This year marks the 200th birthday of British novelist Charles Dickens and even though he’s been dead since 1870 that isn’t stopping the BBC from heartily marking the occasion. And, honestly, that’s OK with me.

The celebrations kicked off after Christmas, just before the dawn of the new year, with a three-part adaptation of one of Dickens’ most celebrated titles Great Expectations.

Now, for those new to the blog, my wife and I love a good mini-series based on a British novel. Dickens’ Little Dorrit, which I reviewed in a roundabout way last year, is simply one of the best mini-series you’ll find. Considering we both love Great Expectations, the novel, we had high hopes. The cast looked promising too with Gillian Anderson, a great actress in her own right, and David Suchet who all fans of British detective dramas will recognize instantly.

Unfortunately, this particular adaptation, has been aptly coined by my wife as “Great Expectations for Dummies.”

The whole problem hinges on the brief nature of the mini-series. Three parts is hardly enough time to properly tell this story. As a result, a lot of what is left inferred and implied in the novel (and, my wife adds, in an earlier serialization) must be explicitly told to the viewer. This ruins a lot of both the character and plot development. Things seem incredibly rushed and entire storylines are deleted for the sake of simplicity. If you’re expecting to meet the beloved aged-P, for example, you’re shot out of luck.

Sadly, what could’ve been a great adaptation of a great novel ends up being somewhat of a rush job. Compare this mini-series, a tiny adaptation of a colossal work, to something like Little Dorrit, which was thirteen-part mini-series based on a Dickens novella, and, well, the proof is in the pudding. A good adaptation takes the real meaty, interesting bits and lets us dig into them. A shoddy adaptation tries to cram hundreds of pages into a ten-minute parley. For connoisseurs of great television, Great Expectations will satisfy (and the Art Direction is absolutely breath-taking!) but for those who were looking forward to a thorough and successful adaptation, in the history of other great adaptations, you’ll have to look elsewhere. Dig up your VHS copy of the last BBC adaptation, says my wife.

When the Sherlock series first debuted a couple of years ago on the BBC Maria and I almost missed it. Surprising because we’re both huge fans of both Sherlock Holmes and British detective dramas in general. This time around, for the second series of Sherlock, we were on the ball. And waiting.

The first 90-minute installment in the three-episode second series run is called ‘A Scandal in Belgravia’ and like the mysteries from the last season it’s a take off on a familiar Sherlock story with a whole bunch of twists and turns.

Sherlock and Watson find themselves confronted with a number of mysteries from an outdoorsman killed by a backfiring car to a dead man in a trunk to a dominatrix trying to bring down the British monarchy. It’s a bit of an everything goes but, of course, like any good Sherlock story it all works itself out in the end and ties itself together in a neat little package.

What’s great about Sherlock is, well, a number of things really. The writing is brilliant. From quick-witted dialogue to out-standing plots I really have to applaud the writing staff. I mean, you really need to have the longview to see your way through such complicated twists and turns and it’s impressive. The acting is top-notch. Benedict Cumberbatch remains an absolute perfect Sherlock: disengaged and disinterested yet sharp as a knife and violently unemotional. Martin Freeman is a great Dr. Watson as well: humble, clever, and wholly loveable—yet dangerous, too.

As far as the episode itself, ‘A Scandal in Belgravia’ is pretty quickly-paced, even for Sherlock. It’s difficult to follow, at times, and perhaps that’s simply because they wanted to pack as much into the episode as possible. At several points I was sure there wasn’t going to be a clear and concise resolution to the case—I hate when detective shows end up with muddy conclusions—but I wasn’t let down. This episode packs it in and doesn’t let up, you’re in for a real mind trip but it’s absolutely worth it in the end.

The story itself is interesting, centering around a scheme to bring down the government and the makings for an international incident, and leave lots of room for the characters to amaze us. Like Sherlock from last season, this episode packs the same energy and, importantly, comedy that I loved. Cumberbatch and Freeman have great chemistry on the show and this episode even gave us a chance to enjoy the company of Mrs. Hudson, the landlady. If I had a criticism of the cast it’d be Lestrade, so far his character has left me just a little bit disinterested—compare him to Guy Ritchie’s take on the hapless inspector in his adaptation and they’re miles apart.

