Movie Reviews - Taken, The Searchers, High Noon

Taken (2008) This is an action thriller about a retired CIA operative whose daughter is kidnapped in Paris by a gang of human slavers.  The girls are sold into prostitution and he's going to get his daughter back.  You now know pretty much everything you need to about this movie.  Given that information you should know that lots of people are going to be shot, stabbed and beaten in this movie.  The tempo is fast, the villains are evil and goodness wins out in the end.  The script is so cheesy that Liam Neeson, who plays the dad, thought it was a straight to DVD movie.  In fact it re-launched his career as an action hero and made well over 200 million dollars worldwide.  The best thing about this movie is Neeson, pretty much everyone and everything else isn't worth remembering.  The good news is that he makes the movie fun to watch just as long as you don't spend too much time with your brain engaged.

Rating - *** Worth A Look

The Searchers (1956) - This movie presents a bit of a challenge to me.  The American Film Institute (AFI) named this film the Greatest Western of All Time in 2008 and the #12 Greatest Movie of All Time in 2007.  There's critical reviews that would stack 3 feet high that agree.

I'm just not sure I get it.

Here's what argues in the movie's favor.  John Ford's direction.  Do I need to say any more?  Visually this film is stunning as per usual with John Ford working Monument Valley.  It's big and it's epic and it's just gorgeous.  Put a more than competent cast into that backdrop (John Wayne in what he always claimed as his favorite role, Jeffrey Hunter, Vera Miles, Ward Bond plus the young Natalie Wood and even younger Lana Wood playing the same character at different ages) and you would think that you're home free.  And yet somehow you never get there.

The story follows the family of brothers Ethan and Aaron Edwards.  Ethan (Wayne) went off to fight for the Confederacy while Aaron stayed behind and got the girl.  There's an obvious subtext here that is never spoken that once upon a time there had been a big something between Ethan and his now sister-in-law.  There's an Indian raid that draws the local men off.  While they're gone the Indians raid the Edwards homestead and kill everyone except young Debbie (Woods) who is carried off.  The rest of the movie is the story of Ethan and Martin Pawley (Hunter), the young half breed adopted by the Edwards family as a boy and raised as one of the family, to find Debbie.

The movie is, as many movies of the day were, overtly racist.  But it goes beyond the usual "savage redskin" stuff and moves on to justifying genocide.  This is well into "the only good injun is a dead injun" territory.  Beyond that is a strong streak of misogyny with the repeated "wisdom" that Debbie is better off dead after having "been with a Comanche buck".

Even allowing for the context of the time period of the production this story is just nauseating.  That's what really gets me about the "Greatest Western of All Time" label.  Is this really what we want representing the entire genre as the very best?

Rating - *** Worth A Look

High Noon (1952) - Now here's a western that appeals to me much more as the greatest of all time.  (It's interesting to note that John Wayne did not like this movie at all especially the ending.  He and director Howard Hawks would make "Rio Bravo" as a response to High Noon).  It's the story of Marshall Will Kane (Gary Cooper) who has just married Amy a Quaker (Grace Kelly) and promised her that he will hang up his guns for good.  Unfortunately an outlaw that Kane had sent to prison is coming back on the noon train with revenge on his mind.  Kane feels it's his duty to protect the town one last time.  The problem for him is that no one agrees.  His new wife prepares to leave him for picking up his guns and the towns people refuse to back in against the outlaws.  In the end he will face all of his troubles alone.

This movie is a great western and the inspiration for the spaghetti westerns of Clint Eastwood that would follow some two decades later.  It's amazing in that it's told almost in real time.  Each ticking clock shown carries through the actual elapsed as we watch.  The visuals are tilted away from the traditional mythology and towards a much more realistic.  Cooper's spare acting style is perfect. It is a modern western long before the modern western took center stage.  The story did not involve chases, action and other western standards.  Nominated for 7 Academy Awards it took 4 home including Cooper for Best Actor.

AFI listed this as the #2 Greatest Western of All Time.  I'd easily bump it to the top of the list.

