Reviews

  • Maybe it’s Love aka Eleven Men and a Girl (1930)

    Maybe it’s Love aka Eleven Men and a Girl (1930)

    (On Cable TV, May 2021) In the pantheon of largely forgotten comic actors, I have an unaccountable fondness for Joe E. Brown, he of the impossibly wide mouth, expressive face and gentle-giant demeanour. He gives Maybe it’s Love a significant head-start that the rest of the film doesn’t deserve. A dull college football comedy, it focuses on the underhanded means through which an underdog college builds a strong football team to take on their perennial opponents — namely, sending a lovely girl to entice great football players into enrolling. Brown plays an older player, while Joan Bennett plays the seductress. (Meanwhile, real football players play the recruits, and they are clearly not actors.)  At 73 minutes, Maybe it’s Love flies by, although it’s not always swift to deliver the laughs. The slightly risqué implications of the premise clearly hail from a freer Pre-Code era, while the portrayal of college football circa 1930 is good for a light anthropology lesson (or maybe another instance of something that hasn’t changed in American society — speaking of which, the heroine is a bookish girl who becomes instantly attractive by taking off her glasses). Brown is all right but not used to his full potential, and that pretty much goes for the rest of the film as well. The inherent naughtiness of the premise is really underplayed, and many comic opportunities are reduced to their barest (bearest?) essentials. I can think of many worse movies, but even by the standards of 1930, Maybe it’s Love isn’t all that good.

  • Dementia 13 (1963)

    Dementia 13 (1963)

    (On Cable TV, May 2021) If you’re into that whole “first film by famous filmmakers” thing, then Dementia 13 should be on your must-see list: it’s the directorial debut of writer-director Francis Ford Coppola, and it already shows his cinematic flair. The story itself isn’t anything special — a psychological thriller avowedly made by producer Roger Corman to cash in on the success of Psycho: There’s murder, gothic intrigue, gaslighting and a psycho killer. Where Dementia 13 does rather well, however, is in the execution: Director Coppola is markedly more ambitious than writer Coppola, and far more than producer Corman: Accordingly, his 70-minute potboiler thriller is elevated by atmospheric direction that almost takes the film into classic-horror territory rather than exploitation chiller. There’s no real way around the fact that Dementia 13 remains a cheap horror film, executed on a threadbare budget by someone with more ambition than means. But it’s that ambition that keeps the film intriguing today — you can trace a line from this to the atmosphere of Coppola’s 1992 take on Dracula without hesitation.

  • Superman: Action Comics Vol. 8: Truth, Greg Pak, Aaron Kuder

    DC Comics, 2016, 192 pages, C$22.00 tp, ISBN 978-1401262631

    I’ve made a commitment to get back into reading in 2021, and part of easing myself into it was to go through my superheroes comic book backlog. Considering that most of them take at most 30 minutes to get through, it seemed like an ideal way to get into a bedtime routine. Plus, is there anything less fun than a stack of unread comic books?

    The problem was that I had quite a stack. Over the past six months, the local dollar store somehow got its hands on boxes and boxes of trade paperbacks superhero comics, selling them at fractions of their original prices. I usually grabbed a few every time I was in the store, and by the time Quebec went into its third lockdown (with “non-essentials” such as books being forbidden for sale), I had nowhere to go and a nice three-foot pile of trade paperbacks with a smattering of hardcovers to go through. Most of the stack was published from 2013 to 2017, and most of it from DC — in other words, reprints of the four-year era that followed the 2011 “New 52” reboot but was itself replaced by the 2016 “Rebirth” reboot. (Which, if you’re keeping track at home, was itself replaced by the 2018 New Justice event — comics are not a sane industry.)

    While this review is titled Superman: Truth, I’m not going to specifically comment at length on that specific book. I selected it as a title because it represents a good yardstick through which to approach the modern comic book trade paperback era: It’s not too bad and not too good, showing both the strengths and weaknesses of the very specific way that superhero comic books approach their material. It’s also incredibly interconnected to other books in the stack, making it a good access point through which to approach the rest. Consider this as a brain-dump of sorts of what I thought about while going through the stack of books, being alternately entertained and frustrated by what I was reading.