I will say this: I was a tad bit skeptical given some of the controversy surrounding this episode. A plot line about a dominatrix and what some of the papers were calling “full nudity” ended up being nudity—but, tastefully, you don’t see anything—and, well, a dominatrix but nothing bizarre and no scenes of her at, um, work. I could editorialize here and lament over what’s wrong with hyper-sexualized shows like Game of Thrones but suffice to say I’m glad Sherlock opted for tastefulness over curb appeal.

Overall, ‘A Scandal in Belgravia’ is another fine installment in a very fine series. When you hear “modern adaptation of Sherlock Holmes” it’s enough to send shivers up the spine of even the most dedicated of Sherlock fans. Fear not, BBC’s Sherlock has absolutely hit the mark. It’s high-tech, high-paced, and high-drama. A warning though, jumping in mid-series is not recommended. If you’re interested in this show get your hands on the three-episode first season and start there. And enjoy.

Favourite Films of 2011

I had a quick look around because I was curious and it seems like Tree of Life is topping everyone’s lists this year. We have it in the queue but haven’t got around to watching it yet. I’m curious now though and I wonder if it would change things if I were to watch it first.

The curious bit, however, about the two films that did make my list is that both feature the unmatched Paul Giamatti as the leading actor. This wasn’t intentional but when I looked at everything I’d watched this year and boiled it down to just a couple of my favourites… Do I have a particular bias towards anything that Paul Giamatti does? Perhaps. Is he undoubtedly the best actor working in Hollywood right now? Yes, sir.

Barney’s Version

Barney’s Version is a brilliant take on the novel by Canadian literary heavyweight Mordecai Richler. I remembering having to read The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz in my O.A.C. (Grade 13) English class. I probably only understood about a third of what I read at the time but I can certainly appreciate a heavily nuanced and deeply moving plot a lot more now that I’m older. Barney’s Version is a movie about love, marriage, family, and memory. It’s wonderfully-acted (duh), well-written (duh), and unfolds itself in a fantastically pleasing fashion distilling all the very best parts of a well-developed Woody Allen movie. Complicated, comedic, and charming sums it up pretty well too.

Win Win

Win Win follows in the same genre of comedy as another of my all-time favourite movies Lars and the Real Girl. I’ll sum it up like this: Small town, quirky characters, social conundrums, and the kind of plot that sometimes seems like something you couldn’t make up if you tried. Like Lars, we’re treated to ninety minutes of some truly great and wholly surreal story-telling about people, a place, and a number of situations we’d never even thought about before. In this film, Giamatti plays and small-time lawyer and high-school wrestling coach as if he were born for the role.

Favourite Music of 2011

I have to be honest here, I’m losing my touch a little bit. It used to be that I’d troll around the Internet for hours every week seeking out new musical entrees to dig my teeth into. This past year, between teaching, walking the dog, union work, and taking a couple of extra courses online I haven’t had the opportunity to avail myself of a whole lot of new music. I worry I might’ve missed something great—it keeps me up at night.

Paul Simon, So Beautiful or So What

If you ever get a late night phone call from a heavily-disguised voice saying they’ve got me hostage and won’t release me unless you pay $1,000,000 the first thing you should do is ask some kind of question that only I can answer, just to prove they really have me and that I’m alive. If you asked who my favourite artist of all time is the answer, bar none, is Paul Simon. If the hostage-takers say differently then I’m probably already dead.

I didn’t love Paul Simon’s 2006 Surprise. Musically it had a lot going out and I loved that but Simon felt vocally weak, tired even. I don’t like tired Paul Simon. I used to put on Surprise and long for the Graceland days when Paul was younger and more energetic and I worried that maybe, finally, the great Paul Simon was on the out and out. Of course, I was absolutely wrong.

So Beautiful or So What is Simon’s greatest album since Graceland. It’s a guitar album—which is a pretty awesome direction for Simon—and features a lot of songs driven by virtuosic guitar melodies. It’s clear that Paul Simon has some serious guitar chops and he didn’t want us to forget. Both lyrically and musically this album is an absolute powerhouse. It runs the gamut from slow, lyrically rich near-ballads to lyrically rich up-beat, foot-stomping tracks and even some songs that are both.

tUnE-yArDs, w h o k i l l

Be honest, the first thing you think when you see a band name stylized like that is, “Avoid!”