Rating - **** Recommended (and if you're into Westerns this is a definite ***** Own It)

Oscars? Who Cares?, Future of Journalism, and Lines Not to Cross

 "The View From the Phlipside" is a media commentary program airing on WRFA-LP, Jamestown NY.  It can be heard Tuesday through Friday just after 8 AM and 5 PM.  The following are scripts which may not exactly match the aired version of the program.  Mostly because the host may suddenly choose to add or subtract words at a moments notice.  WRFA-LP is not responsible for any such silliness or the opinions expressed.  You can listen to a live stream of WRFA or find a podcast of this program at wrfalp.com.  Copyright 2013 by Jay Phillippi.  All Rights Reserved.  You like what you see?  Drop me a line and we can talk.

Program scripts from week of February 24, 2013



My name is Jay Phillippi and I've spent my life in and around the media.  TV, radio, the movies and more.  I love them, and I hate them and I always have an opinion.  Call this the View from the Phlipside. 

Lines Not to Cross                                                                                                         

I had not planned on doing anything with the Oscars this week other than note that I think they’re overrated for picking “the best” each year.  Then when I woke up on Monday I heard about the fiasco with the satirical web site The Onion and Best Actress nominee Quvenzhane Wallis.  And it just wouldn’t let me alone.

If you have somehow managed to not hear about it the folks at the parody website were doing some live tweeting during the broadcast.  For reasons that remain obscure to me they chose at one point to use a derogatory word for a woman which I can’t even hint at here for the 9 year old actress.  The Internet yelled and screamed and the tweet was taken down in an hour.  The following day the CEO of the online satire site published an apology.

Now I’m generally a fan of The Onion.  While I’m sorry that they made such a bonehead mistake they handled it the way it should have been handled.  Take down the tweet and apologize.  What really puzzles me has been some of the reaction to those decisions.  Because some people are outraged that the CEO didn’t stand behind the original post.

Let me get this straight.  A nasty, derogatory, misogynist term is used (which is bad enough on its own) against a NINE year old and some of these mouth breathing morons don’t have a problem with that.  They bring up all kinds of adult examples and say “Why aren’t you outraged by these?”.  Well the reality is that I don’t much like those examples either but that misses the point.  This is a NINE YEAR OLD CHILD.

Seems some folks thought she came off a little full of herself.  Let’s see - she’s nine, in an original Armani outfit and she’s been nominated for a Best Actress in a Leading Role Oscar at age nine.  If there was ever a moment in someone’s life to be a little full of yourself that is probably it.  But even with that there is no justification for the word that was used.  Not for an adult and especially not for a child.

The greatest failing of the Internet is that it makes narcissists of us all.  We fall into the trap of believing that anything we say is profound or clever or witty.  Far more often they are snarky, shallow, ill informed and cruel.

Even satire should have lines over which you dare not pass.

Future of Journalism                                                                                                       

Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away I got started in the media world in the world of journalism.  Back in the day when you got started in radio at Edinboro you started by doing the news.  I did news when I got my first job in commercial radio as well.  There was no way I was going to spend my life as a journalist (I’m just not designed for that life) but my roots are firmly grounded in journalism.  Because of that I have always been a little more focused on that side of the media.  Which is why I’m growing ever more disturbed by what I see in that arena.

There’s a couple things.  First of all in sports journalism many of the professional sports leagues are trying to control their media exposure to a greater and greater degree.  If you’ve ever read your ticket you’ll notice that by purchasing the ticket you give up ownership of the photos, videos and audio recordings you may make at the event.  Well journalists are finding that the sports organizations like the NBA, NFL, NCAA and NASCAR are trying to do the same thing.  Journalists are now finding those leagues want them to sign over the copyrights to all their work as well.  Additionally they are asking journalists not to post more than 3 pictures, not to tweet or broadcast during the event.  Somewhere along the line the distinction between publicity and journalism seems to have gotten a little vague.

That’s not the only place.  Indiana University last summer announced it was thinking about merging its independent Journalism school with the Communications and Media department.  Now there are lots of places that do it that.  What stood out for me in this discussion was the comment by the University President Michael McRobbie who said, and I quote,
“There’s no point in saving a school that trains people to manage fleets of horses if the motorcar has taken over horse-drawn transportation.”  That’s one of the more profound instances of missing the point.

Journalism is more than the medium that conveys it.  It has survived the shift from print only to radio then to television.  Journalism will also survive the shift to new media as well.  Just as long as those entrusted to teach it continue to understand it and those they teach continue to fight for it.

Oscars?  Who Cares?

I write and record these programs usually the weekend before they air.  This sometimes leaves me short when it comes to comment on events like Sunday night’s Oscar awards. I will occasionally cheat and record a program on Monday morning to include the event.  I probably would have done that for this year’s Oscars except for two things.

