Finding the Funny In LITTLE FOCKERS ...

LITTLE FOCKERS Review:

- LITTLE FOCKERS is one of those movies that is just sort of depressing in its pointlessness. The first film in this series, Meet the Parents, was really funny. Not the greatest comedy of all time, but a perfectly entertaining movie that was good for plenty of laughs. But then, studio execs saw the great big dollar signs in the sky, and decided that Meet the Parents was no longer just a movie, but a bonafide *franchise*. And you know what happens when movies become more about dollar signs than good ideas? It ain't rocket science, people -- they start to suck. And you know what? There was something so off-putting, so cynical to me about the movie's sequel, Meet the Fockers, that I've never had any desire to see it despite being a fan of the original. It just felt so unnecessary, so clearly a blatant cash-in - not only for the studio but for stars like Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro, who should know better. But you know what ... you can't really judge people for their career choices, or fault someone for taking work that is offered to them. At the same time, as a fan, you want to see a guy like De Niro making awesome movies. You want to see him have that great third act to his career. And you know what else? There's no shame in doing comedy, either. De Niro can be a funny guy, it's cool. But come on, man. Don't go out like this. Little Fockers is just beneath its entire cast and crew.

I mean, it's not that the movie doesn't have its funny moments. I chuckled a couple of times, sure. But you know what this is? It's basically a nearly-decent episode of a TV sitcom, only longer. But an episode of a TV show exists as part of a larger whole. This is a self-contained movie. It has to tell some kind of story, and no, having Ben Stiller meet a new, overly-flirtatious co-worker is not enough. That's a subplot on Modern Family, not the basis for a movie.

In Little Fockers, character after character is dutifully trotted out ... for no apparent reason. Why is Owen Wilson back as the philisophical playboy who still pines for Stiller's wife? No reason ... just because Wilson's been-there, done-that character fills up time, I guess. Why are Dustin Hoffman and Barbara Streisand back as Stiller's new-agey super-Jew parents? Again, no real reason. Maybe it's because this movie has a compulsive need to thoroughly reference every character, joke, and semi-memorable moment from the last two Fockers films? You know, in music, artists usually wait until they've had several albums under their belt before releasing a greatest hits collection. Here, after two movies, were's already seeing the "greatest hits" reel of the Focker clan. I hadn't even SEEN the second movie, and still 90% of the jokes here felt stale. Just as bad ... they feel several degrees removed from actual human experience. In a series that's supposed to be relatable, supposed to be about families, the comedy has now gotten completely away from anything resembling real life - instead firmly entrenched in that fantasy version of reality inhabited only by jaded Hollywood screenwriters. That's this movie in a nutshell -- less reality, more Focker jokes.

Speaking of Fockers ... how much mileage can one movie get from the goofiness of the name "Fockers?" I'll tell you: A LOT, apparently. Or at least it can try. Little Fockers is like the movie equivalent of Ren in the Ren & Stimpy episode "Happy Happy, Joy Joy." It's like you're being hit over the head by a mallet as some screenwriter squeels "DON'T YOU GET IT?! FOCKERS SOUNDS LIKE FUCKERS! WHY ... AREN'T ... YOU ... LAUGHING, YOU STUPID EEDIOT!" A guy being named Focker is a funny joke, I agree. A. Funny. Joke. But this is different. An ENTIRE MOVIE FRANCHISE now exists based around this joke. To that end, your enjoyment level while watching Little Fockers is likely predicated on your tolerance for Focker-based humor. And look, I am a man who enjoys a good Focker joke. And if MY patience is worn thin by the movie's halfway point, well, what hope do others have?

Little Fockers just seems perfectly content to bring back the old characters, throw in a contrived plot point or two, allow some "hilarity" to ensue, and call it a day. There's Jessica Alba as Stiller's aforementioned hot colleague, who of course, De Niro thinks he is having an affair with (due to - you guessed it! - a wacky series of misunderstandings). There's Stiller's ongoing quest to get his father-in-law's seal of approval. There's Stiller and his wife trying to get their kids into an elite preschool. And there's something about Stiller getting swindled by his landscaping guy, who is inexplicably played by Harvey Keitel. Like I said, I think a typical episode of Modern Family packs more into a single twenty-two minute episode than this movie fits into two hours.

No, it's not all bad. There are definitely funny moments scattered throughout the film, and Stiller and De Niro still have a good comic chemistry together. In fact, their interactions are still, easily, the highlights of the movie. The stuff with Alba falls pretty flat, as does just about everything from Hoffman and Streisand and Wilson. But is there enough hilarity to justify this movie's somewhat dubious existence? That's your call. But, when one of the biggest studio comedies of the year is a movie that is, at best, a watch-it-on-cable-when-you're-bored/sick/desperate type of thing, then to me, that's sort of sad.

Actually, the whole thing makes me a little reflective about the current state of big-screen comedy. Here in 2010, most of the funniest movies of the year have all been non-traditional comedy hybrids - Scott Pilgrim, Megamind, Machete. Meanwhile, TV continues to be the place to find all of the really funny stuff - Community, 30 Rock, Louie, Children's Hospital, Futurama ... the list goes on and on. It makes you wonder if the traditional comedy movie is a dying breed. If Little Fockers is emblematic of the modern movie comedy, than, sad to say, but it might just be so.

My Grade: C

A Hi-Rez Review of TRON LEGACY ...!

TRON LEGACY Review:

- We live in a world where once-futuristic technology is commonplace. We carry super-powerful computers in our jeans pockets. We play games on consoles powered by chips wielding once-unimaginable processing power. We watch movies where all manner of fantastic worlds are brought to life with stunning realism via computer-generated imagery. And yet, even as we are surrounded by so much fantastic techno-wizardry, the magic and mystery that once made computers and technology so captivating to our imaginations, so intrinsic to our hopes and fears, has largely faded. To most of us, tech is everpresent, 24/7. We spend our lives plugged-in, and yet the means by which we interface with machines are simpler and more user-friendly than ever. Whereas computers once required knowledge of arcane command codes to operate, today's systems operate with the touch of a finger. Whereas games were once near-abstract collections of pixels, requiring mastery of button inputs and knowledge of tricks, cheat codes, and zen-like concentration, today's mainstream games can be mastered by the most casual of users. Once upon a time, we watched movies and marveled as f/x opened our imaginations and expanded our idea of what is and what could be. Today, we see all manner of incredible imagery on-screen, and yet we aren't moved by it. The images are technically impressive, but the heart, the soul, the craftsmanship isn't there. Technology is everywhere, but the magic, largely, is lost.

And perhaps, that is why, now more than ever, a new TRON is needed. Because the original Tron - while not the most tightly-scripted or superbly structured film of its time - was all about capturing that sense of awe and wonder that was inherent in the technological revolution of that era. TRON came out in 1982 - the year of E.T., the year of Blade Runner. It was a year when movie magic was plentiful. And it was, I must of course mention, the year that I was born. I was lucky to grow up in an era when there was still so much magic in the air. I didn't need to nitpick the f/x in E.T. - I just sat back and let myself believe. I slid a boxy gray cartridge into my prized NES system, and I didn't care that the graphics on the TV were boxy jumbles of pixels. I let myself be transported to the strange sci-fi dreamscapes of Mega Man, Contra, and Super Mario Bros. In those days, stepping foot inside a video arcade was something akin to a religious experience. Armed with a fistful of quarters, we'd walk into a giant room of bright, flashing images and bleeps, bloops, and blips, and it was magic. How did those games work? Who made them? Why were the concepts so strange, so out-there? We didn't know. We just went along for the ride. And computers? Computers were the realm of geeks and nerds only. They were strange, mysterious, even scary. They could play games or start nuclear wars. Take your pick. But computer technology still felt like a brave, uncharted new world. Who knew what these machines were capable of? Who knew what really made them tick? There was this concept of the ghost inside the machine, a palpable sense that inside these devices lay some hidden universe of bits and bytes. The screen was our gateway into this strange, other world. We were the users, but what if ... what if even as we gazed into that screen, what if something inside was gazing back at us?

I remember as a kid being at Disney World in Florida, on a family vacation. At Epcot Center, there was an exhibit where you stood inside a recording booth, and overdubbed your voice into a scene from a Disney movie of your choice. I remember cycling through the choices - the cartoons didn't appeal to me so much, but then ... something caught my eye, something different. I stood in the booth and read the lines on the screen, spoken by an ominous looking polygonal villain. I was captivated -- what *was* this? This was a Disney movie? I saw that the scene was from a movie called Tron, and immediately, I was fascinated. I had to know more about this. Sometime not too long after, I remember flipping through the channels at home and stumbling across Tron on TV. The movie was probably half-way over, but I didn't care. I was enthralled by the visuals, the concept. A man, a "user," had gone *inside* a computer, inside a game. From that point on, I would always catch the movie in bits and pieces on TV, but I don't think I was ever too concerned that I wasn't getting the full story - I just got lost in the vector-graphics visuals and let my imagination run wild. I didn't know if anyone else had ever heard of this movie. I didn't know there was a cult following. I didn't know that the star was a young Jeff Bridges or that the movie had underperformed at the box office in 1982. All I knew was that Tron was awesome, it was unique, and that it had wholly captured my young imagination.

And now, here we are, and it's December of 2010. Twenty-eight years after the release of Tron, and both it and I are the same age. Twenty-eight years later, and there is, incredibly, a TRON sequel. But how could a new TRON movie ever hope to recapture the magic of the original? Tron was a movie that worked because it captured the zeitgeist of the time. It struck a chord because it was a movie about technology, made with then-cutting edge technology, that captured that sense of techno-magic that has since all but evaporated in our culture. I can only imagine what kids today might think of Tron - outdated, silly, primitive-looking, weird. And I'll admit it - when some friends and I recently rewatched it, well, after all these years, those same dismissive notions entered my mind. In some ways, it was hard to believe that this was the movie that, in 2010, Disney was hoping to turn into the next big multimedia franchise.

Still, in defense of the original Tron - while you can knock the dated visuals and clunky script, you can't deny that the movie had style. It had imagination. It was like nothing else before it or since. And ironically, those are exactly the qualities missing from so many of the blockbuster adventure movies of today - movies that are technically impressive, but at the same time, generic. No imagination, no sense of wonder, no magic.