Fortunately for me, when I first year about tUnE-yArDs it was on the CBC Radio’s Q—if I had actually seen their name first I probably wouldn’t even have given them a chance. Prejudice avoided!

tUnE-yArDs is mostly New England-based Merrill Garbus and a whole lot of loops. Her first album, I gather, was recorded entirely on cassette tape and was a one-woman show. 2011′s w h o k i l l is studio-produced and features help from some of her friends as well.

How to describe how great w h o k i l l is? I’ll say a few things. First, Garbus evidently spent some time in Kenya, a place that I’ve been to as well, and adapts a lot of African percussion rhythms into her music. Second, there are saxophones. Third, well OK, tUnE-yArDs is like a jazz, afro-funk, nouveau politique explosion that packs so much power I feel like you could take this record, play it for the people of North Korea, and instantly the entire country would rise up, overthrow their government, and democratically elect a new leader. Oh, and it’d be a she.

Bon Iver, Bon Iver

I missed the Bon Iver craze the first time around. Despite the best efforts of my good friend Andrew, I never really bothered with Justin Vernon’s 2008 For Emma, Forever Ago. I heard all about the mystique of being locked in a cabin in the woods, writing and recording using an old reel-to-reel recorder or something like that. I liked the idea but, for whatever reason, not enough to actually do any investigating. Finally—through what must’ve been an act of compassionate grace from the God—I decided to check out Bon Iver’s self-titled second album.

What how.

Bon Iver (2011) is like a sonic dream that Brian Eno would be envious of. What sets this album a part from everything else released in 2011 is the kind of depth packed into every track. The songs are stories about people and places set to music that can only be described as something out of someone’s wildest imagination. It’s soft and subtle and you kind of just float a long but there’s so much going on at the same time that you’re swept away just trying to take it all in. Not to mention Vernon’s now-trademarked vocal delivery which is, also, like something out of a dream I had once.

R.E.M., Part Lies, Part Heart, Part Truth, Part Garbage (1982 – 2011)

It turns out that half of my picks this year were thanks to one particular friend with very good musical tastes.

I’ve always liked R.E.M., kind of in the background. Growing up when I did I missed my chance to like them when they were at their very best so whenever I thought about accessing their catalog of music it always seemed a little bit daunting. Where to begin? I knew, from loving Taking Heads, that I would like their early stuff but I was dying for some kind of career retrospective, something to serve as an overview.

Thankfully, Part Lies, Part Heart, Part Truth, Part Garbage came out and it was a steal on iTunes—40 tracks for $16. As far as retrospectives go, you really can’t go wrong here.

Favourite Television of 2011

It’s been a decidedly good year for television and if I’ve been remiss when it comes to seeking out good new music I think I’ve compensated in terms of what we’re watching these days. There’s a lot out there so it’s been a bit of a challenge picking out just a couple but here they are.

The Good Wife

The Good Wife is a legal drama with a lot of layers. Underneath the normal case per episode format is a pretty hefty plot line about politics, adultery, and corruption—a depth that sets it a part from all the other legal dramas that came before it. It’s as much a character study as it is a series of cases to be solved and that’s what I like about it. It’s timely and relevant and tackles big issues with a great cast of characters.

Once Upon a Time

From some of the people behind the epically successful LOST, Once Upon a Time takes a bunch of fairytale characters and plunks them down in the real world with absolutely no idea who they are. Like LOST, Once Upon a Time plays with the idea of alternate universes, alternate identities, memory, and mystery. I’ll say this: Finally, a show that we can really sink our teeth into.

Honourable mention goes to shows that have become reliable stalwarts like Modern Family (which never ceases to be funny) and Being Erica (which ended its run in dignity after jumping the shark mid-season).

I didn’t grow up on fairy tales — I grew up on Sesame Street — but my wife did and that’s the reason why she wanted us to watch ABC’s Once Upon a Time. I was skeptical at first, as one would understandably be when approaching a television show based on the premise of fairy tale characters living in real life. But after an episode, and then another, and then another, you suddenly realize that this show’s grown on you, and fast.

Indeed, after the first episode we were hooked.

Once Upon a Time is from some of the creators and writers of Lost, a show that I loved and have written about extensively, and it successfully harnesses all of that goodness that made Lost such incredible television. It channels the imagination, the story-telling, the awe-inspiring, and couples it with some of the best plotlines known to TV. Not to mention twists and turns. It’s that same great all-encompassing imaginative story-telling that made Lost great and it’s that same story-telling that’s going to make Once Upon a Time a winner as well.