First I’ve only seen one of the movies nominated.  So it’s hard to have an intelligent opinion.

Second, and most importantly, I heard an interesting question last week.  Why should we care about the Oscars?  That was a question that stopped me dead.

Why should we care?

The process of winning an Oscar amounts to winning enough of the votes of the 6,000 eligible members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.  That doesn’t always lead to objective, scientific results.  Like 1976 when “Rocky” beat out “Taxi Driver”, “All The President’s Men” and “Network”.  I love “Rocky” but seriously?

And we can’t say that commercial success helps you.  Looking at the Box Office Domestic numbers “Lincoln” was the most successful movie of the nominees finishing 19th, “Argo” was 25th, “Life of Pi” at 32 and “Django Unchained” was 39th.  The other 6 nominees finished outside the TOP 50!  Now some folks will point out that a lot of these movies debuted late in the year so gross box office isn’t a fair standard.  OK fine.  But these are supposedly the best movies of 2012 shouldn’t we be judging them by their performance in that year?  Apparently not.
So what we’re left with is a popularity vote only by insiders who are deluged (as much as the rules allow) by campaigns from the studios.  And their track record is just odd enough to make you wonder.

If you want to watch the Oscars as a celebration of the movie industry go for it.  It’s great for doing just that.  But just remember that Richard Burton, Peter O’Toole, Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchcock never won one in their primary category.

Draw what conclusions you may

Call that the View From the Phlipside

Anne of Green Gables Flap, Space Marines Silliness and RIP Pepper Paire-Davis

 "The View From the Phlipside" is a media commentary program airing on WRFA-LP, Jamestown NY.  It can be heard Tuesday through Friday just after 8 AM and 5 PM.  The following are scripts which may not exactly match the aired version of the program.  Mostly because the host may suddenly choose to add or subtract words at a moments notice.  WRFA-LP is not responsible for any such silliness or the opinions expressed.  You can listen to a live stream of WRFA or find a podcast of this program at wrfalp.com.  Copyright 2013 by Jay Phillippi.  All Rights Reserved.  You like what you see?  Drop me a line and we can talk.

Program scripts from week of February 17, 2013



My name is Jay Phillippi and I've spent my life in and around the media.  TV, radio, the movies and more.  I love them, and I hate them and I always have an opinion.  Call this the View from the Phlipside. 

Anne of Green Gables                                                                                                         

A couple of stories this week having to do with publishing in this new digital world.  Both show the power of the consumer to influence the market.  The first has to do with the perils of the modern publisher.

You may have heard of the uproar over a new volume of the stories of Anne of Green Gables.  Last fall a new ebook edition hit the shelves at Amazon.  It brought together all three of the books by L.M. Montgomery (Anne of Green Gables, Anne of Avonlea, and Anne of the Island) in a single volume.  Sounds great right?  Well fans of the books aren’t happy at all.  Turns out there were a couple of problems.  One small and one large.  

The first thing you need to know is that Montgomery’s classic girls novels have lost copyright protection and are now in the public domain.  This means that you and I could, if we so desired, publish our own versions of the books.  And that’s just what happened.  Using Amazon’s self publishing program someone had created their own edition.  The problem was they don’t seem to have done their research.

The small problem was that the publisher listed the author by her full name - Lucy Maud Montgomery.  She never did that herself because she didn’t much like her full name.  So properly it should have been L.M. Montgomery.  A silly mistake that should have been caught.

But the most serious error is the cover.  Which shows Anne as an attractive, rather nicely shaped blonde.  Anne, as described in the books, is a skinny twelve year old with bright red hair.  The young lady on the cover of this version is decidedly, um, more Harlequin Romance. This is actually something of a trend with classic women’s novels.  Several Jane Austen novels have suffered the same awful artwork.  Now upsetting the core audience for the product was always bad choice.  At last count there were no less than 395 one star reviews out of a total of just over five hundred reviews.  And all that outrage has worked.  The original cover is gone and a very safe cover has taken its place.

In the end the idea behind such a trend is just insulting to female readers and the great books they love.  You’ll either tick off the existing fans or upset new readers when they’re looking for a bodice ripper and instead get great literature.