    Let’s be clear from the onset: While I’m generally aware of superheroes, I’ve never been a big fan. Sure, I like Batman (or, more specifically, the universe of characters around Batman) and I have accumulated a smattering of the subgenre’s most noteworthy trade paperbacks over the year. But I was never a regular fixture at the comic book store. Even today, the “comics” section of my library is dominated by graphic novels rather than superhero books. I’ve always found the Marvel/DC universes to be intensely self-referential, with hundreds of supporting characters that only fans with long memories and deep pockets could hope to place in their proper context. This backlog of accumulated history is never consistent, and the various continuity reboots should be recognized as promotional events rather than honest attempts to straighten out a continuity that was never rigorous in the first place. (When subsequent reboots reboot the reboots, well, they’re not doing it out of creative purity.)

    Trying to read Superman: Truth, for instance, means loading up on Wikipedia (oh, thank goodness for its ludicrously detailed articles!) to figure out where it fits in the continuity, what happened to Superman right before and who are those characters. In my stack of trade paperbacks, for instance, I had not only Superman: Truth, but Superman: Before Truth and Superman/Wonder Woman: Truth Hurts, all of which had to be read in order to get a sense of the continuity. These days, you can consider yourself lucky if a self-contained dramatic arc is concluded in a single book, as the trade paper collections span multiple arcs and sometimes bring together stories published in separate sub-lines of books. (Alas, it’s those books bringing back everything together that often end up being more confusing, due to writers approaching overall events from different perspectives. I’m still trying to figure out Justice League United, for instance, despite or because it brings together stories from three different lines.)  At other times, you get lucky in reading a title from early in the continuity reboot — it’s fun and accessible to see the individual stories of the characters populating Justice League of America: Road to Rebirth being rebuilt from scratch, for instance, even though the book ends just as they get together.

    This is why, over time, I’ve learned to consider superheroes as metastable archetypes. You apply your knowledge of them from other sources onto the specific story being told. They may have core characteristics that carry over time, but various writers and artists are free to shape them into slightly different things over time. Some of those interpretations stick — others are forgotten or actively corrected. Writers may try new things to shock the audiences, or address modern concerns, or feel free to align the archetypes over topical matters. That’s the fun of constant reboots, alternate continuities, “elseworld” creative digressions and successive “runs” by different writers. Over time, for instance, I fully expect to see mainline continuities in which Bruce Wayne shot his parents, Superman is homosexual and Wonder Woman is a trans woman. (Note: All of this has already been featured in fanfiction.)  What usually doesn’t change is the core of the character — sullen vigilante Batman, righteous alien Superman, idealistic amazon Wonder Woman. Everything else is up for grabs.

    Sometimes, you even further define your characters by taking away what defines them. One of the reasons why I picked Truth for review, for instance, is that it’s part of an overall arc stripping Superman of what appears to define him: Not more superpowers, no more secret identity (Lois Lane tells the world he’s Clark Kent, and the world does not react favourably), the Fortress of Solitude locked away, friends killed or otherwise put out of action. It’s not necessarily a fun arc, but the Superman that ends up powering through this accumulation of misery is a far more interesting guy. Wearing a T-shirt and jeans, riding a motorcycle and still fighting against injustice, he feels significantly more approachable than the god-among-mortals typical approach. Not that we’d tolerate this deviation longer than strictly necessary: there’s always this expectation that things will go back to “normal” even if this normal often ends up slightly different from what came before.