In case you aren’t already interested, the premise is simple. Following the marriage of Snow White and Prince Charming in the fairy tale reality the Evil Queen puts a curse the whole fairy tale realm, sending them into real life with no memory of their pasts or their true identities. Their only hope is Emma, that daughter of Snow White and Prince Charming who is hidden in a magical wardrobe and saved from the curse. Emma is transported, as a baby, into the real world along with everyone else from the fairy tale realm but since she was so young she has no memory of her parents.

Emma, played by Jennifer Morrison of House fame, grows up on the foster care system and, at 18, has a son of her own who she gives up. The show begins with her young son tracking her down and bringing her back to Storybrooke, the setting of our show, where all the fairy tale characters are obliviously living their lives. As it turns out, Emma’s son was adopted by the mayor of Storybrooke, the Evil Queen. From then on it’s up to Henry, Emma’s 10-year old son, to convince her and the rest of Storybrooke of their true identities all the while plotlines and character traits from the fairy tale world continue to play themselves out in real life.

Oh, and I said the premise was simple.

Nonetheless, Once Upon a Time is a breath-takingly original show. It has the quality markings of a show like Lost, thanks to its creators, and it has what’s so far been a top-notch cast. And, according to preliminary ratings, despite its late-season start it’s maintaining a solid viewing audience even after its pilot episode—something that’s incredible rare in the TV world.

If you’re looking for something original and interesting to watch, something that distinguishes itself from all of the other rif-raf out there, I’d suggest giving Once Upon a Time a try.

When you combine two of your most favourite things in the world the result is not always what you thought it would be. For example, combining a delicious cheeseburger with an equally delicious piece of chocolate cake probably won’t end well. Chocolate cakeburger, anyone?

How about combining two of my most favourite television shows? Holmes Inspection, the Mike Holmes branded inspection and renovation show, and Ghost Hunters, the SyFy channel’s flagship paranormal investigation franchise. The result, well duh, is Paranormal Home Inspectors and I’m not sure it’s all that much better than a chocolate cake burger.

Paranormal Home Inspectors is new this fall on Discovery Channel Canada. It’s based, as far as I can tell, mainly in and around Toronto and feels very much like Holmes Inspection in terms of production value and quality. But, of course, this show involves ghosts.

Let me take you through a typical episode.

The Paranormal Home Inspectors team is made of up three personalities: a psychic, a paranormal investigator, and a registered home inspector. The show opens up with a client meeting; here the client takes us through their house explaining the kind of “paranormal” activity that’s taking place in their house. In the first few episodes that I’ve seen so far claims of activity can range from lights flickering on and off, faucets turning themselves on, fishbowls exploding, sounds of footsteps, and strange smells.

After getting a list of what’s going on, the next logical step in this sort of a show is to send in the real home inspector to take a look. Lots of things, of course, can be easily explained away. In one episode, he debunks growing sounds (evidence of raccoons in the attic), closet doors opening (uneven floor), a shattering fishbowl (crack in the glass and street traffic vibration), and a strange smell (evidence of a leaky roof and mould). Purely as a home inspection show, it’s pretty interesting. But the home inspector’s job is also to debunk the paranormal, too. Here it gets a little hilarious. Always the skeptic, our home inspector explains away things like faucets that, according to the client, turn themselves on by assuring the client that she must, in fact, turn them on in her sleep! Seems a little far-fetched, but buddy’s there to provide some kind of a non-paranormal explanation.

Next, we bring in the psychic. Actually, I believe they refer to her as a natural healer but in this case her healing extends to seeing and speaking with the dead whilst wandering around the suburbs. I’ll say no more about the psychic, because I’d rather not waste my time here, suffice it to say she adds a little bit of colour to the show although, really, we could do without.

Finally, our “paranormal investigator” takes over the house, inevitably, with a night-time investigation. And, inevitably, all kinds of things begin to happen from the investigator’s infrared detectors being set off, to noises and bangs, and even an inconclusive chase outside into the backyard in one episode. This section of the show is pretty part-and-parcel for these types of paranormal shows and unlike Ghost Hunters, where nothing in particular happens most of the time (as you’d expect), the episodes of Paranormal Home Inspectors that I watched all seemed charged with activity. You have to question the editing and staging here, methinks.