Space Marines                                                                                                       

Here’s one of a couple of stories about the challenges of the modern publishing world.  Beyond the Anne of Green Gables Blonde-gate we also have a case of corporate bullying.


Late last year independent sci-fi author and artist MCA Hogarth received word from Amazon that her book “Spots the Space Marine” was being removed from their shelves due to a claim of trademark infringement.  Seems that UK games company Games Workshop had claimed a trademark on the term “space marines”.  Now if you’re a long time sci-fi fan your head probably just exploded.  That term has been around since at least 1932 when it appeared in the great science fiction magazine “Amazing Stories” in a short story called “Captain Brink and the Space Marines”.  Since then it has been used by a great many of the legends of the science fiction genre.  But Games Workshop was claiming that their game based trademark extended beyond it’s use in games and into all print material as well.  Given the long usage prior to the creation of the game company itself it seems pretty silly that any such broad based trademark should have been issued.  

But the real problem was that the company had lawyers and Hogarth didn’t.  What was going on is called trademark bullying.  It’s a tactic used by companies large and small.  And it’s fairly reprehensible in the view of a great many people.  Threaten an individual or small company with back breaking litigation to coerce them into giving up legal rights they may possess.  Once word got many authors and organizations, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, requested that Amazon review the complaint.  They did and promptly reinstated the book.

Of course while that allows Hogarth to sell her book it doesn’t resolve the whole question of the use of the term “space marines”.  My bet is that we’re going to see more of these kinds of stories popping up.  It’s silly and a truly bad business concept but that never seems to stop anyone.  In the end our best defense is to use the tools of the Internet to push back hard against this kind of intellectual bully boyism.  When the time comes, fight back.  Defend what’s right.

It’s what the space marines would do.

RIP Pepper Paire-Davis

I love movies for a wide variety of reasons.  I love them because they make me laugh and make me cry.  I love them because they help me escape from my day to day routine and they can help me appreciate that day to day routine.  I love movies that are all about the story but I love the ones that are all about the characters too.  One of the other things I love about movies is that they can help me discover things I never knew existed.  Like Women’s Professional Baseball.

I’ve been a baseball fan since I was about 10 years old.  That’s longer ago than I care to admit right now.  I love the history of the game.  I knew about the greats like Ruth and Foxx and Honus Wagner and the Waner boys, Big and Little Poison.  But it took a movie to introduce me to the All American Girls Professional Baseball League.  Admit it, you probably had never heard of it before the movie “A League of Their Own” either.  The league only existed for 11 years, a product of so many of baseball’s male stars going to fight in World War II.

What brings it to mind recently was the passing of one of that league’s stars Lavonne “Pepper” Paire-Davis.  She was the inspiration for Geena Davis’s character in the movie.  Paire-Davis was a catcher and a shortstop who racked up 5 league championships in the years she played the game.  Her statistics show her to be a smart hitter who must have been a gap hitter.  In over three thousand at bats she had more than 700 hits and 400 RBIs.  All this with a grand total of just two Home Runs!

She had loved the game from early in life.  Paire-Davis grew playing ball with her brothers in California then played softball three nights a week as a teen. Following High School she went to UCLA to study English, then when the war began she took a job as a welder.  But when she heard the call for female ball players she was ready to go bouncing from Minneapolis to Racine, Fort Wayne and Grand Rapids.  When the Baseball Hall of Fame recognized the league with a permanent display in 1988 Pepper Paire-Davis was included in it.

Oh and one last tie to that movie as well.  Do you remember the league song that the girls sang?  Well that was the real thing.  And Paire-Davis co-wrote it.

Lavonne “Pepper” Paire-Davis was 88 years old.

Call that the View From the Phlipside

Movie Reviews - Crash, Mystic River, Reign Over Me

Been a busy boy and the movies are backing up.  Three this week.  Two I really liked and one that was...eh.

Let's get the disappointment out of the way first.

Reign Over Me - (2007) There were three little words that put this movie in a hole right from the start.  "Adam Sandler Movie".  I can't tell you why but Adam Sandler just makes me want to walk the other way.  Looking at his career I have to be honest I've watched two of his movies the whole way through ("Spanglish" and this one) and they were both OK.  I've seen parts of several others and hated what I saw.  So is it fair for me to dislike Sandler?  Absolutely not.  But what can I say?  He's part of what I call the "Moron Humor" brigade (Will Ferrell, Jim Carey et al).  The basic premise is that the portray characters who are idiots (not nerds or clutzes or the socially inept but full on morons) and this is supposed to be funny.  Hasn't ever worked for me.