But here's the amazing thing: TRON LEGACY is in many ways exactly the cure for the bigscreen blockbuster blues. It has style, it has action, it has character. It swept me away into another world and it left my jaw on the floor. It was visually stunning, and looked like no other movie, felt like no other movie. This was something new, something to get excited about. A new mythology, a new universe.

Most of all, though, Tron Legacy pulsates with electronic energy. It revisits the themes of the original Tron, and in doing so it brings that old magic back. It brought me back to a time when technology *was* magic. It made me feel like a kid again, walking into that expansive arcade and going into a fever-dream state of sensory overload. Tron Legacy is cutting edge, to be sure. The visuals pop off the screen in an explosion of gleaming neon and lazer light. The music of Daft Punk lends grandeur and future-shock atmosphere, and it just plain rocks. But, Tron Legacy is also a throwback. It took me back to the days when blockbuster movies were about awe and imagination. It reminded me that you can have a great cinematic adventure sans cynicsm, without irony. It made me remember how great visuals can create new worlds, show us something we've never seen or imagined. I know this sounds like high praise, but Tron Legacy to me evoked films like Blade Runner, Alien, and the original Tron - movies that use visual storytelling in a way that's unique to film - taking us to another world via images, sounds, ideas, and letting our imaginations fill in the blanks.

Maybe that's why some critics have been hating on this one? Maybe people are so un-used to a story told visually that they get too hung up on the intricacies of the script? I mean, I'm a writer - there's nothing I appreciate more than sharp dialogue and a tightly-constructed plot. At the same time though, I can recognize that this is a different sort of movie. It has its own semi-detailed mythology, sure, but it paints its world in broad strokes. Not everything is explained, not every character is fully fleshed-out. But every image makes you want to see more. Every character is interesting enough that you want to know more. To me, it works. If anything, the movie nails all the right story beats in a way that schools most other modern blockbusters in terms of how this kind of thing should be done. There's a great ebb and flow to the storytelling, in my opinion. Yes, there's a pretty heavy amount of exposition to get through at times, but the info-dumps help to give important context to this universe. But the big moments - the character introductions, the major conflicts, the climax - are all impecably staged. The movie progresses in a way that's very satisfying, ultimately reaching an applause-inducing finale. To me, that's good storytelling, plain and simple, and it makes it easy to forgive the occasional cheesy line or overlong expository scene.

And aside from all that, there's so much in Tron Legacy that they got right ... it's actually kind of a minor miracle, in a way. I mean, take the casting of Garrett Hedlund in the lead role, as Sam Flynn. Here was a big x-factor, and I'm sure many people cringed thinking that this was Hayden Christiansen as Anakin Skywalker, part two. Well, Hedlund is pretty damn good in the role, and he may just have a bright future as an action star. He has a good screen presence and is a believable action hero - and he holds his own with Jeff Bridges. No complaints, and I hope we get to see Hedlund really stretch even further if there are, in fact, future sequels. And hey, who knew Olivia Wilde would end up pulling off her role as rebel computer program Quorra to this level of near-perfection? Wilde really nails this part. She's got the look, she's got the partly-human, partly-artificial construct tone down to a T, and she helps make Quorra into a great new character in the Tron universe.

Also -- how great is Michael Sheen in this movie? A total scene-stealer as the flamboyant, Bowie-like program known as Zuse. Man, Sheen just owns it in this part. He is funny, crazy, and slightly-sinister. A scene in which Zuse looks on gleefully while all hell breaks loose in his club (yes, even computer programs like to party) is one of the movie's highlights. As the throbbing tones of Daft Punk ring out, Zuse is the glam-rock ringmaster of a violent techno-circus. It's awesome, to say the least. It doesn't hurt that Sheen always has the alluring Beau Garrett by his side. As the enigmatic Gem, she is sure to join Daryl Hannah in Blade Runner in the upper-echelon of artificially-intelligent futuristic fanboy fantasies. Digital Love, indeed.

How about Jeff Bridges? One of the great joys of Tron Legacy is seeing Bridges reprise his role as Kevin Flynn, founder of Flynn's Arcade, currently moonlighting as the reclusive zen-master of the artifical world known as The Grid. In the film, Bridges plays the aged Flynn as well as Clu - a mirror-image AI construct once tasked with turning The Grid into a "perfect world." As Flynn, Bridges channels his character in the original Tron, and also brings a little of The Dude's stoner wisdom to the table. Seeing Flynn with his Dude-like beard and Lebowski-esque witticisms is a bit jarring at first, but it makes sense given where the character is at when we rejoin him all these years later. Back in 1982, Bridges was a likable actor but not quite the powerhouse thespian he is today. It's great to see an older, Oscar-winning Bridges - at the height of his acting powers - mold Flynn into that rare thing in today's action movies - a hero who the audience genuinely likes, who they can 100% get behind and root for. At the same time, it's a real kick to see Bridges as the villainous Clu. Thanks to some crazy CGI tech, Clu looks and sounds like Bridges circa 1982. It's pretty incredible in a lot of ways. I was especially impressed with the subtle shifts in Clu's voice and inflection. Today's Bridges has a gravelly quality to his voice that probably came from age and from years of indulging in certain mind-altering substances. But Clu talks and sounds like 1982 Bridges. Like I said - impressive. Now, Bridge's CGI-de-aged face looks sort of CGI-ish. And that's basically okay with Clu, because he's supposed to be a computer program created in the 1980's, so it's understandable that there's that level of imperfection (and hey, it even ties in nicely with a major theme of the movie - that technology, in its quest for perfection, can never hope to replicate the perfect imperfection that is actual reality). But, where the tech really does seem sort of wonky is in the 80's flashback scenes at the beginning of the film. Here, the same CGI techniques are used to show Kevin Flynn as a young man, and it ends up looking pretty weird - like Kevin's son is talking to a Playstation rendering of his dad. In a way, I guess it's reassuring to know that computers still can't create perfectly-realized replications of human beings. On the other hand, the whole thing serves to take you out of the movie just a little bit. At the end of the day though, it's a blast to see Jeff Bridges return to the role of Flynn and to the world of Tron. He's clearly having fun here, and it's infectious. Between Tron Legacy and True Grit, this is definitely the month of Bridges.

Now, let me just gush a little bit more about the visuals. The creativity and imagination that went into the movie's design is fairly mind-blowing. This feels at once like TRON, and like something entirely new and different. The basic elements of the original are there - the discs, the lightcycles, the body suits - but they all feel uber-slick, and everything just looks flat-out awesome. There were times where you have to just sit back and appreciate the sheer visual splendor that's on the screen. And the action scenes? Wow. The combination of the kickass design work (those lightcycles are pure awesomesauce), the inspired direction (Joseph Kosinski is definitely a director to watch after this one), and the heart-pumping score by Daft Punk makes for scene after scene of eye and ear-melting goodness. It's funny, because I've seen the reviews that dismiss the movie as being the greatest Daft Punk music video ever made and nothing more. And yes, I was fully prepared to utilize that line if the movie had indeed ended up as underwhelming. But you know what? This IS the greatest Daft Punk music video ever made, but I say that only as a compliment, not as a backhanded put-down. The score flows from Hans Zimmer-like gravitas to more traditional Daft Punk techno-grooviness, but either way, it rocks and rocks hard. In a year filled with great movie scores (Inception, The Social Network), this one takes the cake. Tron Legacy is a sonic delight, and Daft Punk's soundtrack is a very-probable must-buy that brings da noise and da funk, with effortless cool-factor to spare.

Look, I'm not trying to say that Tron Legacy is some kind of end-all, be-all blockbuster action movie. There are some notable rough patches, and there are aspects of the plot that feel somewhat loosely stitched-together. One easy target involves the movie's title character - Tron. His transformation from Christ-like savior in the original to villainous badass in this movie is pretty hastily explained, and his role in the movie can be more than a tad confusing. The vague way in which his character resurfaces makes some moments in the film's big finale a little less impactful than they might have been otherwise. Still, Tron, as a character, is cool enough that I found it fairly easy to just go with the flow and not ask too many questions. Similarly, I kind of get some of the complaints about how this movie fails to utilize the more logic-based structure of the original. In the 1982 version, there was a definite rhyme and reason to the denizons of The Grid, with all of the "programs" acting as human representations of various parts and functions of a computer. Tron Legacy ditches some of the original's geek-speak in the name of servicing its more far-reaching mythology. And hey, that's cool with me, but, it might have been nice to explain more about the roles that each of the programs filled within this new, revamped version of The Grid. Finally, in an effort to create that expansive mythology, I do think some things were left either too vague, or else deliberately unexplained so as to be saved for future sequals. I'm sure people coming out of the movie will have plenty of questions about the nature of "Iso's", about how Clu would be able to reconstitute himself in the real world, or regarding the purpose of a presumably adversarial member of Encon's board of directors, played by Cillian Murphy in a brief but intriguing cameo.

Personally, I was far too mesmerized by the visuals, the music, the characters, and the broader themes of the film to get too hung up on any of these things, but I do recognize that there are, objectively, a couple of legitimate issues with the script. But subjectively, my gut reaction to Tron Legacy was that I came away smiling, giddy, and feeling like a kid again. I loved this movie, and had an absolute blast watching it from start to finish. Even the little details got me - the Tron-ified Disney logo, the old-school Tron poster in Flynn's Arcade, "I fight for the Users!", and even the inspired use of Journey to get that distinctly 80's vibe going. In crystal-clear IMAX 3D, this was the most visually impressive live-action film I've seen since Avatar, and the use of 3D was truly eye-popping. There's even a cool, Wizard of Oz-like effect in which the film starts out in 2D, but then gains an added dimension of depth when Sam enters The Grid. In a lot of ways though, I actually think Tron surpasses James Cameron's recent mega-hit. In fact, I can't think of any other recent sci-fi action movie that delivered this level of pure visual splendor, fun, or overall entertainment-factor. So many times in recent years, I've come away from these nostalgia-fueled mega-blockbusters feeling deflated. Transformers, Indiana Jones ... these movies felt like half-hearted cash-ins. But TRON LEGACY doesn't just coast along on nostalgia. Instead, it brings the magic back. It one-ups the original, retools the visuals with a bleeding-edge upgrade, but also remembers to keep that spark of creativity that made the original beloved in the first place. It's rare to get a great sequel. To get a great sequel 28 years after the original ... well that's a bonafide cinematic miracle. And man, I left the theater eager for more. This is a world I want to go back to. But whatever the case may be, it's nice to know that a big-budget blockbuster film is still capable of this level of epic win. 28 years later, and TRON lives - bigger and better than ever.