What’s more interesting, I find, is the background research that the team does. In one episode, investigators doing some background investigation find that the train tracks behind a client’s house were actually the location of a horrific crash in the 1900′s. In another episode, and you’ll love this one, the investigator finds several reports of UFO activity around a client’s house and suggests that his perfectly normal experience of sleep paralysis might actually be due to being abducted by aliens. She then goes on to assure him that she’s not saying that’s what’s happening, but it might be.

In the end, Paranormal Home Inspectors  is as refreshingly original as it is hilarious. In fact, I’ll keep watching this show only because it’s so bizarre, and I love the genre. If I have any say over the next genre-crossing experiment that desperate Canadian producers should try my vote is to combine Storage Wars and The View. You figure it out.

If you do a Google Image Search for Prime Suspect you’ll find that the majority of the pictures are of Helen Mirren, not Maria Bello. That’s because the NBC version of Prime Suspect which premiered last week is a remake of the British version that came before.

Prime Suspect, with Helen Mirren, was a watershed police drama which ran from the early 90′s until 2006. Mirren owned the role of Jane Tennison, a female police detective in what was then a highly exclusive boy’s club. Struggling against the rampant sexism, Mirren’s character faced down her own demons in the form of alcoholism and a swath of destructive relationships.

Helen Mirren’s Prime Suspect was gritty, violent, and honest taking the characters into the seediest underbelly of London and holding nothing back. Even the camera work felt raw, often finding no qualms with getting right into the actors blemished faces.

Prime Suspect also broke another boundary. Seasons—or series, as they’re called overseas—consisted not of individual episodes and individual cases but each season was a case unto itself. Every 200+ minute season followed Tennison on a single case allowing for a significant amount of time to track down her “prime suspect” and for the case to unfold.

So, how does the NBC remark stack up?

Since so much of the original Prime Suspect was Helen Mirren, I was curious to see how Maria Bello, her American counterpart would stack up. I have to say, she did an OK job. They’re big shoes to fill after all.

The premiere episode of NBC’s Prime Suspect was pretty decent. It was dark and gritty and as sexist as the British version. Jane Tennison, now called Timoney, is the lone woman in a New York detective squad dominated by fiercely loyal Irish men. Like the original version, the case in the first episode was dark, seedy, and violent. Even the camera work, I pointed out over and over again to my wife (much to her chagrin), was nearly identical to the original series. A very good decision, in my opinion.

But NBC made some decidedly poor decisions as well. Namely, the show’s format. Here the ball was definitely dropped.

Because, after all, Prime Suspect doesn’t have a heck of a lot to set it apart from the billion other police dramas currently on American television. A woman detective facing sexism in the workplace doesn’t sound all that interesting to someone whose already loyal to another brand.

A television series which follows one case for an entire season, now that is a unique proposition.

Unfortunately, I can only imagine that NBC was afraid to take the gamble. I imagine they figured that American audiences would either lose interest or be unable to follow a show in the same format as the original. It’s a shame, if you ask me.

The second poor decision by NBC has to do with timing as well, when exactly the show is placed in time. Staying true to the original Prime Suspect—which was largely a 90′s affair—the NBC version feels a bit schizophrenic. The music, which I always thought was brilliant, comes right out of the 90′s. So is the sexism, and this is where my wife, Maria, made some remarks.

While the highly sexist environment from the original Prime Suspect made a lot of sense—it was the 90′s—the kind of sexism experienced by our American protagonist seems perhaps a little over the top. Sure, Maria agreed, there would probably be a certain level of sexism in an all-male, ethnically Irish, New York detective squad but this much sexism. We wondered if it’s really realistic anymore. After all, while the premise of Prime Suspect might’ve worked very well in the 90′s, when setting it in the present day, does it still make sense?

All in all, it will be a series to follow, at least for now. Deep inside I wish that NBC retained the original format and kept the series set in the 90′s. I wonder if the single case episode format—like all other cop dramas—will draw in viewers. And if the rampant, sometimes over-the-top treatment of Timoney will remain believable. Whatever the case, I’m interested to see how Maria Bello grows into her role and how the talent-packed supporting cast manages to hold her up. It should at least be a good ride while it lasts.

Maria and I are crazy for British period dramas, particularly anything adapted from Charles Dickens.

We recently watched a BBC mini-series called Little Dorrit, adapted from the Dickens serial novel of the same name. It was an incredibly well-done adaptation and if you love 19th century Britain I highly recommend it. This isn’t a television review though.