    This metastability is an aspect of superhero mythology that non-regular readers may fail to appreciate. Every so often, some of the weird stuff being tried by the writers for the comic-book fan core makes it to the mainstream press: Superman dead! Captain America assassinated! Batman marries Catwoman! Spider-Man a widower! Of course, the headlines fail to mention that this is standard operating procedure for comics. Superman has died or been killed many times (sometimes brutally, as when Wonder Woman punches through his chest with a fistful of kryptonite in the grim dystopian Wonder Woman: Dead Earth, sometimes gently from a natural affliction in The Last Days of Superman), Captain America’s mantle will go to someone else before being rebooted at some point; Batman did not end up marrying Catwoman; and Spider-Man will eventually get back in a long-term relationship. From time to time, you can see the status quo vacillate: While Lois Lane has typically been Superman’s girlfriend/wife, some recent interpretations had him paired up with Wonder Woman — which I don’t like that for various reasons (much like the whole “Iron Man is adopted” dramatic arc is moronic), but time will tell whether this change will stick.

    The end point of this is that readers read superhero comics for characters rather than stories. While narrative is important, it doesn’t mean as much as consistency in a commercially-driven area where readers expect a known quality. Batman fans don’t want a Bruce Wayne that grows old, falls in love, gets married, spends time with his family and turns his philanthropy to preventative social programs. No: they want a sullen, emotionally-stunted, attachment-free Batman who wears Bruce Wayne as a disguise and punches villains all night long. Deviations are allowed only in how they play with the basic character while ensuring that the archetype remains commercially viable.

    Anyone with a reasonably objective perspective on superhero comic books (such as anyone weaned on prose fiction or non-franchise movies) will recognize that the Marvel/DC field is stuck in less-than-creative traps. People expect to read about their favourite characters, and that’s that. Even I can’t deny the appeal. One of the reasons why I’m more familiar with the Batman mythos is that I like a lot of the characters that revolve around him: Catwoman, Harley Quinn, Oracle, Poison Ivy (hmm, I sense a pattern…) are often more interesting than Batman. Elsewhere in superhero continuity, I’ll pretty much read anything with Lex Luthor, Iron Man or Captain America, but there are characters that I don’t like. Green Lantern is stupid from top to bottom (which makes reading things like the Lights Out event book useless), the Joker is overrated, and I rarely see the point of Aquaman. (Hilariously enough, his team-up book is called Aquaman and the Others and it’s deathly dull despite a promising espionage thriller focus.)

    If immersing myself in DC continuity for a few dozen trade paperbacks has done anything, it’s making me more marginally more sympathetic to the DC universe. While, on ideological grounds, I’m still marginally more sympathetic to the Marvel approach of conferring greatness to ordinary people rather than the godlike mythology of DC, familiarity does breed comfort. I’ve learned to like Wonder Woman a bit more, and Superman can be a really interesting character when placed in the right hands, dealing with thorny problems that don’t require physical strength. I still don’t like Batwoman very much (although this has more to do with the experimental art and writing on the series’ first arcs) and some of the cosmic narratives are as useless as they are obnoxious. For instance, the first two books of Justice League United are an unmitigated collection of nonsense: despite the promising “Canadian” focus, the series then flies off into space for a succession of meaningless fights among godlike beings that are never interesting. I would very much rather see narratives grounded in the real world, such as Superman: Truth making an effort to set Superman is a recognizable version of reality.

    This being said, comic books are rarely consistent in their approach. One intensely frustrating aspect of modern superhero comics is their tendency to fly off the handle at the slightest provocation. In Truth, for instance, the opening moments of the book are narratively grounded, generally believable, and then, oops, we go to a narrative tangent that dives deep into the more fantastical areas of the Superman universe, forgetting the promising plot threads set up in earlier instalments. I’m not sure if this is an artifact of the writing process very much centred on short issues only later collected in trade paperbacks, but it’s so consistent as to become a characteristic, and not an endearing one. When I say that Truth (and its most closely associated prequel and sequel) are inconsistent, this is what I mean: You can end up somewhere completely different, without any care for narrative consistency, tone or storytelling unity. No wonder I like one-shots or strongly planned arcs better!