So I'm not sure why I put this in my movie queue.  Maybe it was Don Cheadle's name.  I like pretty much everything I've seen Cheadle in.  Never the less here is this movie about a man struggling after the death of his family at 9/11 (Sandler) and his old college roommate (Cheadle) who tries to re-connect.  Sandler does a pretty nice job with Charlie the former dentist who has checked as far out as he can get without becoming catatonic.  He lives in his own little world and tries to reject the memory of his family and their deaths.  Cheadle's character gets sucked in trying to help his old friend sometimes at the expense of his own wife and family.  There's more than enough cast talent here (Cheadle, Jada Pinkett Smith, Liv Tyler, Donald Sutherland, Robert Klein, Melinda Dillon).  The problem is that the characters are too often cardboard cutouts.  Liv Tyler is utterly unbelievable as a psychiatrist.  Klein and Dillon are as one dimensional as Charlies in-laws as it may be possible to be.  And at the end Sandler just doesn't have the acting chops to pull off the final emotional scene of the movie.

Not bad.  But not good.

Rating - ** Save It For a Rainy Weekend

Mystic River - (2003) Now you want to see some acting chops?  Here's a movie for you.  Three Boston boyhood friends Jimmy (Sean Penn), Dave (Tim Robbins) and Sean (Kevin Bacon) are re-united as adults when Jimmy's daughter is murdered and Sean, now a homicide detective, gets the case.  Each of them has gone their own way since the day Dave was abducted by two pedophiles and held captive for four days.  Dave's never really recovered, Jimmy was the tough kid who became a tough adult with a criminal record and Sean became the cop.  There's enough emotional baggage between these three for a half dozen movies.

Penn and Robbins won Oscars for their work here.  The story twists and turns through a half dozen suspects and a fabulous supporting cast (Laurence Fishburne, Marcia Gay Harden and Laura Linney) under the direction of Clint Eastwood draws you right in.  Don't expect a Hollywood ending.  What you get is a great story told against the almost claustrophobic backdrop of lower middle class Boston.

Rating - **** Recommended

Crash - (2004) Here's the description of this movie from the folks at Netflix:

In post-Sept. 11 Los Angeles, tensions erupt when the lives of a Brentwood housewife, her district attorney husband, a Persian shopkeeper, two cops, a pair of carjackers and a Korean couple converge during a 36-hour period.

That description is criminal.  This movie is about race and bigotry.  It's about being human and American.  If the first 30 minutes of this movie don't make you sick to your stomach there's something wrong with you.  This movie is intense and brilliant.  The cast is outstanding headlining Sandra Bullock (who as the DA's wife is in just about 6 minutes of the movie but makes the most of them), Don Cheadle (DON CHEADLE!!!), Matt Dillon (who plays a cop that will just turn your stomach only to have him become a real person with real dimensions as the movie goes on), Brendon Fraser as perhaps the weakest of the main characters the DA.  Their stories intertwine in unexpected ways and it's fascinating to watch.  Must give this movie this credit as well.  There's one scene where I knew what was going to happen (a little girl gets shot) and I still gasped audibly when it happened.  The direction, cinematography and acting pulled it off.  A truly amazing, disturbing, thought provoking and challenging film.

Rating - **** Recommended

Movie Reviews - All About Eve, The Game, The History Boys

All About Eve (1950) A young woman manages to work her way into the entourage of an aging star.  What' begins innocently enough eventually takes on a decidedly different turn as time passes.  Long friendships will be challenged before the final act.  Margo Channing (Bette Davis) gets it right when she utters the classic movie line "Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night".
  This is one of the great classics of the movie world.  The dialogue crackles, the cast is spectacular (Davis, Anne Baxter, Celeste Holm, George Sanders, Gary Merrill, Hugh Marlowe, Thelma Ritter, even Marilyn Monroe in a very small role), Joseph Mankiewicz wrote and directed.  Bring all that talent together in the same place and you shouldn't miss.  This one doesn't miss on any point.  The story of ambition and deceit reads every bit as true today as it did 60+ years ago.
   How good is this movie?  It was the first movie ever to rack up 14 Oscar nominations (the next one would be "Titanic") and the only movie to score 4 nominations in the top female categories (Davis and Baxter for Best Actress and Ritter and Holm for Supporting Actress.  Legend has it that Baxter angled to have her nomination placed in the Best Actress role rather than Supporting echoing the role she played.  In the end some historians believe that the two cancelled each other out resulting in the win for Judy Holliday in "Born Yesterday")
   This was a title that I knew but had never seen before.  It lived up to its reputation.