One feature of Little Dorrit was something that I hadn’t been familiar with before: a debtor’s prison.

Marshalsea debtor’s prison is one of the main focal points for much of the novel and it’s where we find Amy Dorrit, one of the main protagonists. Her father, a disgraced gentleman, has spent the better part of his life imprisoned in Marshalsea for undisclosed debts that he owes. Although we never find out who the father owes money to, we know that he can’t be released until he pays it back. That is, he’s in jail until he can pay off his debts.

Do you already see the fallacy here?

Little Dorrit was originally written as a satire on British society. Also featured in the novel is the famous Circumlocution Office, Dickens’ ingenious name for the local branch of the British government. Of course, both the debtor’s prison and the highly bureaucratized British government are easy targets for satire.

In fact, the debtor’s prison is nearly satirical by its very nature. Imagine, being put in prison until you can pay off your debts but having no way to work or make money—because you’re in prison!

It seems senseless.

So I was surprised when I stumbled across this story which seems to indicate that, at least in principle, the debtor’s prison is still in existence.

Now don’t get me wrong. People who, for financial reasons, are unable to afford to pay fees and fines issued against them shouldn’t be let off scotch-free. The law needs to be upheld, but surely there’s a better way. Off the top of my head I’d say it makes sense to waive the fee in lieu of, say, community service but to keep them in prison with no way to actually repay? I can’t understand.

In this day and age, is there any sense to the notion of locking someone up behind bars because they can’t pay a fine?

Admittedly, Animal Planet’s Finding Bigfoot is a pretty obscure television show. So obscure that it isn’t even listed on Epguides, and it doesn’t even have its own Wikipedia page. Everything has a Wikipedia page these days.

Nevertheless, it’s right up my alley and odds are someone might stumble upon these reviews and give it a look — or give it a pass — as a result. Either way, here we go.

The second episode of Finding Bigfoot finds us in Florida, home to the infamous Skunk Ape (which, incidentally, does have its own Wikipedia page).

Now the so-called Skunk Ape is something particularly interesting to Bigfooters. While Bigfoot sightings in the Pacific Northwest remain reasonably consistent, so too do the sightings of the Skunk Ape in the Florida Everglades—but the two, together, don’t match. Instead, the Skunk Ape is thought to be something of a cousin to the vanilla Bigfoot. Shorter, redder, and accompanied by a pungent methane odor that gives it its name. Still, like Bigfoot, the Skunk Ape has passed from Native American legend into modern times and Finding Bigfoot is about to dig up all they can on the creature.

The episode begins with a visit to a house that appears to be in the thick of the Florida wilderness. This particular family, in their isolated location, seem to be the target of increasingly hostile encounters with the Skunk Ape. It’s a compelling scenario and the investigators immediately explain that the Skunk Ape is probably becoming territorial—the homeowners have encroached on its land. Throughout a number of sightings the Skunk Ape appears to have smashed a bird feeder, climbed over a fence (breaking a post-cap and leaving a footprint), and even managed to open the residents’ front storm door… leaving a hand print behind.

While the first-hand stories are interesting, the actual physical evidence, despite being called “overwhelming” by lead investigator Matt Moneymaker, comes up a little short. The plaster cast footprint is difficult to make out, the hand print on the door could’ve easily been a smudge, and the bird feeder, while strange, is certainly explained by other means. Nonetheless, the team immediately concludes that there must be a Skunk Ape and sets about on an inconclusive night-time investigation. After 1 1/2 episodes this is starting to feel like a distinct formula.

Sadly, the rest of this episode becomes a really strange and awkward foray into the territory of the Seminole Indians (I’m using the American parlance here).

Bobo, of course, knows a guy who knows a guy who’s seen the Skunk Ape and so what begins with an airboat trip into what feels very much like a tourist trap, ends with the team meeting someone’s cousin in the middle of a Florida swap. It’s strange, and I get the impression from the sheer awkwardness that the team exudes while talking and working with the Seminole people, that they feel rather uncomfortable with the whole setup. I don’t know how to describe it, other than the team seems to feel like they’ve landed on Mars and must know interact with its alien residents to discover the secret to their long life. Something out of, maybe, Star Trek?