Many years ago, on a classic, Treehouse of Horror episode of The Simpsons, Homer Simpson - trapped in a strange and mysterious three-dimensional world - was asked to describe the nature of his surroundings. In an effort to explain his impressions of his whereabouts, Homer asked: "Has anyone seen that movie Tron?" The famous joke is that his question is greeted with a chorus of "no's." "No." "No." "No." "Yes, I mean, no." Well, I *have* seen that movie Tron, and dammit all, it was awesome.

My Grade: A-

Danny Takes Down THE TOURIST ...!

THE TOURIST Review:

- I'm honestly surprised by THE TOURIST. What looked like a very promising movie in the previews turned out to be a pointless, nonsensical mess of a film. It's pretty mind-boggling, to be honest, because so many talented people are involved in the film's production. But hey, this is what happens when some movie stars and a director come together without any clear purpose other than "guys, let's go make a movie together in an exotic locale!" Because, clearly, The Tourist isn't about story - there's barely one to speak of. Clearly, the movie isn't about casting just the right actors in just the right parts - because all the talent in the film seems completely wasted. Clearly, the movie wasn't meant to be a whiz-bang thriller, because it's short on action, light on wit or humor, and its big "twist" is one of the stupidest things I've seen in a movie this year. So what, you may ask, does The Tourist have going for it? Well, it has Venice. There are, I will admit, some very nice, travelogue-style shots of the famed European locale. But ultimately, who cares. Nice scenery is only one small part of the big picture. And the big picture of The Tourist is that it's got to be one of 2010's biggest misfires, given the big names on the marquee. I'll be honest, after reading a couple of pretty harsh reviews, my interest in the movie severely plummeted. But then I saw that the movie was nominated for a number of Golden Globe awards, and my curiousity was piqued. Despite the dubious nature of some of those nominations, I had to wonder if the movie did in fact have some upside. Could it be an overlooked gem? A misunderstood crowd-pleaser. Well, after my friend Lesli and I exited the theater this past week, I had to side with the movie's harshest critics. I mean ... THIS was nominated for Golden Globes? Are you serious? Johnny Depp for Best Actor in a Musical or Comedy? News to the Hollywood Foreign Press - The Tourist is not funny. It's not even very good.

Just thinking about the narrative structure of The Tourist sort of makes me cringe, because from Moment 1 of the movie, you feel like you're being not-so-subtley manipulated. As soon as we meet Angelina Jolie's Elise, the movie seems to be cheating. From the get-go, everything about her is so vague and mysterious that, well, she could be anyone or anything. We know she is a vaguely exotic, aristocratic-seeming woman who is being carefully watched by the British police (at least I think they're the police, it's never really explained). Elise does all sorts of exciting stuff ... like walking down the street and sipping tea in cafes. You know, the stuff great movie moments are made of. Once she alludes the Brits, she gets on a train bound for Venice, on which she befriends a stranger named Frank - played by Johnny Depp - a bookish-seeming math teacher from Wisconsin. It turns out that Elise is working with a mysterious criminal (with whom she also seems to be romantically involved), and said criminal has asked her to find someone who resembles him and to use that guy as a patsy, to throw the police off of their trail. Frank ends up being the patsy, and soon enough he's got the police, Russian gangsters, etc. after him. Of course, instead of bolting and getting the hell out of Dodge, Frank just can't quit Elise - because, hey, after a few minutes of mostly listless back-and-forth repartee, he is - wouldn't you know it - in love.

Now - and I think this goes without saying - but the casting of Johnny Depp as a supposedly bookish math teacher from Wisconsin is just plain misguided. The whole point of the entire movie seems to be that we follow this American everyman as he gets caught up in an exotic world of international intrigue. And Johnny Depp is that everyman? Depp, still very much suffering a quirkiness hangover from his years playing pirates, eccentrics, and mad hatters, seems to have forgotten to dial it down a notch. Frank's oddball mannerisms are about 85% Jack Sparrow. He speaks in the same quasi-British accent as does Angelina Jolie (yeah, not buying for a second that he's from Wisconsin). The whole thing just feels way, way off. But here's the kicker: I think the movie WANTS us to think that something is off from the very beginning. All along, we're supposed to suspect that Depp's Frank may not be who he says he is. And the script handles this with hamfisted coyness, and very quickly paints itself into any number of corners. If Frank turns out to really be a plain old math teacher ... well, in that case, about 50 things in the film end up making little sense. If Frank turns out to be a criminal in disguise, an undercover cop, etc. - well, that possibility makes little sense either, without some very, very contrived explanations.

And it's funny, because I feel like I JUST saw Angelina Jolie in a similar maybe-mistaken-identity movie that, for all its faults, was still leagues better than this. Oh, that's right - I DID. It was called SALT, and yes, it was dumb at times, but at least Jolie had plenty of personality in it and was able to kick all sorts of ass. And at least that movie had a sense of fun, and delivered its over-the-top twists with gleeful relish and a bit of a knowing wink at the audience. In The Tourist, Jolie's Elise is a walking fembot, with zero personality and an eerily blank expression on her face. Only during a decently-staged boat-chase scene, in which Elise is forced to get her hands (and her designer clothes) dirty, does Jolie really seem to come alive. And isn't that what most of us like about Jolie anyways? That she can effortlessly play a badass action hero just as well as her male counterparts? That she can bust heads in a leather catsuit and look good doing it? Jolie in The Tourist is the most boring she's been in ages - a walking fashion magazine photo-shoot. I don't get it ... The Tourist feels like a movie made by tabloid-worshipping dimwits, not by movie fans. It's a movie that seems to think we'll explode into starstruck fangasms just from seeing Jolie and Depp, together at last. Don't they know that we like Jolie because she plays slightly-crazed femme fatales who smirk seductively as they whup-ass? Don't they know that Johnny Depp is who he is because he fearlessly plays kooks and madmen and has never allowed himself to be typecast as a generic leading man? The Tourist seems to miss the boat on everything that actually makes these two stars so popular and effective as actors - instead trying to cash-in on the sheer name-value of Depp and Jolie. But ... newsflash, Hollywood -- most of us don't give a crap about Depp and Jolie as glamorous movie stars, we just want to see them in great roles and great movies. Can we officially declare the age of the box-office-draw movie star to be OVER and DONE WITH? Depp, Jolie, Clooney, Roberts, all the rest ... they've all been in their fair share of BOMBS, and nobody is going to shell out the cash to see them if the movie looks like crap.

With all that said, it's sort of unbelievable how many great actors are in The Tourist's supporting cast. Even more unbelievable? How little they are given to do. Paul Bettany plays the personality-deficient Inspector who's after Jolie, and he has absolutely nothing of any importance to do or say. He's just there (and again, look at how cool Liev Schreiber got to be in Salt - sorry, Paul, you picked the wrong Jolie movie). Okay, you think that's crazy? Well TIMOTHY DALTON is in this movie. James f'n Bond. A guy who can still absolutely own a movie - see HOT FUZZ for a great example, even his recent turn on CHUCK has been great. And yet ... Dalton does jack and squat in The Tourist! Despite looking to be in great shape and ready to bust some heads, Dalton gets in a few token lines and that's it. Ugh. Oh, and then there's Rufus Sewell, another actor who I've been a fan of since his dynamo role in Dark City back in the day. Sewell has about two lines in the film, and minutes of screen time. Again ... ugh.

It's always sad when a movie is stacked with great actors and a good basic premise, and yet totally fails to capitalize. With the right script and directorial vision, The Tourist very easily COULD have been a very fun, very entertaining hi-octane action movie. I would have loved to see what a great action director could have done with this, what a great action writer could have done to punch up the script and create some actual chemistry between the two leads. Maybe give us a twist or two that wasn't mind-numbingly lame. By all accounts, director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck is a talented guy (and man, what a name!), but he seems somewhat unsure of himself in this one, stuck in a weird no man's land between artsy, European-style slow-burn thriller and American-style action-flick. But whatever happened during the movie's production, someone was definitely asleep at the wheel. And you might very well fall asleep as well during this lifeless mess of a movie. See it for the scenery? Maybe. But no way is The Tourist among the year's elite films. Instead, it will, I think, go down as one of 2010's biggest disappointments.

My Grade: C-

Applauding THE KING'S SPEECH

THE KING'S SPEECH Review:

- Sometimes, you know something is good for you, but at first glance, it just doesn't look that appetizing. Sometimes, in the world of movies, we're so constantly bombarded with the Hollywood equivalent of junkfood that we can't help but be skeptical about something that's more akin to a full, multi-course meal. So let's just come clean and admit it: were any of us chomping at the bit to see The King's Speech? Were people lining up for midnight showings, camping out, feverishly posting first-look reviews on internet fansites? No ... but this isn't that sort of movie. This is a film that might not be candy-colored and sugary ... but you should really sample it, because man, it is, indeed, good for you. The fact is, The King's Speech is an excellent film. It's witty, funny, poignant, and superbly acted by several of today's best and most notable thespians. It presents to us both a fascinating character study as well as a classic parable of a prince and a pauper. And yes, this real-life story of a man-who-would-be-king is also an intriguing look at the build-up to World War II in Europe from a perspective we don't often see. The King's Speech may not be the flashiest movie of the year, but I do think it's up there among the best. If you think the film is too stuffy for you, I'd say give it a chance. There is a lot of heart and good humor to be had here, and a great story to be told.

