Back in the mid-00’s the USA Network said, “Characters welcome.” Shows like Monk, Burn Notice, White Collar, Psych, Royal Pains, and Suits filled the schedule and TV was, for a time, fun. The shows may not have had the most complex plots, but by the end of the episode you felt good about what you’d just seen. 

The colors were bright and the skies were blue.

But if you’ve looked at cable or network TV lately, things aren’t quite so cheerful. NCIS: Origins has a color grading best described as muddy, Tracker is somber, and even Matlock is more sour than sweet. Sure you can watch them as a family, but why would you? Even the 20 year old reruns of NCIS are more vibrant and feel-good than anything on TV now. And if you’re like me, you’ve got some of those episodes memorized.

Is there anything currently in production that recaptures that spirit early aughts?

Yes. Ironically, it’s from our neighbors to the north.

Wild Cards (available on Amazon Prime Video) is similar to White Collar in tone. Max (Vanessa Morgan) is a charismatic con artist working in a fictional Canadian city. Cole (Giacomo Gianniotti) is the straight-laced cop who catches her. In order to keep her out of jail and restore his position in the police department, they have to work together to solve crimes. That’s it. The show doesn’t even try to hide what it’s doing.

“We’re like Bones and that dude from Buffy… Castle and that hot girl… A Star is Born only you’re Lady Gaga and I’m Bradley Cooper.”

No, Max isn’t as smooth as White Collar’s Neal and Cole’s life isn’t as stable as Peter’s, since rather than a wife and house he has a cat (named Mark) and a houseboat. But the “can I or can I not trust you?” dynamic is the same. Their cases take them to all the usual places. We have the mystery on the set of a TV series plot, the trapped in a bank during a robbery plot, and the going under cover as a couple in need of therapy plot. We’ve seen it all before, but we haven’t seen these characters go through the paces, and that’s what makes it fun.

Even if you’re scrolling social media at the same time.

Is it family friendly? Well, Max has curves in all the right places and isn’t shy about showing them off, and sometimes the stories push the boundaries of good taste (with suggestive video and commentary to match). But overall, in fairly inoffensive. I’m not too worried about it going any further than it already has, and I hope Prime gets season two soon.

Because I like my skies blue.

One of last year’s most surprising movies was The Beekeeper, which was a big hit with those who saw it. Otherwise, it didn’t get much (wait for it) buzz. Together, director David Ayer and star Jason Statham made a serviceable action flick in the John Wick mold, but with some political intrigue and in a sillier (yet somehow more grounded) universe.

I liked it.

Now they’ve got a new movie coming out, A Working Man, and there are many reasons beyond their involvement that have me very interested. First, it’s based on a novel by Chuck Dixon, who admittedly isn’t someone with whom I was familiar until now. Apparently Dixon is mostly known for his work in the comics industry, writing stories for Batman and The Punisher, and for being outspoken about his politics. Given the not-so-subtle allusions to Hunter Biden in The Beekeeper, he and Ayer seem to be a good match.

Better yet, the screenplay was adapted by none other than Sylvester Stallone.

Yes, that Sylvester Stallone.

Given his political leanings, I don’t expect A Working Man to offend to me with messaging. This isn’t the first time Stallone has written for Statham, as he also penned the screenplay for Homefront, which I have yet to see but will soon. What I appreciate about Stallone’s writing is that mythic elements are always in the back of his mind. He thinks in epic terms even when the stories are small. 

Okay, but what about the story?

Yesterday I read the entire Chuck Dixon novel in about two hours. Levon’s Trade isn’t the most complex thriller out there, but a stripped down, fast-paced, tale of a violent man, Levon Cade, doing what he does best. When it opens Cade is working security at a construction site and establishes himself as someone you don’t mess with if you want to hold onto your teeth. The owner of the company’s daughter went missing after college finals, and since police and private investigators have failed, he turns to Cade for help.

Naturally, Cade refuses.

But he’s involved in a nasty custody battle over his little girl with the father of his late wife. Needing money to fight a battle that can’t be resolved with high powered weapons, he accepts. And once Cade takes on a task, he’s merciless in executing his mission. Turns out, the girl was taken by Ukrainian gangsters, who are just as merciless and even more cruel. Since the guy who took the girl is at the bottom, Cade starts at the top and begins dismantling the entire corrupt organization, digging his was down through the most violent means imaginable.

Maybe you don’t want to imagine, in which case this book isn’t for you.

By the last act it feels like Dixon is skimming over things, which isn’t to say he gets sloppy. Even the minor characters are given adequate backstories and key details are included to flesh out the world. It’s just that Cade is able to find his targets with a very convenient explanation that is left vague. This isn’t a complaint so much as an observation.

A Levon Cade novel is a Jack Reacher story with all the boring parts cut out. 

As for the movie, I think Statham will make for a good Levon Cade, even though the Cade of the novels is American, born and bred. Cade is described as “rangy” with a fighter’s scars around his eyes, and his demeanor is perfect for Statham’s screen personality. I honestly can’t think of a better actor, accent not withstanding. The novel doesn’t wrap up with a Hollywood bow, so it’ll be interesting to see how Stallone decided to handle that.

Overall, I’m looking forward to the movie and will likely read more in this series.

I suspect that A Working Man will be the sleeper hit of the year. 

I’m so thankful I’m not a film critic.

There are many in my online social circle who feel compelled to see every new release so that they can be critics. Today they might go see the latest superhero movie, tomorrow a self-indulgent character study that takes three and a half hours to say people are horrible, and then a musical over the weekend. Sometimes they might go in expecting to hate something and come out respecting it. More often than not, I imagine, they’re proven right.

Or, more likely, they have no strong feelings about the film.

It’s just meh.

Maybe the critics are the heroes we need. I certainly respect their work and dedication, while also being thankful that theirs is not my calling. For a few years I thought it might be, and I saw so many movies that I immediately forgot at best, and made me miserable for days at worst. Of course, I saw a few movies I loved. But those were movies I would’ve chosen to watch without any sort of obligation. 

Clint Eastwood’s masterful Richard Jewell comes to mind.

In a world overwhelmed by content, I’d rather watch movies that have stood the test of time. I know it’s cool to say that Casablanca isn’t that great. The fact that it’s been studied, praised, and screened countless times over the decades says otherwise. It may not be to your taste, but there’s no denying that it’s a great film and well worth your 102 minutes. I don’t like High Noon, at all, yet its significance is undeniable and I’m sure I’ll watch it again someday.

We have to know the past to talk about the present.

Too many online critics aren’t well-versed in the classics, and thus lack the knowledge and vocabulary to talk about the new stuff. There’s a popular YouTube channel with two engaging hosts that I want to love. I won’t name them, because I’m about to put them on blast. Their channel is split between reactions to older movies and talking about current movies and pop culture. Unfortunately, they know so little film history that their takes aren’t terribly helpful. 

Hopefully, as they continue going back and increasing their knowledge base, things will improve.

You’ll never be a better person for having seen “all the movies.” But if you can let me know that you understand the language and history of film, your commentary will be better and I’ll take your opinions more seriously. 

And if you want to tell good stories…

You can’t go wrong by studying the masters. Reviewing books and movies is fun but, again, it’s not my calling. I think I’m called to create. So I don’t need to see all of the uninspired, derivative content that’s filling the production pipeline. It’s more to my advantage to know what’s great and try to figure out why. Ideas can come from anywhere, anything. But great inspiration comes from great things.

So I want to focus on things that are great.