    It also goes without saying that not all corners of the superheroic multiverse are worth exploring. For every intriguing deviation (such as the surprisingly uplifting street-level vision of an extinction event in the concluding volume of Captain America and the Mighty Avengers: Last Days), there’s garbage nonsense such as Batman Beyond 2.0 (taking the Batman mythology to a futuristic post-apocalypse), or the meaningless Earth 2: Society books (copies-of-copies of superheroes fighting in a pocket universe). It’s trash like this, featuring an endless procession of ludicrous characters spending pages fist-fighting or throwing mental energy beams and Kirby dots to each other that gives the genre a bad name. I would rather have an intriguing story than pages of meaningless fights.

    Tone is also important: While the superhero comic book field is not as relentlessly grim as it once was, the current zeitgeist is not exactly all fun and roses. Accordingly, one of my favourite titles in my stack was a reprint of Superman Action Comics that took a classical but incredibly light-hearted approach to Superman — it was a welcome change from the so-serious New 52. Batman is particularly prone to excesses of overly grim and dramatic material — although this paradoxically had me more appreciative than ever for Batman’s famous unwillingness to kill: if he did, his universe could be unbearable. (Also see: The Batman who Laughs.)

    Inevitably, reading such a mass of superhero trade paperbacks got me interested once again in the highlights of the genre over the past decade or two. My stack was not exactly the best of what the genre had to offer, and in today’s digital distribution environment, I didn’t have to leave my house to start looking at closing some arcs left untied by the books I had on-hand, or start poking once again at the best one-shots published in recent years. I could, for instance, be quite eloquent about the homerun that is the Harleen miniseries thoroughly and finely exploring how Dr. Harleen Quinzel became Harley Quinn. I could be just as enthusiastic talking about the wonderfully comforting All-Star Superman, the amusing Batman/Dickens crossover Noel, or the inspired take on Luthor. But that may have to wait another time, as those as not your usual superhero books and I had to wade through a lot of uninspired material before getting to those. Sometimes, you have to take a look at the honest average to figure things out.

    Unfortunately, this is not building up to any big revelations about the state of the art in superhero comics. It’s pretty much the same as it’s even been, albeit with better-than-ever colouring. The weaknesses and strengths of the form have remained for decades, and I don’t see any reason for them to change (although the move toward trade paperback has been a net plus, even with the often-odd stitching of dramatic arcs across books). It’s still very much a crowd speaking to each other, a fiction genre even more hermetic than most others. The recent invasion of movies by comic book tropes is not always a good thing for movies, but it may have been a shot in the arm for comic book fans, as their characters have been reimagined as more cohesive and more audience-friendly, without the baggage that often weighs down the comics themselves.

    Still, coming as I do from the prose fiction world, I can’t quite shake a sentiment of narrative emptiness after finally going through my metre-deep stack of accumulated trade paperbacks. In looking over the stack, I could remember the best ones, but many of the blander books all felt generic and interchangeable with very few clear individual narrative hooks, other than “this is about Batman/Superman/Wonder Woman,” further blurred by stories beginning in one book and ending in another. I hunger for something more, something more substantial and (most of all) something with a self-contained beginning and an end. I’ll read more standalone novels, taking risks in perhaps not liking new characters but ultimately not having to constantly look up the history of every new minor character that pops up.

    I’m probably not yet finished — I suspect that the local dollar store still has a few boxes of trade paperback to put on shelves and I’ll probably bring a few more of them home, even if I’m going to be more selective about my picks (this is the last time I’ve purchased a Green Lantern book, I swear). You know, just for the characters.