The King's Speech tells the true-life story of King George VI of Britain, in the period just prior to and at the beginning of his reign as king. At a time when England and the world looked to the royal family for leadership and strength, the family itself was going through a rather tumultuous period. As the movie opens, King George V's health has taken a downward turn. Meanwhile, the heir to the throne, Edward, is in the midst of an escalating scandal. Edward has taken up with a divorced American woman, and eventually must choose between their forbidden romance and the crown. If Edward ends up choosing the American, that would leave his brother George as new heir and rightful king. George VI, in many ways, has all the tools to be a good king. He's smart, well-liked, a devoted family man, and has a healthy respect for the traditions and responsibility that go along with royalty. However, he has one potentially-crippling problem: he is a stutterer. George can barely get a sentance out without stammering and tripping over his own words. Considering that one of his primary jobs as king - particularly at a time when England is on the brink of world war - would be to address and inspire the nation, this is, of course, a pretty substantial issue. While George has mostly resigned himself to accepting his stammer as unfixable, his wife - the future Queen Elizabeth - is determined to fight it. She ventures out into the city on her own, and finds a noted - but decidedly working class - speech therapist named Lionel Logue. George is reluctant to see Logue at first, but eventually he begins a series of therapy sessions at Logue's office. Logue - an eccentric but effective coach - uses all the tricks he can think of to help the future king overcome his problem. And it's this relationship - between George and Lionel - that is the heart and soul of the movie. In his sessions with Logue, George is forced out of his comfort zone. He yells, he curses, he vents, he cries. He consorts with the common man. And somehow, against all odds, this quirky speech therapist becomes a king's best friend and most trusted advisor.

So much of the credit for the success of The King's Speech has to go to the two absolutely amazing performances at the center of the movie. As King George VI, Colin Firth just plain owns the part, delivering one of those classic perfomances that will forever be associated with the actor. I was impressed with just how multidimensional the character of George really was. He had self-confidence issues due to his stammer, but he was also a very proud man, and wasn't afraid to remind someone like Logue of his royal status when push came to shove. But there's also a vulnerability to George that is really fascinating. It's hard to feel sorry for someone born into royalty, but George's repressed emotions and family drama make you realize that sometimes, it is *not* good to be the king. At the same time, you can't help but root for George, despite his flaws. Part of you roots for him because he does have that ability to open himself up to someone like Logue. Even if takes him a while, the fact that he eventually considers Logue a confidante and an equal shows the potential of George to be a truly different kind of king - a man of the people. And part of you roots for George simply because it's clear that his country is rooting for him as well. As the threat of war loomed, as air-raid sirens began to ring out over London, the people wanted their king to be a symbol of strength and hope - and so to do we.

Firth is fantastic, but equally great is Geoffrey Rush as Lionel Logue. Logue is like that slightly crazy high-school teacher who pushes you to do better out of a genuine interest in helping you grow and succeed - and Rush imbues Logue with an overflow of charm and wit. But once again, Logue is a remarkably fleshed-out character. The easy route would be to have Logue just be a cartoonishly flippant guy who laughs in the face of the king and has no regard for the crown. But that's not who Logue is. Yes, he tries to treat George like an equal, like just another patient. But we also see quieter moments where Lionel lets his guard down and seems truly in awe of the fact that he's treating royalty. Rush nails this part, and he's a pleasure to watch throughout the film.

Meanwhile, so many of the supporting roles are filled by absolutely top-notch actors. Michael Gambon as King George V? Badass. Timothy Spall as Winston Churchill? Extremely funny and entertaining. Guy Pierce as the slightly dim, slightly mad, hopelessly lovestruck Edward? One of Pierce's best performances in a long while, the kind that made me remember how great of an actor he can be in the right role. One final standout to me was unquestionably Helena Bonham Carter as George's wife, Queen Elizabeth. Carter is somehow still underrated despite proving time and again that she's the real deal. I thought she was great as the Queen - aristocratic but doggedly determined and loyal to her husband, wryly humorous and likable but also prim and proper. I thought Carter and Firth had a nice chemistry as well - you could sense that, somehow, the two managed to really care for each other despite the crazy circumstances of their day-to-day lives.

David Seidler's screenplay is full of a lot of wit and wisdom, and while some of the humor is, well, a bit been-there, done-that (oh, aren't the differences between royals and common folk hilarious!), he does, as I've said, make these characters remarkably well-rounded and full of life. Director Tom Hooper gives the film a very classical, non-flashy look, which isn't going to blow anyone away, but is appropriate given the tone and subject matter. As a whole, there isn't a lot in The King's Speech that screams "2010." The movie may as well have been made in 1950. But sometimes, a straight-up, old-school story that feels inspirational - and maybe even a little educational - is just what the doctor ordered. Like I said, this feels like a movie that's good for you, that teaches you a little something and may even have you reading up on your history afterwards, to get a little more of the context surrounding this story. The historical backdrop to the film is very interesting, and it's certainly thought-provoking to see the royal family at a time when they were transitioning from true leaders of the realm to the mere figureheads / tabloid fodder that they are today. At the same time, the dynamite performances from Firth, Rush, Bonham-Carter, and the rest of the cast make this much more than dry historical fiction. There is also a great story of unlikely friendship that lies at the movie's core.

My Grade: A-

The Chronic-WHAT!-cles of Narnia: Setting Sail With THE VOYAGE OF THE DAWN TREADER.

THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE VOYAGE OF THE DAWN TREADER Review:

- I don't get it. Why have so many critics been hating on the latest Narnia movie? Is it a kneejerk reaction to to series' Christianity-tinged themes? Is it overcompensation, because the rabid fanbase of the Harry Potter films makes bagging on that series too risky? Or is it simply that critics, who tend to love to overanalyze, can't just sit back and enjoy a fantasy film that is unpretentious, unironic, straightforward, and fun? I'm not sure which of these factors has contributed most to the barrage of "C"-range grades doled out to The Dawn Treader, but I am here to say that the new Narnia has been severely underrated. Is it flawed? Sure. But I really enjoyed this one. It may not be sexy or cool, but Narnia is old-school fantasy done well. There's adventure and swordfights and fire-breathing dragons. There's humor and there's heart. What you won't find are pop-culture references or winks at the audience. You won't find edgy direction or dialogue. You won't get tabloid-friendly movie "stars" hogging screentime. No, The Dawn Treader is straight-up kid-lit fantasy, and to me that's what makes it so enjoyable as a film. After a somewhat uneven second movie, I found this third trip to Narnia to be a much-welcome return to form.

Overall, DAWN TREADER is a brighter, snappier, more appealling movie than its predecessor, Prince Caspian. Prince Caspian was a little awkward in that it used Narnia's fantastical world to tell a fairly morose, dark, war story. But Dawn Treader is pure adventure movie, with our heroes sailing the high seas on a quest for seven magical swords that, together, will dispel a dark force that's been slowly growing along the edges of the world.

Okay, I'll be honest. The plot of Dawn Treader isn't anything all that memorable, and yes, at times it does sort of seem like there's a pretty flimsy binding holding this story together. I can't 100% comment on how the narrative here differs from that of the book. I read and loved all of the Narnia books as a kid, but it's been a looong time since I read them and most of the details are pretty fuzzy. That said, I do think that the movie suffers from a lack of a strong narrative drive. There isn't a great singular villain as there was in The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, and there isn't a huge sense of urgency propelling the plot towards its resolution. I think there is a sort of upside to that, though, just in that the movie has a very breezy, open-air feeling. Without that sense of urgency, the movie does have kind of a fun feeling of just going along for a ride with these characters. Sure, there's some very bad stuff going on in the background, but mostly, Lucy and Edmond just seem to be having a blast riding on a The Dawn Trader, running around with swords and daggers, and hanging out with minotaurs and mermaids. That sense of fun is definitely infectious. This is one of those movies that isn't brimming with intensity, per se, but is great if you want to just sit back, relax, and get lost in another world.

Speaking of which, The Dawn Treader looks really great. The f/x and creature work is amazingly seamless, with all sorts of fantastic beasts and talking animals and monsters popping up in a very natural-seeming manner. What I really loved about the look and feel of The Dawn Treader is that it combined new-school CGI with a somewhat old-school sense of scope and wonderment. The pace of the film is nice and measured, with plenty of scene-setting shots of sailing on clear-blue waters, soaring through the air on the wings of a dragon, and gazing up at craggy castles o windswept isles. There's a great sense of atmosphere that permeates the film - nothing too flashy, no quick-cuts, no glaringly cartoonish CGI. Meanwhile, the action in the movie is really very fun and satisfying. If you grew up on 80's action / fantasy films, there's a very nice sense of fluidity and iconography in the direction that reminded me of the movies I loved as a kid. I mean, even if there wasn't much build-up from a narrative perspective, the movie's climactic battle on the high-seas - involving dragons, sea monsters, and sword-brandishing heroes - is a real joy just to watch - easy to follow yet filled with the kind of big, widescreen moments that are sure to inspire many a fevered notebook-doodle from kids watching the film.

Speaking of kids, even if they don't get much hype, I've been a big fan of Narnia's talented cast of young actors. I always thought that Georgie Henley as Lucy was the heart and soul of the franchise, and with her two eldest siblings taking a backseat in this one, she shines once again in The Dawn Treader. Edmund is also back, and the always-conflicted character once again clashes a bit with Prince Caspian, who helps lead the siblings on their quest.

The two standouts of the movie though? For one, I have to single out Will Poulter as Eustace Scrub, Lucy and Edmund's bratty cousin who tags along with them on their latest trip to Narnia. Poulter was really amazing in the underrated Son of Rambow, and he is once again a show-stealer in The Dawn Treader. Whenever there's a lull in the movie, you can count on Eustace to make things interesting again. And you have to give Poulter extra props, because it's a character that could have been unbearably annoying in lesser hands. But this kid is the real deal - very funny and able to bring a lot of heart to even the most outwardly-obnoxious characters. Eustace is sure to end up as a new fan favorite, and a ton of the credit for that has to go to Poulter. The other real standout is, of course, Reepicheep, the diminuitive mouse who's as quick with a quip as he is with a sword. Formerly voiced by Eddie Izzard, Reep is now given virtual life by the great Simon Pegg, who helps to make the character as fun and funny as ever. The movie pairs Reepicheep with Eustace, creating a very entertaining odd couple that provides many of the film's best moments.

