“Blindness” is not for the faint of heart or the weak of stomach.

Like most dramatic thrillers, this emotional roller coaster of a film will leave you feeling a little bummed, totally exhausted and a lot better about your personal problems.

“Blindness” exhibited all the elements of a great film – except a complete or rational plot.

From the very beginning of this picture, the audience is tossed carelessly into an unrealistic national epidemic of sightlessness.

I like to imagine what writer Don McKellar could have invented as the cause for such an improbable plague, because he didn’t bother to mention it in the film.

There was absolutely no explanation or context for the blindness epidemic whatsoever. Though such a great cinematic fallacy would normally prompt an enthusiastic thumbs down on my part, the artistic cinematography and superior acting pulled this arbitrary, shell-less plot line right out of the gutter.

Although Julianne Moore and Mark Ruffalo seem to be an unlikely pair, they managed to ignite silver screen chemistry like nobody’s business.

Danny Glover and Alice Braga also mastered their supporting roles and really brought the collective performance to an inspiring new level.

Like most films these days, there were a few scenes I could have done without for the sake of keeping my lunch.

Graphic violence against women is rarely an integral part of the story when it appears, and some scenes in “Blindness” were no exception.

Does rabid, maniacal, vomit-inducing rape really boost ratings? I hope not.

In the unmistakable style of director Fernando Meirelles, however, it was very effective.

I had no problem seeing the cinematic congruence between this film and Meirelles’ 2005 film, “The Constant Gardener.”

If you enjoy torturing your senses and becomingly deeply depressed for two hours, or just appreciate great contemporary filmmaking, I recommend this film. Don’t forget tissues.

Grade: B+
Verdict: It’s a tearjerker, just not in the uplifting sense.

Katie Andrew to RedandBlack.com