All in all, the episode is rather disappointing, even mildly racist. There are a few interesting captures on the thermal cameras during one of the night investigations but they’re inconclusive and it doesn’t seem like the team bothers with any follow-up analysis. I know, in the end, that this is a summer filler show. It’s cheap to shoot and produce and for the Sunday 10pm timeslot it’ll probably do well but it isn’t great TV, even by Bigfoot-hunting reality TV show standards. The format is becoming incredibly tired and predictable: interview, night hunt, interview, night hunt, ad nauseum. The team itself is becoming barely bearable and their roles are all but predetermined from the first episode between skeptic, weirdo, and enthusiast. But, dedicated Bigfooter that I am, I will soldier on, call it “research,” suppose.

I like Bigfoot. In fact, I like a lot of weird things, like the paranormal, aliens, and cryptoids but Bigfoot, or Sasquatch, tops them all. Weird, I know. But you can imagine my interest when I heard about a new show on Animal Planet called Finding Bigfoot. I had to check it out.

Now if you’re into these sorts of shows then let me lay out the field for you. Finding Bigfoot falls somewhere in between a show like MonsterQuest and a show like Ghost Hunters. For those of you that don’t follow these kinds of shows  let me put it to you this way. Finding Bigfoot falls in the spectrum between a show featuring tenured academics weighing in on strange creatures and unusual happenings, and a show featuring a bunch of guys running around hunting ghosts with night-vision cameras.

For me, a show like MonsterQuest (rest in peace), was the perfect platform for exploring unusual creatures like Bigfoot. The show interviewed real, reliable witnesses, it featured academics with real degrees from universities that you could look up online, and it didn’t try to over-dramatize the facts. In fact, when a team went out hunting a creature—and they usually did at some point—it was terribly scientific and not usually very compelling. But that’s reality, right?

Finding Bigfoot is several large, seven-foot strides away from a scientifically-based show like MonsterQuest.

The show follows four members of BFRO, the Bigfoot Field Research Organization. You can look them up online, they’re real, and they’ve been around for a while. The organization, and these team members, take themselves very seriously and even though the head of the organization, and the team, has the last name ‘Moneymaker’ we’re expected to take them seriously too. Oh, and did I mention one of the guys on the team is named ‘Bobo’?

Still, the show takes itself very seriously. In this first episode they’re on the hunt for a Bigfoot in Georgia and based off some admittedly compelling footage from a state trooper’s dashcam, they round up local townspeople who’ve had a closer encounter with the hairy beast and hear their stories. After collecting some stories, and some photographs of alleged Bigfoot tracks, they head into the bush to follow up on two accounts.

Pretty quickly, everyone in the team falls into their roles.

Moneymaker, the team leader, is about the least skeptical person on the face of the earth. Disconcerting, to be honest, but it is what it is. At the slightest suggestion of a Bigfoot encounter it seems like he’s ready to jump on the bandwagon and declare the beast officially spotted. His one redeeming moment in this episode comes deep in the forest, where he coaches a frightened-looking fisherfellow into recounting some inconsistencies in his story. Maybe Moneymaker is a skeptic after all?

Bobo, for his part, pretty much just acts like a Bigfoot for most of the episode, and maybe that’s where he shines. When the team re-enacts the dashcam footage of the Georgia Bigfoot crossing a road, Bobo plays the part convincingly, bounding across the highway at night but failing to capture the precise stride of the creature. The oddest part of this episode is that despite having the distinguished title of “Expert Bigfoot Field Caller” it’s the two other male members of the team who do all the Bigfoot calls.

Cliff Barackman is the third member of the team and it seems, from this episode, that his specialty is footprints. When the team finds some off of a dirt trail he gets right down to business, and appears down-right giddy. Of the three male team members though, he seems the most credible although, as we’ll see, none of them are really sporting any immediately discernible scholarly credentials.

The last member of the team is the only female member, Ranae, who’s title is “Field Biologist”. Her real role on the team, however, seems to be as skeptic. And when I say skeptic, on a team that’s pretty ready to eat up just about any “evidence” they find, skeptic doesn’t mean necessarily a whole lot.

OK, so I’m a bit critical but to be truthful it isn’t a terrible show. They go out and collect eye witness reports, many of which are very compelling, they round up some interesting evidence in the dashcam clip and some tracks they find, and then they go off and hunt for Bigfoot at night. To be fair, Bigfoot is thought to be nocturnal so it isn’t just a stunt to make for good TV. Not necessarily.

