Paranormal Activity 3 is the third installation in a film franchise that up to now I’ve really enjoyed. I’ve previously reviewed Paranormal Activity and Paranormal Activity 2 on pretty positive notes. Like The Blair Witch Project, which scared the crap out of my friends and I in the 90′s, the Paranormal Activity series has been pretty pioneering in its creation of thrills and chills.

The third installation, however, makes it clear that the premise has worn itself absolutely thin.

The premise of all these films has been simple: Something is haunting the house, let’s film it. In Paranormal Activity the entire film is shot through the perspective of a single camera that’s either on a tripod or being carried handheld for the purpose of capturing something crazy that’s going on somewhere in the house.  It’s convincing and the perspective doesn’t feel contrived. In Paranormal Activity 2, almost all of the action is captured by the homeowner’s robust video surveillance system which neatly covers all of the rooms, and outside, with well-placed stationary cameras. It’s very convincing and allows the narrative to unfold in a way that makes the viewer feel truly like a helpless bystander. Loved it.

I admit, I had incredibly high hopes for Paranormal Activity 3 and that’s probably, in part, why I was so completely disappointed.

Paranormal Activity 3 was directed by the same team that brought us Catfish, an incredibly well-craft documentary from 2009. Unfortunately, the team’s penchant for human interest stories doesn’t translate into creating a great horror film. The camera, in part, is what ruins it. Unlike the previous two films, Paranormal Activity 3 is set in 1988 so we can’t expect high-tech surveillance systems or high-definition cameras.

Instead, our main protagonist is a wedding videographer with an editing studio and all kinds of video equipment lying around. He does create some pretty cool means to monitor the house’s paranormal activity. A camera mounted to on oscillating fan is probably this movie’s most unique thrill. Watching a room come slowly in and out of the frame as the camera pans back and forth… depending on what’s in that room it can be terrifying! But that’s about it. When the protagonist is constantly dragging a heavy handheld camera everywhere, and I mean everywhere, it really falls apart and becomes a lot less convincing for the viewer. At some point the viewer begins to ask themselves, “Would he really be bringing a camera with him right now?” And the spell is broken.

The other disappointing aspect to the film is that they simple show and tell too much. The last twenty minutes of the film is about where it comes off the rails. At this point our protagonist is running around with a camera the whole time and not only is that wholly unconvincing but the plot itself is just down-right silly. The whole strength of the Paranormal Activity franchise and why it was so pioneering was that it showed very little. The thrills were, literally, bumps in the night. A noise off camera. A door opening ever so slightly. And then the occasion great big thrill like someone being dragged out of bed by invisible hands or something flying across the screen. It ramped up and always very little was shown. Paranormal Activity 3 disappoints by showing way too much, and what they show is way too goofy to be terrifying.

According to the Internet a fourth installment in this series is being produced by the same directors as the third. Try again? Unfortunately, all three of these movies broke box office records in their own right. They were all successful. So I guess the money machine will keep on cranking out more. I’ll probably end up watching them, as a diehard fan, but I’m fairly confident that the franchise has run its course and it’s time to put it to bed.

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.

As the rhetoric leading up to this weekend’s Liberal convention in Ottawa begins in earnest I must—I simply must—say my piece.

I am a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party of Canada. I joined… gee I don’t know, back when what’s his name with the squeaky voice beat out Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae for the party leadership. I joined because I was interested in having a say in who would replace Jean Chretien or Paul Martin or however you want to look at it. At any rate, I’ve stuck it out for exactly that reason: because I want to have a say in the party going forward but as the outlook turns grimmer every year I’m beginning to wonder if I can get my money back.

Since Chretien stepped aside amidst the damning Sponsorship Scandal (remember that?) the Liberals have been left reeling, and lurching from election to election. And that was a while ago. But it’s easy enough to point out the flaws, nevermind that they’re glaringly obvious.

In-fighting. The Liberals are brilliant at fighting amongst themselves while slowly imploding. The results of said infighting are immediately tangible, just look at how mismanaged Michael Ignatieff’s election campaign was last time around. He was a genuinely bright and progressive guy but he ended up losing in an historic fashion. Why? Well partly because the party is so fragmented and divided. Ignatieff himself was brought in through backroom channels and never had support of all the party brass.

Denial. Not only has infighting and witless bickering brought the once might Red Machine to its knees but the whole party has a serious case of denial. No, you can’t close your eyes and everything will go away. The party has been in collapse since mid-way through the last decade and has been doing next to nothing to change their tact. No sweeping policy reviews, no ambitious goals or strong stances on, well, pretty much anything. The party has been trying to govern from the centre while in opposition and, frankly, that doesn’t seem to be working very well.