In addition, Liam Neeson is back as the voice of Aslan, though his role is pretty minimal in this one. Tilda Swindon does briefly cameo as the White Witch, but it's a barely-there appearance. As in Prince Caspian, I do think her cameo sort of takes you out of the movie a bit, if only because it makes her all the more conspicuous by her absence for the rest of the film, and calls attention to the fact that there's no equally evil villain in this installment.

Overall, there is a lot to like in The Dawn Treader, and I sincerely hope that the movie's global box office ends up high enough to help justify additional movies in the series. There are a lot of great pieces in place here that the franchise can continue to build upon in future installments. The Dawn Treader can be a little draggy at times, and as a story it's a little more meandering and aimless that it should be. But I like having these movies around. I like that there's a straight-up, kid-friendly fantasy film series out there that serves as a more straightforward alternative to Harry Potter and Twilight. I like that these films deliver a simple, positive message while also not skimping on the swordfights and monsters. I say go and check this one out - it's a good time, with some great visuals and fun characters. Hopefully, this isn't our last trip to Narnia on the bigscreen.

Finally, one note on the 3D: I thought the conversion looked okay, but it suffered from the usual problem of causign the action on-screen to look too dark and muted, and occasionally a bit blurry. There was a nice sense of depth to the picture, but overall, I still don't quite get the benefit of 3D to most live-action films (CG-animated films, on the other hand, tend to look great in 3D). Other than perhaps Avatar, I've yet to see a live-action movie in 3D that really wowed me. That said, as far as conversions go, Narnia's isn't too bad.

My Grade: B+

Going One-On-One With THE FIGHTER

Might 2010 be the year of Boston-in-film? Between The Social Network, The Town, and now - THE FIGHTER - we've seen a number of Oscar-caliber films set in or near to Beantown. But of all the Boston-based movies in recent years, The Fighter might be the one that most embodies the scrappy spirit of the city. It's an underdog movie, and as we all know, Boston loves its underdogs. The movie takes place in the outlying city of Lowell, but it nails the local flavor with an eye towards the absurd - every thick "pahk the cah" accent, every oddball Masshole character - even the classic rock tunes that provide the movie's soundtrack - all have a ring of both authenticity and affectionate satire. But, more importantly, The Fighter is a pretty unique sort of boxing film. While the rather generic title might lead you to believe that this is just another would-be Rocky, The Fighter comes alive and stands out thanks to an entertaining mix of humor and heart. What's more, it is elevated thanks to a couple of knockout performances. Mark Wahlberg, Amy Adams, and Melissa Leo all shine. But it is Christian Bale who steals the show - the actor turns in yet another dynamite method-acting clinic, that is sure to garner all sorts of acclaim and yes, awards-talk.

The Fighter tells the real-life story of boxer Mickey Ward (Mark Wahlberg) - a local of Lowell, MA who followed in the footsteps of his older brother, Dick (Christian Bale), a former fighter who in his prime was known as "The Pride of Lowell." Dick's biggest claim to fame was that he once fought Sugar Ray Leonard and knocked him down (though some say that Sugar Ray merely slipped). Now, Dick trains and manages his younger brother - along with their mother, Alice (Melissa Leo) - as Mickey does his best to move up the ranks and have the kind of in-ring career that his brother never could. Mickey is the soft-spoken one in a family of loudmouths. His brother Dick (or Dickey) is a bug-eyed crack-addict who tells anyone in earshot that he's gearing up for a comeback. His mother Alice is a pushy, stubborn, and self-deluding woman (she refuses to openly acknowledge Dickey's drug problems) who has a stranglehold over Mickey's career. On top of that, Mickey has several (!) sisters who are nearly as pushy and obnoxious as their mother.

As you can see, The Fighter is a film that presents all sorts of colorful characters to us, and the result of all these personalities clashing is often very amusing and even funny. Throw Amy Adams into the mix as a tough-cookie bartender who falls into a relationship with Mickey, and you've got a rather combustable mix. In this respect, The Fighter can be a very quirky, funny film. At the same time, there is the more serious side of the film that is tracking Mickey's surprising ascension in the boxing world, as well as Dickey's escalating troubles with drugs and the law. That dual narrative track is a big part of what distinguishes The Fighter - it's not a singular story of one man's rise in the boxing world, but moreso a tale of two brothers - one on the threshhold of achieving something great, the other on a dangerous downward spiral.

Again, the movie's unique tone - that balance of almost cartoonish humor with some genuine, more traditional melodrama - is what makes it stand out from the pack. Director David O. Russell occasionally falls into the trap of mimicking movies like Rocky, of following the traditional sports-movie template, but mostly, he recognizes that he is making a sports movie that is also as much about family and roots as anything else. Like I said, there is tons of local color and detail here, and you get the sense that Mickey and Dickey represent certain aspects of their hometown. Mickey is the great white hope, the fighting spirit. Whereas Dickey is the fallen star, the secret shame, the guy who was once considered great just because he may have gotten in a decent punch or two on the Champ. Dickey was the guy who ultimately let Lowell down, but for him, and for the city, to come out and admit that is perhaps too painful. Case in point: camera crews are following Dickey around for an HBO documentary, and Dickey seems to think it's going to end up as some sort of flattering retrospective. In fact, it's a documentary about the perils of drug-abuse. And why shouldn't Dickey think this? His family treats him like a shining star. The locals love him. In this little corner of the world - in this cold, grey, working-class city - it's easier to think of Dickey as a hometown hero, to admire Mickey for sticking by his family, to hold on to any misguided notion that brings the people pride. Russell does a great job of portraying Lowell as down-on-its-luck, just like Dickey. He uses the mix of the comedic and dramatic to show that family can be so absurd that you have to laugh, but also a very real roadblock towards escape, individuality, and realizing one's dreams.

And by the way, I loved the movie's soundtrack, because to me Boston is the ultimate classic rock town. Watch any Celtics home game and you'll see the only arena in the NBA that blasts more Guns n' Roses, Ozzy, and Led Zepellin than hip hop or pop. Go to any Boston-area bar and, music-wise, it's like the 70's and 80's never ended. Boston is a place where true guitar heroes are revered, and The Fighter seems to recognize this aspect of Beantown. The movie appropriately frames the action with the sounds of The Stones, Aerosmith, AC/DC, and even Whitesnake. It might seem cheesy to some, but it works perfectly in the spirit of the film.

To get back to the acting, though ... again, Christian Bale is ridiculous as Dickey. Wahlberg may get top billing, but this is definitely Bale's movie in a lot of ways. This is one of those crazy, over-the-top performances (approaching Daniel Day Lewis in There Will Be Blood levels) that is so "big" as to be funny at times, but also super-impressive and captivating. Because as Dickey, Bale is basically a manic, twitchy, cracked-out force of nature. In terms of looks alone, Bale's transformation from Bruce Wayne to Dickey is pretty startling. Bale looks like an entirely different person than in The Dark Knight or other recent movies - he's gaunt, bony, and balding, and it's almost uncomfortable to watch him onscreen at first. But I guess that's Bale's thing - he commits 110% to these sorts of roles, and I don't know if there's any other actor quite like him working today. He manages to be both sympathetic and scary, and Dickey's arc is ultimately the one that will stick with you from the film. But man, this has to be up there as one of the actor's most memorable performances to date.

That's not to say that Mark Wahlberg doesn't do an excellent job - he does. It's harder to shine when you're playing a soft-spoken fighter in a family of over-the-top personalities, but as Mickey, Wahlberg is more the everyman trying to break on through to the other side. It's a quiet but effective performance. Amy Adams also does a really nice job, playing against type to some extent as Mickey's spark-plug of a girlfriend. Yes, ultimately she is just sort of playing "the girlfriend," but the movie does take pains to make her a well-rounded and entertaining character in her own right. The back-and-forths that Adams has with Melissa Leo are easily some of the movie's highlights, and its great to see them going at it with such great dialogue and zeal. Speaking of Leo, she is great as the Ward-family matriarch.

I really enjoyed The Fighter, but I also think it's a tough movie to get a read on in some ways. As a quirky character drama, it completely works. As a boxing movie though? It does sometimes feel like the big fights are sort of tacked on, and that Russell is a bit unsure of whether to stage them with Rocky-esque flair or to keep them more on the understated side. Particularly during the film's big, climactic showdown, you've kind of been built up to expect the bout to end all bouts, only to get a decent but somewhat abrupt conclusion. Part of that may be that the movie isn't really about the fights - it's not Rocky. Part of that is that this is a true-life story, and it's at least somewhat beholden to reality and actual events. The fact is - Mickey Ward's story is a great character study, but it doesn't seem to naturally lend itself to an iconic story in the grand tradition of other underdog fight films. I also think that the humor in the movie can go a little overboard at times. I got a kick out of Mickey's sisters, for example, but they felt like they were straight out of an SNL sketch. I couldn't help but wonder if some of the cartoonishness ultimately takes away a bit from the effectiveness of the movie's more serious moments.

Still, The Fighter really wowed me in a lot of ways. It caught me offguard, because I was expecting yet another riff on Rocky but got something very different - a funny yet moving character study about families, hometowns, and doggedly pursuing success on your own terms. The movie features one of the year's true standout performances from Christian Bale, and contains a number of individual scenes that are sure to stick with you. With a title like The Fighter, you might be expecting, as I did, a somewhat run-of-the-mill underdog story. Instead, the movie ends up being an unpredictable, quirky surprise.

My Grade: A-

COMMUNITY Relations ... Thoughts on What Just Might Be TV's Best Comedy

- I spent some time last week talking about some of the great TV drama from the last few months, but I haven't talked as much lately about comedy. This has been a year that's been overflowing with great TV comedy - stalwarts like 30 Rock, relative newcomers like Eastbound & Down and Modern Family, and freshman series like Louie, The Increasingly Poor Decisions of Todd Margaret, and Children's Hospital. But I will say this: as of right now, I'm not sure if there's a better comedy on TV than COMMUNITY, which has been absolutely killing it throughout 2010.