  • I criminali della galassia [The Wild Wild Planet] (1966)

    I criminali della galassia [The Wild Wild Planet] (1966)

    (On Cable TV, May 2021) If you’re interested in smart, solid Science Fiction cinema, there’s not a lot to recommend in The Wild Wild Planet — it’s a futuristic equivalent to the C-grade sword-and-sandal peplum tripe that the Italian film industry was churning out in the 1960s. If you’re willing to place it in the history of the SF film genre as a whole, though, it’s a fascinating footnote. What happened was that, over a two-year period in the mid-1960s, director Antonio Margheriti (“Anthony Dawson”) worked with American SF writer Ivan Reiner to develop the “Gamma One” series of four (some say six) related movies that would be shot more or less at the same time, reusing not only actors and sets, but sharing a coherent future background and characters. The Wild Wild Planet is the second of the four. Being from mid-1960s Italy, the result is far more colourful than expected, with shoddy special effects, ramshackle plots and rampant sexism actually helping the entertainment factor. There’s some effort made in terms of worldbuilding, audacious art direction, mildly intriguing premises (with the fourth film of the series, The Snow Devils, even poking at intentional climate change) stereotypically square-jawed heroes and lovely damsels in distress. The Wild Wild Planet is representative of the entire quartet — rough, offensive, ramshackle and yet bizarrely entertaining. I can’t quite recommend it without a long list of reservations, but if you’re looking for interesting Science Fiction films of the 1960s, the entire Gamma One series is a bit of a bright spot.

  • Evidence (2013)

    Evidence (2013)

    (In French, On Cable TV, May 2021) It would be very, very tempting to call Evidence a bit of psycho-killer found-footage trash. Coming at the end of the big found-footage boom of the late 2000s/early 2010s, it exasperated reviewers and viewers alike with its blend of various footage sources, a twisty script enamoured of its killers, and aggressively unpleasant shakycam low-budget style. On paper, it sounds like the kind of film I specifically hate to watch. But, in a shocking but inane twist worthy of the film itself, you can’t always predict how things will play out, and I found myself kind of amused by the central gimmick of the film, in which a variety of unprofessional video sources are used to piece together a mystery. Now, let’s be careful — I don’t particularly like Evidence, but I was pleasantly surprised at how it introduced some structural fillips into the usually stale style of found-footage horror movies. There’s some dumb stuff here, but also some clever touches that could have been harnessed into something more interesting. Director Olatunde Osunsanmi and writer John Swetnam had the kernel of something better in their hands, and while it’s disappointing that they let it get away from them, Evidence isn’t quite ready to be dismissed as quickly as many other similar films.

  • Gemini (2017)

    Gemini (2017)

    (In French, On TV, May 2021) Much about Gemini should work better than it does. Suggest a neo-noir thriller at the age of the social media panopticon and my ears will perk up; play up themes of the power dynamics between a star, a fan and an assistant and I will be intrigued; state that Zoe Kravitz will play a burnt-out young star and you will definitely get my attention. But upon viewing, Gemini is far limper than expected. Writer-director Aaron Katz doesn’t really seem interested in delivering a pure genre piece — his stylized direction is elliptical and scattered, while his script doesn’t commit to the ethos of genre mysteries or noir itself. By the time a central tenet of the film’s premise is nullified in the conclusion, many viewers will be tempted to cry foul — and not just from the basic implausibility of the twist. There is no narrative rhythm here — the scenes fall flat, the dialogue is banal, there’s little buildup of suspense, and as the conclusion suggests, Gemini isn’t even really interested in conventional storytelling. If you find yourself watching it, I suggest not getting overly involved —the film itself will keep you at a distance. It would be tempting to chalk this disappointment up to different expectations, but Gemini misses so many opportunities that it crosses over from a disappointment to being an honestly underwhelming film.