Finding Bigfoot seems to walk the line between reality television and documentary. There are some interesting things going on here and, to be honest, any TV about Bigfoot is good TV to me. Sadly, it isn’t the caliber of a show like MonsterQuest that got down to the actual study of creatures like Bigfoot. Here, the team seems far too eager to find a Bigfoot and to catalog pretty much everything they discover as evidence. Still, I’m only one episode in and maybe they’re still finding their feet. Pun intended.

I stumbled across the new BBC series Sherlock by accident. Frankly, I’m surprised I hadn’t heard about it earlier. Both Maria and I are huge Sherlock Holmes fans, and huge mystery fans in general, but somehow this slipped passed our radar.

For as long as there have been moving pictures, there have been adaptations of the Sherlock Holmes stories. Some have been brilliant. Some have been otherwise. Some have depicted Holmes as rather tame and mild-mannered. Others, like Guy Ritchie’s interpretation, have picked up on Holmes’ lesser savoury habits and tendencies. But the BBC’s Sherlock depicts the famous detective, and his affable partner, in an entirely new way.

Sherlock is an adaptation of the classic Holmes franchise set in modern-day London.

Of course, upon first hearing the premise—a modern day adaptation of Sherlock Holmes—you might scoff, I know I did, but after giving it a chance I found that I would be more than rebuffed. This series, in fact, is brilliant.

Now the key to pulling off a good Sherlock series, of course, is hitting upon a good Sherlock Holmes. Fail to find a good Sherlock and the show will never get off the ground Fortunately, BBC have done an incredible job in casting Benedict Cumberbatch as the famous detective. Their Sherlock is young and modern. A recluse with no time for social niceties and driven, as a good Sherlock should be, to peculiar behaviour. He is sharp-spoken and quick-witted and has head just far enough in the clouds to remain pretty oblivious to all but the facts crucial to his cases. His partner in crime, so to speak, is Dr. John Watson, a very likeable and kind former Army doctor, in this case played by Martin Freeman (Tim from BBC’s “The Office”). Never was there a better casting for the role, I would argue, as Freeman excels at playing characters who are happy-go-lucky, yet resourceful under pressure.

Of course, as important as the casting of Sherlock and Watson is the chemistry between the two. In this case, I dare say, it may be the best I’ve seen.

Remember, this is modern-day London, with all its quirks and charm and in the middle of it all are two young, single men running around solving crimes. Throughout the first episode the two are the butt of many a gay joke and raised eyebrow—the always ambiguous Sherlock and the comedic straight-man Watson play it up well. More over, Watson’s amazement at Sherlock’s brain-boggling deductive detecting makes for much humour. As Sherlock, with grandiose dramatics, deduces all kinds of evidence from around his environment Watson can’t contain his admiration. The two play off each other so well.

The stories themselves, only loosely adapted from the original Sherlock Holmes (as far as I can tell), are great as well.

Sherlock has a very modern feel to it. There’s lots of text-messaging—it’s London, of course—and e-mail and hopping in cabs and it’s all pretty fast-paced which makes sense, the original Sherlock Holmes were short stories after all. Like all good detective/mystery television, Sherlock keeps you guessing until the end and, in the case of A Study in Pink, the pay off is pretty great.

But Sherlock is truly the complete package, which is why I’m thoroughly impressed so far. In addition to great characters and great stories the overall direction of the series is pitch perfect.

The sets are beautiful. In Episode 1, we find ourselves whirling around London which, in and of itself, is an awesome experience for someone unfamiliar with the terrain. The cinematography too is bold and daring, which is very refreshing in a television series. High-action scenes are amped up with wild camera work while intense face-to-face showdowns are emphasized with tight and interesting angles. It’s obvious that every aspect of the show’s direction is tightly and intentionally controlled, to great results.

All in all, Sherlock is an outstanding effort. With only three episodes in the first season, I’m pleased that the BBC has announced (only three days ago) that it’s being renewed for a second run. If you’re a grizzled veteran of the Holmes series, I think you’ll really enjoy Sherlock. It’s funny and quirky at the same time as it’s dark and sharp. If you’re new to Sherlock Holmes, or maybe you’ve only seen the recent Guy Ritchie interpretation, Sherlock is probably an excellent starting point. It’s modern in all aspects and, I imagine, is much more appealing than the stuffy adaptations from the 80′s and 90′s (leave those to us hardcore fans).