Community, over the last several months, has been operating on that higher plane of comedy existence that is typically reserved for the likes of The Simpsons, Seinfeld, and Arrested Development. Although there have perhaps been one or two missteps along the way (sometimes, the show gets a tad overambitious - see the Abed-as-Jesus episode from several weeks back), for the most part, it's been swinging for the fences and hitting it out of the park. This past week's holiday episode was a perfect example of that. So often, even the most out-there and subversive shows do themselves harm by succumbing to a sentimental streak - especially during the holidays. Last year, the great 30 ROCK took a turn towards increasingly sitcomish character arcs, and it really hurt the show's old, laugh-a-minute sensibility. It felt like, in an attempt to draw in bigger audiences, 30 Rock was at times compromising its sense of humor in order to be less live-action Simpsons and more modern-day Mary Tyler Moore. But, what Community has managed to do is pretty remarkable, and it's something that really, only The Simpsons could claim up 'til now - and that's to create a show that's jam-packed with dense humor and blink-an-you'll miss 'em gags, yet also populated by genuinely endearing characters who are capable of eliciting real emotion from us, the viewers. The Simpsons in its heyday could be unabashedly sentimental, but it always felt earned, and the jokes and humor and intelligence factor never took a backseat. Community has managed to pull off something similar, where even the show's wackiest episodes (Paintball, Zombie attack, and now the Christmas episode) somehow manage to get us invested in the characters even in the face of outlandish plotlines and pop-culture parody.

In any case, the Community Christmas episode was a thing of beauty. Literally. The brightly-colored stop-motion animation was awesome-looking, and the show really was a visual marvel. Huge kudos to everyone involved in what was surely a painstaking, time-consuming process. Now, how was the retro-style animation used? Pretty brilliantly, actually. The plot device involved Abed losing his grip on reality (even more so than usual) and slipping into a mental space in which he viewed everything as part of a stop-motion fantasy world. Abed takes the group (who in theory are playing along with his hallucination) on a wild ride through his pop-culture-infused psyche, and in doing so, we not only get some great satire, but we also get a sad and surprisingly moving look into the ghosts of Abed's Christmas past. Abed has historically worked best as a supporting character, and episodes that have really tried to psychoanalyze him have often been among the series' weakest. But ... this one really nailed the character, and it did a great job of expanding Abed's weirdness into an episode's worth of gags, and also making us care about him without going overboard.

As always, though, Community works best as an ensemble show. And perhaps the best reason that the show's approached that next level of quality is that its embraced its cast and found the perfect dynamic for great comedy. Community realized early on that it didn't need to be a show about Joel McHale's search for love and maturity. It didn't need to be a standard sitcom or adhere to standard sitcom tropes. It's similar to when The Simpsons realized it didn't just need to be about Bart the troublemaker, but could expand into this whole universe of characters. Community is now one of those shows that can be about ... anything. The throughline is the characters and their relationships, their makeshift community, so to speak -- but the show has now become so wide open, so "big", that an episode can be an action or horror movie parody, or even a stop-motion tribute to old-timey Christmas specials. That sense that "anything can happen" is something that not many live-action sitcoms possess right now. 30 Rock is getting back to that a bit, but sometimes it seems slightly ashamed of its randomness, and tries to temper that with more traditionalist tendencies. Community, meanwhile, is ashamed of nothing. It will go just about anywhere for a joke, and yet still has some of the most real-feeling characters on TV. Malcolm in the Middle was another good example of that rare mixture of the real and surreal, now that I think about it. But it's still something that's very rare in a sitcom. It still impresses me, for example, how in the midst of Community's totally crazy zombie Halloween episode ("zombie attaaaaaack!") we got some of the biggest moments in the Jeff-Britta relationship to date.

Zombies AND character development? Now that's impressive.

Down The Rabbit Hole With BLACK SWAN.

BLACK SWAN Review:

- Dark, haunting, intense, disturbing, thought-provoking, and just plain %$&#'ed up, BLACK SWAN is an award-worthy tour de force from director Darren Aronofsky. Only with Aranofsky would you describe a movie as crazy as this one as a return to his comfort zone. But it's in the world of darkness and nightmares and hallucinatory psychodrama that the director seems to feel most at home. And so, after the grittiness and stark realism of The Wrestler, Aronofsky returns to the edge-of-reality surreal dreamscape he inhabited with movies like Pi, Requiem for a Dream, and The Fountain. And once again, he creates characters, visuals, moments ... that will burn themselves inside your brain and leave you gasping. This is not the more subtle, more grounded Aronofsky of The Wrestler (although I do hope that, at some point, we get more movies from him in that style). This is the director giving us a story that's melodramatic, operatic, and entirely unsubtle. At times, it certainly walks the line between high drama and camp, and yes, there are moments that are so unsubtle so as to be funny. Black Swan occasionally even feels like a disaster waiting to happen, because it is a tightrope walk being performed by Aronofsky and his cast. And yet, the movie ultimately comes together in fairly spectacular fashion. Aronofsky, and the film's star - Natalie Portman - pull it off. They make it work. The end result is that Black Swan is one of the year's must-see films, and certainly one of its most memorable. It's a disturbing journey to the dark side, but if you can handle getting this close to the abyss, you're in for one hell of a ride.

On the surface, Black Swan is a simple story about a young ballerina, Nina, who is chosen to perform the lead role in her company's upcoming, reimagined performance of Swan Lake. Although Thomas, Nina's instructor and mentor, selects her for the part of the Swan Queen, he does so with some serious reservations. At first, he outright denies her the part. His reasoning is that Nina - a precise and measured performer - can pull off one half of the part, The White Swan, with ease. But, he worries that when she must transform into the darker, wilder Black Swan, Nina won't be able to muster up the sort of raw, seductive, untamed performance that the character's more sinister half demands. In his own direct, slightly menacing manner, Thomas pushes Nina out of her comfort zone to see what she's really capable of. When he makes a pass at her, she retaliates by viciously biting him ... and at that moment, Thomas sees that Nina just might jusy have a dark side waiting to be unleashed.

From this point on, the story depicts Nina's descent into darkness and madness. Driven harder than ever to do what it takes to be a success, Nina realizes that she has to shed the remnants of her innocent, virginal, childlike way of life in order to become The Black Swan. Nina begins to rebel against her scarily controlling mother, and forges a complicated, love/hate relationship with a new ballet student, Lily - who helps to push her even farther towards the brink. But at what price does this metamorphasis (both emotional and physical) come? Is Nina pushing herself too far? As her grip on reality begins to fade, and the line between reality and nightmare becomes less clear, we travel with Nina on this journey from light to dark, and we ourselves begin to wonder about the nature of what we're seeing on screen. What is real? What isn't? What does it all mean? Aranofsky has never been a guy who thinks small - Black Swan's story may be simple and personal on the surface, but tackles huge, grandiose themes on an almost cosmic level. In its own way, Black Swan is every bit the mind-bending epic as is The Fountain.

The central performance here from Natalie Portman as Nina is up there as possibly her career-best work. Portman adapts well to the story's over-the-top, heightened reality, and is all furrowed brows, paranoid glances, and short breaths as the stiff, sinewy Nina. However, I think the true genius of her performance is only revealed in the moments where she succumbs to her inner Black Swan. In those moments, Portman's transformation is pretty remarkable. When she is herself, that is, the White Swan, it's almost as if Portman is playing a version of her public persona as an actress - prim, proper, maybe even uptight - certainly not the most wild or expressive person in the world. Interestingly, Portman has sort of mocked this persona before - her SNL Digital Short from a few years back comes to mind. But the mirror that Black Swan holds up to real life helps to accentuate the fact that the story itself is a pretty scathing, thought-provoking commentary on fame and stardom and Hollywood - and seeing actors like Portman, along with Mila Kunis and Winona Ryder - in key roles that play with / against type, drives home the metaphor. But back to Portman for a moment - her turn as Nina is definitely award-worthy. If anything, it reminded me a bit of Naomi Watts in Mulholland Drive (and Black Swan often takes on a similar, Lynchian, down-the-rabbit-hole vibe) - where there is that naive, innocent veneer that shockingly gives way to a darker, more unpredictable persona. Seriously - a stunningly impressive, risky, and fearless performance from Portman.

The supporting cast, as hinted at above, is also very good - and the best part is that everyone, like Portman, seems to be on the same page in terms of getting across the trippy tone that Aronofsky is going for. Mila Kunis and Winona Ryder both do a nice job. Kunis, as Lily - Nina's friend/lover/rival/stalker - is the classic youth in revolt / all-around bad influence. The role doesn't require Kunis to stretch to the extent of other actors in the film, but nonetheless I was impressed by how well the former sitcom star handled herself - easily her most impressive film role to date. Meanwhile, I've always been a fan of Ryder, and even though her screentime here is limited, she really makes the most of it. As the aging ballet star who feels she's been kicked to the curb prematurely, Ryder is scary and sympathetic all at once.

Still, there are two other supporting players who deserve special mention. One is Vincent Cassell as Thomas, the leader of Nina's ballet company. Thomas is perhaps the movie's most naturalistic character, which is itself an interesting contrast. When the film's most grounded character is a semi-sleazy French guy who has a history of preying on his young students - well, that's when you know you ain't in Kansas anymore. But Cassell does a great job in the role - and it's fun to watch the role reversal that takes place between he and Portman. At first, Nina seems out of her league when dealing with Thomas, but as Thomas continually prods her to unleash her inner Black Swan, he fails to realize the full extent of the transformation he's helping to provoke. The other actress whose role in this movie is going to haunt me for a while is Barbara Hershey as Nina's ultra-creepy mother, Erica. Hershey brings that same sort of Lynchian presence to the film, where even when she's externally calm and composed on-screen, there's so much built-up, palpable tension below the surface that it becomes almost uncomfortable to watch her. She embodies the film's unique sort of horror-movie sensibility, where certain characters and scenes are just creepy and disturbing - more so than those in most true horror films - because they are just left-of-center enough to be both real and nightmarish.

Now, there is again that fine line between creating a psychological thriller and a jump-out-of-your-seat horror movie, and occasionally Aronofsky comes a little too close to the latter. I think the movie is probably creepy enough as is without needing camera-swerve scares and other such horror movie tricks of the trade. At the same time, I think Aranofsky mostly gets the balance right. At the end of the day, there's no denying that there are campy, B-movie elements to Black Swan, and there are certainly moments of B-movie-style humor in the script. And that's cool - I think Aronofsky makes it work, and while the movie can be campy, the acting and direction easily elevate it to something far greater than a simple cult-favorite, midnight movie. There is so much artistry here - the hallucinatory direction, the sweeping musical score, the palpable sense of tension and horror - that this is clearly operating on a different level than your run-of-the-mill thriller. Even if it's with a lack of subtlety, Black Swan still manages to hit on a number of thought-provoking themes that are sure to stick with you, that will make you look at celebrity, at stardom, at the relentless pursuit of success - and the compromises made to achieve it - in a different light.