Rating - **** Recommended 

The Game (1997) - This movie presents me with an interesting variation.  The cast is wonderful, the director does a wonderful job, the story is intense, intricate and gripping.  The only problem is that periodically the script just gets really dumb.  There are some serious plot holes (I love when huge numbers of people appear then magically disappear and nobody notices, indiscriminate use of automatic weapons that nobody notices and quite possibly the dumbest idea for a business imaginable) that are so astounding that rather boggle the mind.  But somehow director David Fincher manages to just blast by.  The ending is a bit contrived and brings the movie to a limping conclusion.
   Investment banker Nicholas Van Orton (Michael Douglas) is a man accustomed to getting what he wants when he wants it. His ne'er do well brother (Sean Penn) gives him a birthday present of an all expenses paid entry into a "game" that is tailored to Nicholas' personality.  What it turns into is a trip down the rabbit hole.  What's real, what isn't and just what the hell is going on will take over Van Orton's life.
    Interesting bit of casting - Van Ortan's housekeeper is played by veteran actress and movie sex symbol Carroll Baker.  Baker was still a striking woman at 66.  They even pay her a quick wink when Daniel Schorr (playing himself and harassing Van Orton via the TV.  You'll understand when you watch the movie) is distracted by her when she walks through the room.  It's a cute moment that is also completely out of place in the movie.

Rating - *** Worth A Look

The History Boys - (2006) The story of a group of highly intelligent but unruly boys trying to figure out how to get into Cambridge or Oxford.  They've been taught by two unconventional teachers and have to find their way between the freedom they've learned and the conformity that may be required to achieve their goal.

This is a fun and startling movie.  It reminds us that the core of education is supposed to be about teaching young people how to think rather than rote memorization or learning marketable skills.  The dialogue is quick (if occasionally too quick to get past some of the accents) and very funny.  The cast is filled with familiar names and faces (Frances de la Tours and Richard Griffiths of Harry Potter fame plus lots of others from British TV and movies).  While the movie focuses on the boys and the last minute "polish" teacher (Stephen Campbell Moore) it really is Griffiths and de la Tours movie.  This is a movie in the tradition of "Dead Poets Society" or "The Paper Chase".  This is what I love about British film at its best.  Thoughtful script with a sense of humor, fabulous acting and just a certain "feel" I'm not sure I can describe.  American movies too often think that bigger is better.  The Brits tend to go small and do it well.

Rating -**** Recommended

Review - Sherlock

Sherlock (Seasons 1 and 2) - (2010, 2012) I approach adaptations to the screen of my favorite books with great trepidation.  It is so easy to fall short.  When you're plowing a field that has been so thoroughly explored as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes (I just reviewed "The Complete Sherlock Holmes" e-book) you face even greater challenges.  Trying to find a way between just the same old interpretation and going completely over the edge is tough.

On the whole this version, created by Mark Gatiss and Dr. Who's Steven Moffat, does a remarkably good job.  With two exceptions.

The high points first.  They choose to bring Holmes and Watson forward to today.  Always risky since Victorian England is an integral part of the original stories.  But Moffatt and Gatiss love the canon and are astoundingly respectful even as they make the needed changes.  Benedict Cumberbatch is wonderful as the Great Detective and Martin Freeman is absolutely scene stealing as John Watson.  Watson tells his stories now via a blog and just like the originals Holmes becomes a star even though he doesn't wish it.  The two leads absolutely sparkle together, the dialogue and characters are just amazing.  The updates of the stories ("A Study in Pink", "The Blind Banker" and "The Great Game" draw from "A Study in Scarlet", "The Naval Treaty" and "The Five Orange Pips" among others) are done with great fidelity to the originals while being completely of the 21st Century.  Really well done.  In the second season they take on three of the best known stories - "The Hound of the Baskervilles (The Hounds of Baskerville), "A Scandal in Bohemia" (A Scandal in Belgravia") and "The Final Problem" (Reichenbach Falls).  That last episode is absolutely brilliant.

