.

Did anyone notice that though La vie en rose earned three nominations (Best Actress, Costume, Makeup) it didn't get nominated for Foreign Language Film? Likewise, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (205 screens) -- filmed almost entirely in French -- was nominated for four awards (Best Director, Editing, Screenplay, Cinematography), but not Best Foreign Film. Why? Diving Bell doesn't count as foreign because it has an American director. Not to mention that each country is only allowed to submit one film, and France's choice, Persepolis (100 screens) was not nominated either. Instead, it was nominated for Best Animated Film! This type of thing happens all the time. In 2002, the foreign film committee rejected the Brazilian film City of God. It was released in 2003 to great critical acclaim and success, and was nominated the following year for four Oscars in other categories. In 2000, Taiwan chose to submit the hit Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, rather than arguably the greatest film of the past decade, Edward Yang's Yi Yi. Why couldn't both be nominated?

Finally opening in the US after receiving rapturous reviews at Cannes last May and landing atop many critics' top ten lists for the year, 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days easily led the field this weekend, according to estimates compiled by Box Office Mojo. Shut out of the Academy Award nominations for Best Foreign Language Film, the Romanian abortion drama nevertheless drew big crowds to the two theaters where it opened, averaging $24,100 per screen for distributor IFC.

Playing on 61 screens, U2 3D scored an impressive $15,508 per screen average. Opinion has been divided as to whether the possibilities of 3D were effectively used, with our own Christopher Campbell arguing that the film is important to experience, while Nick Schager was more critical. And for anyone concerned about the higher ticket prices charged for the 3D experience, Bono told USA Today: "I'm hoping that all the people in high school or who are college-age and don't have the cash to go see us can go see us for a low price with this film."

Reveling in its Academy Award nominations, Juno soared just past the $100 million mark, increasing its weekly take 3.5% while dropping 108 theaters. It's still playing at more than 2,400 locations in its eighth week of release for distributor Fox Searchlight.

Fellow Best Picture nominee There Will Be Blood fared well as Paramount Vantage continued its roll-out. Now playing in 885 locations, its per-screen average was a healthy $5,522. Best Picture nominee Atonement was down a bit ($2,832 per-screen at 1,400 engagements) and No Country for Old Men was up ($2,261 per-screen at 1,107 locations). Playing on just 58 screens, Best Animated Film nominee Persepolis had the fifth-best per-screen average of the weekend ($6,034) for Sony Pictures Classics.

Among other limited releases, Teeth performed quite well, averaging $4,212 at 16 theaters in its second week out.

As my wife said, it's just not the Oscars if there's nothing to complain about. However, I was impressed that two of the year's toughest films, Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood (389 screens) and Joel and Ethan Coen's No Country for Old Men took the most nominations. Typically, the Academy is attracted to much less challenging and easy-to-categorize films (like Atonement). Both films are fairly bleak in their vision, but I suspect There Will Be Blood will sneak out ahead for two reasons: it's an epic, and epics almost always win. And, to quote a character from Sunset Boulevard, it "says a little something" about the current sociopolitical climate.

One of the biggest controversies cropped up over the foreign film category, which came up with five nominations that no one has ever heard of. (The Counterfeiters opens sometime next month and Mongol opens in June.) Not to mention that they ignored top contenders like 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days (opening this week) and Persepolis (30 screens). Thankfully the outrage has begun discussions on changing the stupid, ancient rules for the category. Currently these rules require each country to submit one film, and multi-national films, such as The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (107 screens), to be disqualified. A small group of "specialists," rather than the Academy as a whole, votes on the small list of films. The documentary category was less obscure, and although I saw 19 documentaries in 2007, I only managed to see two of the five nominees, No End in Sight and Sicko. I have an Academy screener for Operation Homecoming that I hope to catch soon, and Taxi to the Dark Side (1 screen) is screening for Bay Area press next week.

I've always found it ironic (and a little irritating) that the Oscar noms are announced during Sundance, forcing people who are already dealing with altitude nosebleeds and sleep deprivation to wake up early to see who's nominated for Hollywood's biggest annual self-congratulatory pat on the back. Fortunately for me, Monika very kindly dragged her own butt out of bed early to liveblog the noms so those of us who are holed up in the snow in Park City could sleep an extra hour.

This is the first year in a long time that I've felt a bit of excitement about the Oscar noms, because I woke up this morning to see that Juno ended up getting four noms -- Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actress (for Ellen Page) and Best Screenplay. I know there are folks out there (some of them even work with me, but I won't name any names ... you know who you are) who totally disagree with me about Juno, but damn, I love that movie, and I'm glad to see the Oscar blue-hairs giving it some love. Whether it will actually win remains to be seen, but I'm happy just with the noms, and Fox Searchlight will certainly be able to milk the noms for all they're worth either way.

Here's the thing about Juno, for the surly nihilists and Diablo Cody/Jason Reitman haters out there: for a lot of people, that film just works. Say what you will about the dialogue being unrealistically snappy, or how it's not realistic that Juno didn't think about birth control (anyone who honestly believes that has forgotten what it's like to be a teenager), or that it's just a quirky little comedy but not that big a deal. Whatever. Juno has struck a chord with audiences. It's box office receipts are phenomenal, especially considering it was made for a few million bucks.

I knew from the energy at that first preview screening at Telluride that this film was going to be big; it out-buzzed every film at that veritable festival, and that is no small feat. I know people, myself included, who have watched it over and over again, and I very rarely watch any film multiple times. It's a very cozy sort of movie, like eating a pan of Stouffer's mac-and-cheese when you're feeling down, only not as likely to pad your ass with extra poundage. So, yay for Juno! Haters, you may now commence with the "I can't believe this movie got four Oscar noms, it's just a comedy" comments.