The more I think about Black Swan, the more I can't help but admire what Aronofsky and co. have done here. Perhaps that's because I can't stop thinking about the movie. It's been rolling around in my head all day, and I've been mentally replaying scenes from the film on a constant loop. This is a movie that is going to take a while to fully process, to be honest. In the Aronofsky cannon, I'd say that I didn't have the immediate, blown-away reaction that I did after seeing The Fountain, but Black Swan is also a cleaner, more coherant, and less messy film. At the same time, I found Black Swan to be a much more cohesive and well put-together movie overall than Requiem For a Dream, and the cast is probably better from top to bottom. The Wrestler might still be my overall favorite Aronofsky film, but that is also, apparently, something of an anomaly in his filmography - it's just a totally different beast than his other movies stylistically, even if it does share some common themes with the likes of Black Swan. But, in a year in which very few films have reached that next level of wow-factor, Black Swan has to be right there in the conversation regarding 2010's best. I would caution though that, again, this isn't a movie that lends itself to an immediate evaluation. I think it needs to sink in and simmer. I've been worried about both overrating and underrating it, because I'm still, to some extent, processing. But then I go back and think: how many movies can stick with you like this, can force you to analyze and review them to such an extent? Not many - and in that regard Black Swan is a rare breed of film indeed. So, with all that said, I feel comfortable in giving the movie emphatic, high praise. If nothing else, it reaffirms that Daren Aronofsky is one of the most interesting and talented directors working today. I can't wait to see where he goes from here.

My Grade: A

Getting TANGLED: A Look at Disney's Latest!

TANGLED Review:

- Despite its slick, computer-generated animation and modern-sounding title, make no mistake: Tangled is a classic piece of Disney animation through and through. Although the company's mainline animated features have been overshadowed by those of Pixar in recent years, I think that after the double-whammy of The Princess and the Frog and now Tangled, it's safe to say that Disney animation is back. For all its modernized trappings, Tangled feels very much like an old-school Disney fairytale musical - in the tradition of Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin. And what that means is that Tangled has a hefty dose of that old Disney magic. Hard to quantify, exactly, but it's there.

Tangled is, of course, a retelling of the classic Rapunzel story. In this version, Rapunzel (voiced by former teen pop princess Mandy Moore) is a long-lost daughter of royalty who was kidnapped as a baby by a youth-seeking witch - Mother Gothel (stupendously voiced by broadway actress Donna Murphy) - looking to harness the magical properties of Rapunzel's glowing golden locks. For years, Rapunzel is locked away in Gothel's tower, never allowed to venture out into the world. Now, she's an eighteen-year-old young woman, still locked away, but getting increasingly restless. Afterall, other than her controlling ans somewhat sinister "mother," she has no one to talk to except her pet chamelion (who happens to be a great source of comic relief). Enter the roguish Flynn Ryder (voiced by Zachary Levi, of CHUCK fame). Flynn, who seems to have modeled himself more than a little on his namesake Erol, is a thief who fancies himself a great adventurer. After stealing a crown from the royal castle, Flynn is on the run from the law, and from his duplicitous (and brutish) partners in crime, who tried their best to double-cross him. Flynn takes refuge in Rapunzel's tower, and together, the two seek escape and stumble into adventure - even if, in classic Disney fashion, it takes them a while to warm up to each other.

It's funny, because going into Tangled I was worried about the animation. From the previews, it was just hard to imagine that the movie could recapture the feel of classic Disney storytelling via CGI-rendering. Well, I was wrong. The animation in Tangled is absolutely phenomenal, some of the best CGI I've ever seen in film. It really did feel like a near-seamless melding of cutting-edge computer animation with the traditional Disney house style that characterized their 90's-era animation renaissance. I mean, man, the animation in Tangled is just bursting with style. So much CGI animation nowadays has a certain sort of simplistic, clean, uncluttered style to it. It's cool to finally see a 3D animated film that emulates the fluidity and dynamism and chaotic feeling of hand-drawn 2D. Also, rarely have CGI animated characters felt this expressive. The animation on the characters' facial expressions is probably the best I've ever seen in a movie of this sort - a clear throwback, in a way, to the expressiveness and almost eerily-human quality that characterized Disney's 2D animated features. In short, Tangled proves the naysayers wrong by very effectively transferring the uber-recognizable Disney animation style to 3D.

In addition, the direction of the movie is pretty breathtaking as well. If you think back to the sweeping camera work and thrilling action scenes in movies like Aladdin, that same sort of directorial prowess is on display here. Tangled has some action sequences that are just plain awesome - including a great chase sequence that is a real showstopper. There are a number of other sequences that are also just pure eye-candy, from a montage set in a crowded village to Rapunzel and Flynn's moonlit boat-ride. By the way, the use of 3D in Tangled was excellent - adding yet another dimension to the movie's eye-popping visuals.

Meanwhile, the voice acting in Tangled is also top-notch. It was funny to hear Zachary Levi, so distinctive as Chuck, sort of bring a variation on that theme to his animated alter ego of Flynn. But he does a great job with the material, and creates one of the more likable and personality-rich male Disney characters in a while. Mandy Moore also does a really nice job as Rapunzel. Again, she gives the character a ton of personality that makes her feel a little more endearingly quirky, and in turn a little more relatable and grounded, than your typical Disney princess. And man, Donna Murphy knocks it out of the park as Mother Gothel, at once snooty and scary. She also absolutely nails her big song, "Mother Knows Best," and helps make it one of the movie's big standout. Also, there are a number of fairly kickass character-actor types who provide some of the supporting role voices. Can you say Ron Perlman as one of the imposing thiefs out for revenge on Flynn? How about Lost and Justified's MC Gainey as the captain of the Royal Guard? Not to mention Jeffrey Tambor and Bradd Garrett as two of the comical thugs that Flynn and Rapunzel encounter on their travels.

As for the music ... I think that overall, the soundtrack to Tangled is not quite at the level of some of the other Disney classics. There just isn't the breadth of great musical numbers that you'd get in a Little Mermaid, Lion King, or Beauty and the Beast. That said, there are at least a couple of really great, memorable songs in Tangled. My favorite was, by far, the funny and oddly inspiring bar-room number "I've Got a Dream," in which all manner of brutes, thugs, and rogues sing about their big dreams and desires. It's a great, instant-classic tune. And as mentioned, Donna Murphy's rendition of "Mother Knows Best" is a great villain song - it's not so much scary as it is a chilling reminder of every overbearing parent out there in the world. Again though, those two are the highlights, but other than that, there wasn't a lot of music in the film that really stuck with me.

I guess my only other quibble is that Tangled never really gives us a great villain on par with other Disney favorites. Mother Gothel is sinister, sure, but she's more overbearing Jewish mother than epically evil (and it's funny, you can't help but wonder whether the whole movie is some sort of reflection of typical Jewish anxieties / hang-ups - I know, it sounds weird, but I got that vibe from the script - anyone else?). In any case, I kept expecting Gothel's controlling presence to be a mere warm-up before we got to a bigger, badder badguy of some sort, but no dice. It does kind of mesh with the movie's less epic, more personal style of fairy-tale, but still.

In the end though, Tangled really won me over. Like I said, it just seemed to possess that intangible quality that makes Disney animation so often feel a cut above the rest. The magic was back, no question. The movie looks amazing, and the voicework is great. Tangled - Disney's 50th animated feature - is, I think, a worthy addition to the Disney cannon.

My Grade: A-

TV Dramarama: WALKING DEAD and BOARDWALK EMPIRE Finales, FRINGE thoughts, and ... SMALLVILLE Fights Back!

It's been a big week or so for TV drama - in more ways than one. In one respect, there's been, well, a lot of drama regarding TV series. As I spoke at length about yesterday, one of TV's best series - Terriers - was cancelled by FX after only one (albeit brilliant) season on the air. Meanwhile, there was great news for AMC, as The Walking Dead's season finale scored the highest rating EVER for a scripted drama on cable in the advertiser-friendly 18-49 demo. Lesson learned: never underestimate the drawing power of zombies. But, speaking about the TV drama in terms of genre, it's been a pretty damn good couple of months for quality scripted series. Sure, there have been the usual duds on the network side and elsewhere, but personally, I've been more than happy and satiated with stellar seasons of FRINGE, THE WALKING DEAD, TERRIERS, BOARDWALK EMPIRE, and, surprisingly, SMALLVILLE. I've already covered Terriers, but let me talk for a moment about the other series I just mentioned.

- Let me start with THE WALKING DEAD. To me, the success of The Walking Dead on AMC is absolutely one of the coolest things to happen to TV in a long, long time. Has the show been perfect? No, not by a longshot - we've seen some clunky dialogue, some rather questionable new characters who don't measure up to their comic book counterparts, and plotting that has on occasion been a bit all-over-the-place. But - and this is a big but - despite some flaw, The Walking Dead has been six episodes of true must-see television. Maybe it's a work in progress, but hey, after only six episode, the series is already more compelling than just about anything else out there. The caliber of talent involved in the show - from a savvy showrunner in Frank Darabount to a great lead actor in Andrew Lincoln - is still off the charts. And the story possibilities - both in terms of adapting material from Robert Kirkman's comics and for creating new stories -is nearly endless. Already, we've seen several major deviations from the comic - Shane still lives! - and that's cool. Though I'd like to see characters like Michonne and Tyreese introduced, I'm also happy that the show has found its own identity. To me, the series has recaptured that feeling from Lost where you're eager to know more about these characters and excited to see what craziness they end up in next. Again, I am continually somewhat shocked to see just how much backlash is out there, particularly online. I mean, come on guys, chill. This is a high quality zombie-apocalypse series on TV, one that in six episodes has already produced at least a couple of excellent hours of television.