There are two places where Holmes interpretations almost always step wrong.  They are Irene Adler and James Moriarty.  And Sherlock gets both of them badly wrong.

Irene Adler is always played as the great unrequited romance of Holmes's life.  Sadly that's just wrong.  Adler fascinates him but there is no romance there.  But no one can resist.  They want it there and so they put it there.  To make matters worse they decide (for no good story telling reason I can discern other than titillation) to make her a dominatrix and have her wander around semi-naked or completely naked for long stretches of the episode.  Adler is also supposed to be one of the great beauties of the age and I just don't think Lara Pulver pulls it off.  Interesting note that Oona Chaplin, granddaughter of Charlie Chaplin, has a supporting role in the episode.  Adler appears in exactly one story where she shows herself to be the completely modern woman.  Smart, in control, able to rumble with the big boys and capable of beating Holmes.  Why does she need to be anything else?

Then we have Dr. James Moriarty.  The greatest criminal mind the world has ever known.  A man with a genius that even Holmes acknowledges as his equal.  Or as "Sherlock" presents it, Jim Moriarty.  A chattering psychopath who preens and prances and just generally embarrasses an other fine version of the classic stories.  I could tolerate Adler but most of Moriarty is just repellent and wrong.  From a cold and cunning mind we are left with the currently popular psycho-sadist villain (what is wrong with us that we seem to insist on these kind of characters?)  I called the final episode of Season 2 brilliant but it nearly gets derailed by the awful character created by Moffat and Gatiss.  No disrespect for Andrew Scott who plays him.  He gives his all in the role.  Beyond that we have the apparently irresistible urge to make Moriarty the great recurring villain.  While he is mentioned in passing in a couple stories the great criminal mastermind really only appears in "The Final Problem".

Oh and they get Mycroft physically wrong.  Most versions do.  Holmes's elder brother is described as "...heavily built and massive..." and Mark Gatiss who plays him is anything but those.  But a trifle.

So in the end where are we left?  If you know nothing but the basics of Holmes (and most of us do) you will almost assuredly love this version.  On the other hand if you know and love Holmes in detail you will still probably love the series but your viewing will be interrupted periodically by angry shouting at the screen.  Watch it anyway.

Rating - **** Recommended (and highly so)

Movie Review - Four Brothers, Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

Four Brothers - (2005) - This was a weekend movie channel discovery.  Nothing better to do, saw Mark Wahlberg in the credits and thought "Why not?".  The movie is about four troubled boys adopted by their foster mom.  She raises them to be honorable if not exactly law abiding.  They are family, first, last and always.  When their mom is killed apparently as an innocent bystander during a store robbery.  The four brothers (played by Wahlberg, Tyrese Gibson, Andre Benjamin and Garrett Henderson) decide to hunt down the shooters and take justice into their own hands.  Things get complicated and violent from there.  Under normal circumstances this movie wouldn't have much to appeal to me but I found myself continuing to watch.  It is the relationship between the brothers that makes this movie watchable.  Between the violence and the almost constant obscenity I kept thinking about the movie "Boondock Saints".  "Four Brothers" just seemed to have more warmth, more soul than the other.

Is this a great movie?  No.  If you like lots of shooting with a little character (plus Sophia Vergara walking through the shot periodically) then you just might enjoy this movie.

Rating - *** Worth A Look

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (2011) - A magazine publisher accepts an invitation to investigate the disappearance of a young woman 40 years before.  It involves him with the secretive dysfunctional family of the missing girl and a strange young woman with secrets of her own who agrees to work with him on the mystery.  Based on the best selling novel by Stieg Larsson and a 2009 movie version done in Sweden this is a claustrophobic murder mystery.  From the moment that Daniel Craig's character meets the family in question you know something is wrong with them.  Just how much and what kind of wrong slowly unfolds.  Rooney Mara plays the girl in the title (As a football fan it is required that I note her NFL pedigree.  She is named for her family lines.  She is a grandchild of both the NY Giants Mara family and the Pittsburgh Steelers' Rooney family.) and is incredible weaving her way between the insanity of the character's life and the deeply rooted troubles of her personality.  At the same time she creates a young woman that you want to root for even when she needs to do some truly terrible things.  The cast is spiced with some fine actors - Stellan Skarsgard, Christopher Plummer, Joely Richardson and Robin Wright.  Great story, acting and overall look.

Rating - **** Recommended