  • The Players Club (1998)

    The Players Club (1998)

    (On TV, May 2021) Sure, you say, we’ve got plenty of movie male fantasies of belonging to organized crime, living large, sleeping around, managing the best local strip club and always staying one step ahead of the law — but what about the female viewpoint on that fantasy? And by that, I don’t mean the easy crutch of gender-swapping protagonist so that there are gangster girls with guns — I mean what if you had a female look at that bling-bling fantasy? Now, before going any further, let’s acknowledge the obvious limits of The Players Club in representing the female viewpoint: this is a film written and directed by Ice Cube. It’s not going to be particularly authentic nor all that credible. But still — for late-1990s black cinema, The Players Club still earns some distinction, and it’s amusingly stuck at a crossroad between being socially conscious, yet giving viewers the glitz they’re expecting. Much of the story revolves around a young woman who gets seduced into a seedier, more lucrative life — except that she’s asked to strip rather than deal drugs. Much of the film’s structure will be instantly familiar — the appeal of fast money, the grander-than-life figures at the periphery of the protagonist and the progressive descent of the characters into darker material until they reach a point where they either retreat or die. This protagonist ultimately makes the smart choice (well, helped along by the strip club burning to the ground) but otherwise The Players Club is determined to present a distaff perspective on familiar material. That’s what still makes it distinctive twenty-five years later — but let’s say that a true female perspective on the same story elements would be a very different film. But Ice Cube doesn’t do all that badly — some material still packs a punch, and for a film apparently modelled heavily on Showgirls, The Players Club hits most of its intended marks. The cast isn’t to be missed either — Sure, LisaRaye and Monica Calhoun look terrific, but then there’s Bernie Mac, Ice Cube and smaller blink-and-you’ll-miss-them roles for Jamie Foxx, Terrence Howard, Faizon Love and Michael Clarke Duncan. It has aged rather well, all things considered, even in an era not quite so enamoured of the gangster lifestyle or its equivalents.

  • Pick a Star (1937)

    Pick a Star (1937)

    (On Cable TV, May 2021) I have a big soft spot for the Hollywood-insider movies of the 1930s, selling a fantasy version of “Hollywood behind the scenes” that usually featured a young woman arriving in Los Angeles with big dreams, and various people helping her out to stardom. Pick a Star is made slightly more notable by two sequences—comic sketches, essentially—with none other than Laurel and Hardy, either breaking bottles over each other’s heads or playing abdominal harmonica. There’s the requisite (and reliably enjoyable) glimpse “behind the camera,” a few cameos of celebrities long forgotten, a mostly innocuous heroine (Rosina Lawrence, who exited Hollywood two years later and, I’m amazed to discover, was born in Ottawa!), an implausibly-motivated heroic male (Jack Haley) and an amiable atmosphere despite the constant threat of not making it in Hollywood and having to return home for a good solid life away from the cameras. Pick a Star definitely belongs to a specific Hollywood subgenre, but it rises to the standards of the form and it’s hard to ask for much more than that.

  • Apur Sansar [The World of Apu] (1959)

    Apur Sansar [The World of Apu] (1959)

    (On Cable TV, May 2021) Considering Satyajit Ray’s reputation as a foremost figure of Indian cinema and the very high esteem enjoyed by his Apu Trilogy as a whole, being less-than-impressed by The World of Apu is tantamount to heresy. So, I’ll be a heretic—but a self-professed one: I have a hard time getting into classic Indian cinema. The only Ray film I half-enjoyed was The Big City, and I still can’t explain why it interested me. This being said, The World of Apu is more interesting than most of his films — featuring a young man going through incredible hardship, it has effective dramatic hooks and a likable protagonist. You can easily watch it without having had much of an interest in the previous two instalments of The Apu Trilogy — The World of Apu works well as a standalone film, and builds to an effective climax. I’m sure that this half-hearted recommendation will be a disappointment to many, but at this point of my exploration of Ray’s filmography, that’s a lot better than I was expecting.

