I want my dog back.

As a rule, I try not to read a film's reviews before I see it. I do this for two reasons: 1. When I do read a review, I find that I go in with an expectation of how well I'll like the movie, and as self-fulfilling prophecies usually go, I end up feeling the way I thought I would. And 2. I like to see if what I have to say about a film is the same as what the critics are saying. I like to test my movie-critic intuition, if you will. I do, sometimes, look at star ratings of movies before I go see them...so without reading in-depth about a film, I do know how well it's being received overall. I noticed that Entertainment Weekly (one of my favorite magazines, by the way) gave The Brave One a C+. (Entertainment Weekly eschews star ratings in favor of letter grades). After having seen the film this past Saturday, I have to say, I don't think The Brave One deserves a C+. I think it deserves an A- or a B+, at the very least. Why are movie critics so snobby these days? I love revenge movies. I also love movies in which a woman figures out she's part innocent sparrow and part bad-ass. I love movies where characters take the law into their own hands. At the screening I attended, people clapped and cheered, hooted and hollered. I think any movie that inspires that sort of visceral reaction deserves some accolades. Jodie Foster plays Erica Bain, a poetic public-radio employee who is very much in love with her doctor fiancee, played by Naveen Andrews. When she and David are attacked while on a nighttime stroll in the park, he is killed and her whole world collapses. She spirals downward, barely able to leave her apartment, until one day she decides to take matters into her own hands and buys an illegal firearm. It's certainly fun to watch Erica take out the bad guys one by one, and they undoubtedly deserve it, but it's also a little unsettling to watch such a seemingly meek woman turn into a veritable monster, driven equally by fear and rage. I can describe the film in one word: intense. Of course, there are a few flaws--the fact that Erica's original park assailants recorded their own crime on a cell phone. Why on Earth would they have done that? Are we to believe these men are so sick that they were recording their atrocities so that they could watch and delight in them again later? I don't buy it. Still, the fragile relationship that Erica forms with Sean Mercer, a divorced NYPD detective played by Terrence Howard is delightful to watch. Both misfits in their own way, their bond is immediate and solid. I only wish they shared more scenes with one another. And, always fun to watch is Nicky Katt, who provides some much-needed moments of comic relief. So, C+? Nah. This movie is no Oscar-winner, but thank God for that. If every movie that came out was going for an Oscar, we'd be sitting through a lot of films that leave you not with a rush of adrenaline (as The Brave One left me) but with a hearty dose of reality. Sometimes reality is overrated, ya know?

They're lost without him, like a pack of dogs without a master.

When I walked into the theater, I looked around and realized I was the youngest person in the place. I should've known. After all "3:10 to Yuma" is a remake of a 1957 Western. Westerns are pretty rare in contemporary cinema these days, maybe because studios are afraid modern audiences don't want to shell out $10.50 to see a bunch of guys shooting at each other and riding around on horses. To be honest, I have no idea where that logic comes from. After all, every weekend millions of Americans shell out millions of dollars to see guys shooting at each other and riding around on motorcycles and in fancy cars, airplanes, and speedboats. In my opinion, horses are a hell of a lot cooler than all of that. Give me a horse over a souped-up car any day. There is something to be said for simplistic storytelling in films these days. It feels like a lot of modern movies strive to tell the most intricate, detailed, and emotionally deep stories. It's all about inter-connected personal dramas that show us how we are all part of the brotherhood of man, even though we may not realize it. Groan. Give me a shoot-out and some real red-blooded motives, some stubbornness, some pride, some foolishness, a laugh, a tear. "3:10 to Yuma" is the story of two men at odds with each other and with their lots in life. Dan Evans (played by a brilliant Christian Bale) is a rancher with troubles. He's got a family to feed, a business to run, and creditors breathing down his neck. He's got a bum leg and a chip on his shoulder from being beaten down by everyone from his wife to the man who's trying to steal his land out from under him. In other words, Dan Evans has something to prove. Ben Wade (played by Russell Crowe) is an outlaw with a near supernatural ability to avoid capture. He is charming, confident, arrogant, and he knows how to kill. Put Dan Evans and Ben Wade together and what have we got? Not war. No, not really. Actually, we've got a recipe for friendship. The two men may not understand one another, but in a way they're out to protect each other. It was nice to see some real characters up on the screen for a change--real three-dimensional people. Another memorable character is Charlie Prince (played by the always devilish Ben Foster). Who knew the sweet little kid who played Tucker James on the plucky Disney show "Flash Forward" would grow into such a complete and utter bad-ass (and a pretty damn fantastic actor as well)? I don't know if the fact that I was the youngest person in the theater today means I'm simply wise beyond my years and mature enough to recognize authentic storytelling even when it doesn't come with all the modern CGI-rific bells and whistles, or if I'm just a little odd, but what I do know is this: "3:10 to Yuma" is a movie worth seeing, even if it does cost you $10.50. I only paid $5.50 for my screening. So there. I'm wise beyond my years and a bargain hunter.

Don't get chumpatized.

"The King of Kong: Fistful of Quarters," a new documentary by Seth Gordon about (you guessed it) getting the high score in the Filet Mignon of retro video games--Donkey Kong--is the most heartwarming, hilarious, and action-packed documentary I've seen all year. What is it about watching other people play video games that's so damned entertaining? Maybe it's the fact that Donkey Kong is not just Donkey Kong. It's really an allegory for life. In life, obstacles are always being thrown at you. Maybe it's unemployment or an unplanned pregnancy instead of a fireball or a barrel, but you get my drift. And we--patient, hardworking little Mario's that we are--must keep jumping, side-stepping, and climbing our way to our ultimate goals: the princesses of our souls, you might say. Steve Wiebe, lovable science teacher and family man from Washington, is good at Donkey Kong and he's good at life. He maneuvers through both with ease. To some, he is just the underdog of a small-scale documentary. To some, he's just the guy who challenged Billy Mitchell, the "greatest arcade-video-game player of all time." But to me, Steve Wiebe is Mario. And Billy Mitchell is like so many of the villains you meet both in life and in video games--imposing and scary at first, but in the end, completely transparent...and completely beatable.