Looking back. Finally, the Liberals are absolutely fixated on reliving the good old days. It’s easy enough, say, to compare a character like Igantieff to Trudeau but—and this is important to remember—Trudeau governed in an extremely different climate than we have today and stood on, well, principles.

The way going forward for the Liberal Party is not easy, and that’s a point I want to stress. The party needs a complete ground-up renewal and while that is what a lot of prominent members are calling for it isn’t going to be simply done. A serious shake up needs to take place to eliminate fighting amongst the party prominent. A realization needs to be made that what worked as a governing party isn’t going to work in opposition, things need to change and serious policy planks need to be established to differentiate the Liberal brand from Harper’s Conservatives. And the party needs to stop looking back and reliving the old glory days. An honest, earnest focus on the future needs to struck and stuck to if the party is going to genuinely rebuild itself. It’s not something that can be fixed with a particular leader, a particular social media campaign, or a particular among of capital to spread around.

I know I said as few words as possible but let me say one more thing. With Canada’s top three political parties crowding as close as they can to the Canadian political centre it’s becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish who is who. I guarantee you if the average Canadian were given an anonymous sampling of party platforms in most areas they couldn’t pick out which party held which view. To succeed, the Liberal Party needs to stand out and despite similarities there are obvious areas where the party could distinguish itself. I say, going forward, a principled approach is the way to success. Stand for something, plant a flag in the ground, look forward, shake off all those old cobwebs (let them get jobs in the private sector!), and begin the serious hard work of rebuilding what used to be the country’s natural governing party.

That is all.

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).

Rob Ford lumbered into political office on the power of a lot of pretty pathetic promises. I didn’t vote for him but a lot of people did. Granted, the choices were miserable so it’s hard to blame everyone.

Nonetheless, one of the first things that Mayor Ford did upon taking office was to scrap the city’s Vehicle Registration Tax. A $60 charge for Toronto residents which appeared when you renewed your license plate sticker. When we lived in Toronto last year and I had to renew my plates I dutifully paid my $60. The fee went directly to pay for transportation infrastructure, something the city sorely needs to improve and, honestly, I pay enough taxes but I gritted my teeth and forked over the dough. I wanted to drive my car in an already congested city, I guess I gotta pay.

But of the few things Ford campaigned on eliminating the Vehicle Registration Tax was one of them and so it was the first to go. The elimination of the tax, Ford himself admitted, would cost the city about $64 million in lost revenue but would mean money back in the pockets of Toronto’s tax-payers and they could spend it however they wanted. Hilarious, given yesterday’s budget announcement.

For the record, I consider myself a realist so the deep-slashing Ford budget, tabled yesterday, isn’t going to get me all worked up. Yes, there are cuts to programs that I think are pretty essential: transportation for dialysis patients and breakfast programs for children, for example. Yes, I think that asking all departments to cut 10% across the board seems ridiculously arbitrary. Yes, I think that the cuts to public transit are coming at the worst possible time economically and environmentally. But, at the same time, we’re in what is arguably the foreword to a recession and costs need to be cut.

What I will get all worked up about—or at least spend a few more paragraphs pointing out the irony in—is Ford’s increase to property taxes. And here’s why.

When Ford cut the Vehicle Registration Tax, the $60 fee to Toronto’s drivers, he saved Torontonians about $64 million altogether. Simultaneously, because the money was going into Toronto’s coffers, he cost the city $64 million. While promising Toronto’s residents more money in their pockets Ford also froze on property taxes.

When budget time rolls around, however, Ford finds that a 2.5% increase in property taxes is necessary to balance the books. Why? Because, according to his own math, he is missing about $60 million. And how much will the tax increase cost the average Toronto homeowner? $60!

So, like I argued, along with so many others, when the Vehicle Registration Tax was cut, the Ford Administration was going to have to make up those lost revenues somehow. It’s just kind of hilarious that he’s having to do it so blatantly. A property tax increase that’s nearly identical to the revenue lost by scrapping the Vehicle Registration Tax.

The cost of a ride on the gravy train? Apparently, $60.

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.

Credit where credit is due, my friend Brent linked to these guys and it’s only through him that I found them. Nonetheless, this husband and wife YouTube sensation do incredible covers of songs you wouldn’t expect to sound so good. And they just seem so gosh darn happy!

Karmin — Price Tag

Karmin — Lighters

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.