  • Odd Man Rush (2020)

    Odd Man Rush (2020)

    (On Cable TV, May 2021) As a Canadian, I’m more or less morally obligated to watch hockey movies. Odd Man Rush is a bit of a weird one in that it takes place almost entirely outside Canada, but was co-produced in Canada and deals with topics that are of passing familiarity with many Canadians — the grind of the minor-league players who enjoy the sport, who are relatively good at it, and yet will never make it to the big leagues. They only have so many years before reality catches up to them, and Odd Man Rush, in describing how an American finds himself in Europe playing in lower-tier leagues, tackles that moment of realization that, beyond the thrill of playing on the ice, everything eventually ends. Based on a book telling minor-league player Bill Keenan’s autobiography about playing hockey in Europe (adapted to the screen by the author himself), the film lets go of sports tropes to focus on the sometimes-dramatic, sometimes-comic, sometimes-romantic aspect of living life far away from the spotlights. The film has the qualities and vices of its virtues — it’s a heartfelt kind of movie, but one that doesn’t deal in big drama either. It ends on a whimper, and its low-budget production from a first-time screenwriter means that you won’t find much in terms of soaring dialogue or transcendent directing: it’s very much a by-the-numbers affair, a down-tempo escapade from more triumphant fare. That’s not necessarily bad, but viewers may be forewarned about the gear shift if they’re expecting Odd Man Rush to be more in-line with hockey movie expectations.

  • Traffik (2018)

    Traffik (2018)

    (In French, On TV, May 2021) It would be an exaggeration to put Traffik in the “when bad movies happen to good actors” category — I like Paula Patton a lot, but I have seen some less-than-stellar performances from her. Nor would she be the only one to slum in this bad movie: Considering that Traffik sports an intriguing cast that includes such notable character actors as Omar Epps, Roselyn Sánchez, Luke Goss, Missi Pyle and William Fichtner, there are plenty of resumés skipping over their involvement in Traffik these days. A more appropriate category for the film would be “exploitative garbage that attaches itself to a Serious Issue in an unconvincing bid for respectability,” because while it tries to be about human trafficking, it’s nothing more than a cheap sensationalist thriller/horror film. Ignore the meaningless “based on a true story” and the equally meaningless inflated statistics that close the film — Traffik is really about that old Hollywood chestnut: the woman in danger from cartoonishly evil antagonists. The set dressing may be contemporary (Patton plays a journalist who gets embroiled in a sexual trafficking ring led by—what else?—racist bikers) but the plot beats are as old as exploitation itself. The point here is cheap horror-movie scares, not particularly well executed by writer-director Deon Taylor. This is exceptionally familiar stuff if you’re used to the bottom tier of the horror genre: the only thing of note is the better-than-average cast. Which, yes, does bring us back to “when bad movies happen to good actors” as a shorthand for Traffik — maybe not Oscar-calibre actors, but ones that definitely deserve better. The added lesson here is that if you’re going to wrap your film in hot-button issues, you better bring something more to the table than exploiting those issues for thrills.

  • Just Cause (1995)

    Just Cause (1995)

    (In French, On TV, May 2021) Often, you don’t realize what you would miss until it’s gone. In retrospect, the 1990s were a golden age for glossy crime thrillers: They were a regular part of the Hollywood release schedule, offered decent roles to big stars, benefited from great production values and featured acceptable plotting (usually adapted from best-selling novels). This is no longer the case — the frequency of releases has dropped in favour of special effects spectacles, production values have dropped and the results have grown more forgettable. A good middle-of-the-road example of what was regularly available in the mid-1990s can be seen in Just Cause: An adaptation of a John Katzenbach novel, featuring a decent cast headlined by Sean Connery (who did a lot of those thrillers during that decade), Laurence Fishburne, Kate Capsha, Ruby Dee and Ed Harris (plus a child role for Scarlett Johansson). It takes place in Florida and doesn’t skimp on the location shooting or the atmosphere, goes for broke on second-half plot twists and director Arne Glimcher keeps it looking gorgeous at all times. Yes, you can criticize the film’s descent from atmospheric character study in the first half to an often-incredible accumulation of plot twists in the second half — but frankly, that’s one of the most endearing aspects of those 1990s twisty thrillers. And I miss it.