In particular, I thought the finale was quite possibly the best episode since the kickass pilot. The whole CDC thing was a completely new plotline, not found in the comics, but it was handled extremely well, and served to really up the tension and set the stakes for the rest of the series. A tenant of The Walking Dead has always been that the zombie plague needs no elaborate explanation - it just is. But, the CDC plotline helped to get over that initial hump of "how did this happen" and establish that there is no true safe haven - the entire world has, as far as we know, been overrun with ravenous zombies. Basically, civilization is %#&$'ed.

Mostly, that finale was simply intense. The desperation of the survivors to escape the about-to-blow-up CDC compound was palpable, and their last-minute run for safety was truly thrilling. And man, how about Noah Emmerich, guest-starring as sole-surviving CDC employee Jenner? Simply badass - it was a shame to see him get blown to kingdom come because he would have made for an interesting addition to the show's cast of characters. As for what he whispered to Rick? There are some pretty obvious guesses, especially for fans of the books, but hey, nice little moment of mystery.

All in all, I seriously do not get how people can be hating on The Walking Dead. There is certainly room for improvement in Season 2, but man, the show has me hooked, and the possibilities for awesomeness in the season(s) ahead is huge. My take: kickass finale that left me wanting more - the wait for Season 2 is going to be tough. Luckily, I've got Volume 13 of the graphic novels sitting on my desk at home.

- Now, sure, The Walking Dead very quickly became the king of Sunday night drama, but let's not overlook the rich, complex storylines of HBO's period gangster series, BOARDWALK EMPIRE. I haven't talked a lot about the show here on the blog, but honestly I think it's a tough show to talk about episodically. The show unfolds more like a novel than a traditional TV show, with episodes seamlessly flowing into one another, and storylines methodically progressing over the course of the entire season. That made the show feel slow at times, but to me, the build up was worth it, and paid off in a big way as the season wound down and the intensity heightened. The show has so much depth, it's staggering. Each episode is jam-packed with characters, places, historical details - you almost need a Wikipedia session after each episode to keep up. But, even if some of the details of the storylines could become a bit confusing, the characters are what ultimately made the show pop in Season 1. I mean, holy lord - what an incredible assemblage of acting talent. Steve Buscemi, Michael Shannon, Michael Pitt, Michael Stuhlbarg, Gretchen Mol, Kelly McDonald ... the list goes on and on. All of the priciples were turning in award-worthy work throughout Season 1, to be honest. Though of course, Michael Shannon was a huge scene-stealer. His religious-zealot federal investigator character was intense as hell and ultra-disturbing.

This is the rare show on TV that feels both gripping and enriching. There's sex, violence, and intrigue but it also serves as a fascinating window into another era. Obviously, it's heightened reality and somewhat filtered through a modern lense. But, I can't remember the last time a show prompted me to do so much research about historical fact in relation to the storylines presented in each episode.

I do think Boardwalk stumbled a bit in the middle of the season, but it really regained its footing for the last five or six episodes, to the point where, each week, I was 100% absorbed with each new episode. Here's another show where there seemed to have been some backlash - perhaps because the prerelease hype was so big. Well, I think Boardwalk Empire enjoyed an incredibly successful first season - one of the most interesting, unique, high-quality shows on TV.

- And then there's FRINGE. Look, it's clear that there are a lot of great shows on the air right now - some really excellent dramas across both network and cable. But, if I had to choose my *favorite*, it'd be hard to say anything other than Fringe. Even last year, while Lost was still on the air, I felt that Fringe trumped it in almost every way. And now, with Lost gone, Fringe to me is the clear flagbearer of kickass sci-fi TV. And yet, for some inexplicable reason, Fringe has suffered in the ratings and was recently condemned by FOX to Friday night purgatory.

Now, is Friday night an instant death-sentance for Fringe? No, not necessarilly. Some genre shows - Smallville, for instance - have managed to grab solid ratings on Friday and, thanks to DVR, have maintained their core audience despite a less-than-ideal timeslot. Fringe at this point has a dedicated enough fanbase that it should be okay. But still, you can't help but worry. Fringe is a show that seems to have A LOT of life in it - I could easily see it running for several more years. A lot of that is due to how well the show's been plotted. Everything seems to be moving in a forward direction, towards a clear endgame. The show's storyarcs have been impeccably told, but at the same time, they've been incredibly ambitious.

I mean, how many shows would dare go for half-a-season with every episode alternating between two alternate universes? Fringe, this season, has just done that, taking place on "our" world, Earth 1, on even weeks, and shifting to a darker, parallel universe, "Earth 2," on odd weeks. On Earth 2, we've seen mirror-image versions of all the core characters, and that's been the catalyst for great storytelling, and also for some absolutely kickass acting from the likes of John Noble, Anna Torv, and Lance Reddick - who have each stepped up and played two versions of Walter, Olivia, and Broyles with remarkable effectiveness. It's pretty amazing - everyone remembers that when the show first started, many, including myself, singled out Anna Torv as perhaps the show's weak link. How wrong we were. Torv has positively ruled it this season and over the last couple of episodes especially. Her performance in last week's climactic episode was downright gravitas-infused. And hey, that's saying something when you're acting alongside the likes of Lance Reddick (who was also 100% badass this past week) and John Noble (who helped Walter coin yet another memorable term - "vagenda" ...!).

It's amazing though that, for several weeks now, Fringe has pulled off the delicate balancing act of presenting individual stories within the two separate worlds while also linking them all back to the big, epic, overarching plotline. Again, Fringe has very craftily paced itself this season so that we really feel like we're watching chapters of a story that is slowly building towards something huge. And there is that definitive sense that the pieces of the puzzle are slowly being revealed. It's something that Lost never really accomplished. But Fringe's mysteries are there to service the story, not just there for the sake of having mysteries - and that's what's helping to make Season 3 of Fringe serialized TV at its finest.

Suffice it to say, the story of the two Olivias swapping places - with the "real" Olivia trapped and brainwashed on Earth 2, and the faux-Olivia ("Fauxlivia") impersonating her on Earth 1 in order to carry out the Walter of her world's nefarious agenda -- well, it's been one hell of a sci-fi epic, the likes of which we've rarely seen pulled off so well on TV. There's been action, humor, and a real sense of intellectualism. Fringe never fails to make you think. It never fails to stretch your imagination. It's been on a roll, and it's quite possibly been the best thing on TV. If nothing else, it possesses that old "must-see" feeling that shows like Lost and 24 and The X-Files once had. This is the show where you have to put aside everything else, turn down the lights, and get comfortable in order to fully enjoy. But if you're not onboard - what are you waiting for? Catch up on DVD, on Hulu, whatever. If you're not watching, you're seriously missing out.

- Finally, I do want to mention SMALLVILLE. Don't call it a comeback, but ... okay, call it a comeback. Because yes, I'm as shocked as anyone, but Smallville has actually been building some serious momentum in recent weeks. As the clock ticks down on the show's final season, lo and behold, the show is actually starting to fire on all cylinders. It's enough to bring a smile to this hardened Superman fanboy's face.

I'm not sure exactly what's responsible for the uptick in quality on Smallville. The writing seems a bit sharper, for one thing. So often, this show has relied on the same, tired cliches in every episode ... Someone is possessed by someone else, misunderstandings and altercations ensue. Clark doubts himself, goes emo, and broods for a while. A cheesy villain of the week appears, and Clark conveniently deals with them without anyone ever suspecting that he and The Blur are one and the same. But thanks to an intriguing mix of ongoing storylines and villains, Smallville's actually been a bit - dare I say it? - unpredictable as of late. We've got the all sorts of anti-vigilante stuff going on, with the Suicide Squad, General Lane, and Slade Wilson. We've got the looming threat of Darkseid and his Fourth World minions. And the slow-build towards the return of Lex Luthor, who we recently found out is, in fact, the half sister of one recently-deputized Tess Mercer. The existence of a couple of compelling serialized storylines has helped Smallville mix things up this season, no question - there are some cool storyarcs that can rotate around a bit, so there's not the early burnout we got from neverending arcs like the Doomsday thing from a while back. Meanwhile, as a longtime comics fan, I'm definitely getting a kick out of seeing the likes of Deathstroke and Deadshot on TV. I mean, I never ever thought I'd see out-there Jack Kirby characters like Darkseid, Desaad, Granny Goodness, and The Female Furies on primetime television ... and yet, here they are.

Perhaps the most noticeable factor in Smallville's current hot-streak, however, is the suddenly-clicking relationship between Lois and Clark. Now that Lois FINALLY knows all of Clark's secrets, the show has been free to really deepen their relationship and make it, well, fun. Not solely based around angst and secrets and lies anymore, the Lois & Clark moments on the show have really popped as of late. And I'll say this: Erica Durance has really stepped it up, doing some of her best acting to date on the show and really starting to embody the Lois Lane character. Durance has always had the basic ingredients to make for a great Lois, but of late she's really added a new depth and weight to the character. All of a sudden, I'm finding myself really liking and rooting for Lois, and really believing in this show's Lois and Clark relationship. Kudos to Durance, who has really become an iconic Lois Lane - not an easy feat.

Meanwhile, this past week's episode was particularly fun, if only for the much-appreciated return of Jonathan Glover as Lionel Luthor - who was the show's best villain for much of its run. Thanks to some alternate universe shenanigans, Lionel was able to appear despite being dead on the show thanks to Lex. Not only that, but the writers cleverly found a way to bring this alternate Lionel back into the show's main universe. It was awesome seeing Glover back in fine form as the ruthless and maniacal Lionel - he had some truly sadistic scenes with Tom Welling's Clark, including a brutal belt-beatdown of a depowered Clark that had me smiling gleefully at its sheer over-the-top evil-factor.

In any case, it feels good to say that after years of inconsistency, Smallville has pulled itself up, scraped itself off, and delivered a string of several near-Super episodes in a row, a rarity in the show's ten-year history. In fact, Smallville might be the most consistently enjoyable right now that its ever been. Who woulda thunk it? It's nice to see though. Even amidst the rough patches (and there have been some very rough patches), I've always rooted for Smallville, because its shown itself capable - when it is at its best - of delivering great moments worthy of the Superman legend. It's cool to see the show fighting the good fight and, let's hope, on its way to going out with a bang.

- That's all for now - once more, Happy Hanukkah!