  • Cléo de 5 à 7 [Cléo from 5 to 7] (1962)

    Cléo de 5 à 7 [Cléo from 5 to 7] (1962)

    (On TV, May 2021) Once you’ve seen thousands of movies, it’s perfectly natural (perhaps inevitable) to develop a fondness for formal experimentation. When you’ve seen uncountable examples of the same plot template, repetitive genre entries and overused formulas, it can be a breath of fresh air to see a film that gleefully tries to do something different with cinema. Nouvelle Vague writer-director Agnès Varda was never one for more-of-the-usual, and so Cléo de 5 à 7 is about what it says in the title, following a young woman from 5 to 6:30 (in apparently real time) as she awaits news of a medical exam. While clearly structured and planned, the film does give the impression of flitting from one episode to another like a butterfly, capturing 90 wandering minutes as the protagonist muses about mortality and the meaning of life. There’s other material too — the French war in Algeria weighs heavily over the film, and it’s impossible to see the film as anything other than a feminist text as it examines the place of women in early-1960s French society. Cléo de 5 à 7 is not made to be exciting, but it’s not dull either and while I’m in no hurry to watch it again, it remains an interesting demonstration of how to do cinema slightly differently.

  • Wolf (1994)

    Wolf (1994)

    (In French, On TV, May 2021) Jack Nicholson plays a mild-mannered book editor who becomes a werewolf in romantic horror Wolf and, well, that’s really all you need to know. Now, I’m not going to suggest that Wolf is your run-of-the-mill Hollywood film — helmed by Mike Nichols (in an atypical choice given his filmography) and co-written by Elaine May (making this a reunion between a legendary creative pair), it’s a blend of very light horror with romance, drama and some comedy as well. It doesn’t really all fit together, but the attempt is both more restrained (in horror) and more ambitious (in drama) than what used to be shown in the mid-1990s — although considering the evolution of genre-crossing since then, the premise may be less special nowadays. Michelle Pfeiffer does add a lot, as does James Spader as the antagonist, but this is really Nicholson’s occasion. It does get silly from time to time—watching near-sixty-something Jack hunt a deer with his new lycanthropic powers can’t be otherwise—but Nichols’ sure-footed direction helps ground the film where a less-experienced director may have flopped. For a long-time Science Fiction reader such as myself, there’s a big surprise in the editorial boardroom scenes — the shelves behind the characters are filled with early-1990s Tor hardcovers, many of which I have on my own shelves. The Tor logo is immediately recognizable on the book spines, and Tor founder-publisher Tom Doherty is credited at the end of the credit, most likely for lending use of his offices as a shooting location — although it’s arguably even weirder to see the inside of Los Angeles’ famous Bradbury building being used to portray a Manhattan-based publisher. Still, back to the basics: Wolf isn’t particularly memorable or striking, but it does have just enough weirdness to it to make it a decent watch even today. It’s not quite “the same boring werewolf movie” it could have been even if it doesn’t quite manage to become something special.

  • Her Man (1930)

    Her Man (1930)

    (On Cable TV, May 2021) There isn’t much to Her Man in terms of narrative — it’s about a Havana prostitute who gets a shot at escape when a kind sailor walks into her bar, but first she’ll have to dispose of her knife-wielding “protector” with a penchant for casual murder. Largely taking place in a rough-and-tough bar where fatal stabbings are common enough, Her Man is clearly a Pre-Code film — half the cast plays prostitutes, a third plays would-be clients and the rest are the usual denizens of low-rent bars. There’s a bit of a tonal mismatch between the film’s drama and its comic relief, but the real highlight of the film is Tay Garnett’s direction — from evocative opening credits etched in sand and washed away by waves, to evocative tracking shots to establish the atmosphere, to a very credible portrayal of people in desperate circumstances, in punches above its weight in terms of early-sound era cinematography. Helen Twelvetrees alone is remarkable for her portrayal of an aging prostitute who may or may not be able to get away from it all. While Her Man isn’t quite a classic, it’s a better-than-expected drama with some thriller-like moments and a harsher attitude than the following decades of Hays-neutered films.