MY FIRST BOOK ABOUT MOVIES!

Once again, I've chosen to interrupt the traditional format of my blog in order to request some of your personal time to share with you, my first book that is COMING SOON!

Its complete title is IT'S STRICTLY PERSONAL - A Nostalgic Movie Memoir of 1975-1982 Or: Why Sharks, Boxers, Galaxies, Aliens and British Spies Mattered to Gen X'ers Like Me!

This is the most personal story you'll ever read about the movies that not only impacted my childhood growing up in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but also helped to shape the man I've become. It's a tale of not only how I felt about the movies THEN, but how I interpret them NOW.

These are the movies I discuss in my book with great memory and affection:

From 1975:

From 1976:

From 1977:

From 1978:

From 1979:

From 1980:

From 1981:

From 1982:

This book is for those of my generation, the Generation X era, who still remember, and will never forget a time when movies and blockbusters were changing, growing and evolving into deep-rooted memories for every child, teen and adult who sat in front of the big screen and waited for the magic to begin.

So, I invite you all to keep your eyes and ears open as I continue to keep you updated on the book's progress and development. It's COMING SOON, and you're going to love it!

Thank you!

Warmest regards,
Eric Friedmann, Writer

SPECTRE

(November 2015, U.S.)

Before I get started, I have to repeat that as much as I love Daniel Craig as James Bond (QUANTUM OF SOLACE the exception!), somebody has got to get to work on making the movie posters for his work a lot more exciting. I'm not saying there will ever be another artist like Dan Goozee, but geez, somebody can at least try!

(okay, that's out of my system...and I think Richard K. agrees with me!)

It was sometime shortly after the release of that terrible Bond film DIE ANOTHER DAY in 2002 that I started to privately wonder what "Spectre" (SPecial Executive for Counterintelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion, if you were paying close attention to Dr. No in the first James Bond film) would be like in our post-9/11 modern world. Surely, they would no longer be trying to obtain Lektor decoders the size of typewriters as in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE (1963), nor would they be literally swallowing up our space capsules as in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE (1967). The organization would very likely be a more modern, technically-advanced version of our own real-life global terrorist threats of today. Still, certain classic, nostalgic touches would have to be maintained, primarily the evil genius and supervillain Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Well, thirteen years later, somebody heard me and brought the organization back to life in SPECTRE, and I suppose an actor like Christoph Wallz is about is perfect as it can ever get (just watch him in Quentin Tarantino's INGLORIOUS BASTARDS and you'll know what I mean).

This twenty-fourth film in the franchise more-or-less picks up where SKYFALL (2012) concluded and pitts Bond against the new global threat as he attempts (against M's orders) to defeat Blofeld's evil plan to launch an international surveillance network that will ultimately enslave and endanger all nations to its will. Along the way, Bond discovers that it was Spectre and Blofeld that were behind the unfortunate incidents in the three films preceding this one, including the death of Bond's true love Vesper Lynd in CASINO ROYALE (2006). Classic characters like Moneypenny and "Q" return and we get our first real chance to see how actor Ralph Fiennes operates as the new "M" following the death of Judi Dench's character in the last film. In fact, it's safe to say that SPECTRE, beyond all of its formulaic action, suspense and thrills, is a true opportunity for character exploration for the first time in decades. "Q", for all of his silliness as portrayed by Desmond LLewelyn in countless films, is really put to the test in this one, as it's up to his high-tech knowledge and experience to help defeat the evil plot against the civilized world. Bond, of course, hasn't changed much; he's still pissed off at everybody, still determined to win the day at any cost, and still protective of the (seemingly) helpless Bond girl (played by Léa Seydoux, who looks young enough to be Bond's daughter!) while still maintaining his inability to get too emotionally involved (but hey, that's the way we like Bond, right?).

The true attraction to SPECTRE, in my opinion, is the return of an evil character we've never really gotten to know before. Ernst Stavro Blofeld was merely a hidden figure stroking a cat in the second and fourth film. By the time we saw his face (well, what was left of it anyway), as portrayed by Donald Pleasence, he hardly had enough screen time for us to really embrace his evil. Telly Savalas and Charles Gray were pointless actors in a role that should have been explored a great deal more. And the character's final demise down a tall chimney stack at the beginning of FOR YOUR EYES ONLY (1981) was just a bad joke without a punchline. Wallz not only brings out the sinister charisma in a character we've known of for a long time, but also treats us to the performance of a gifted actor for a long enough period of time for it to mean something to us. I can't say that Blofeld's final arrest near the the ruins of the old MI6 building, as he crawls along the road like a common, desperate criminal, is anything too climactic, but perhaps it's merely intentional in order to bring him back for the next chapter...maybe.

Now, if like me, you thought the prospect of Blofeld and Bond being practically brothers because they were raised as boys by the same man, Hannes Oberhauser, the legal guardian of Bond after his parents were killed in a climbing accident, was about as far-fetched as Darth Vader being Luke Skywalker's father or Michael Myers being Laurie Strode's brother, well, all I can say is that the origin of that particular story idea goes as far back as the original Ian Flemming novel for OCTOPUSSY. Director Sam Mendes conceived the idea based on that backstory and took it to the next level. Does it work? I suppose it does as much as you're willing to check your intelligence in at the door before watching the film. I suppose there have been far worse and far more extreme suggestions in films of Bond's past...just take your pick.

While I don't feel any of Craig's work in the role has truly lived up to CASINO ROYALE, SPECTRE is intelligent, inventive and complex enough to keep us interested for another go-around in the franchise. It's visually stunning and knows when to take its time and absorb you into its content, thanks to the return of director Sam Mendes' talents. Craig's cruel intensity continues to define Bond for the newer and darker generation of movie action heroes. American wrestler Dave Bautista gives the classic evil character of Oddjob in GOLDFINGER (1964) a good run for his money. Ralph Fiennes is a worthy successor as "M" with his own style of British charm and class. The Bond girls, unfortunately, have little-to-nothing left to offer since Eva Green as Vesper. In fact, review the films since 2006 and you'll find they don't even take up too much significant screen time anymore. And even when the action of classy cars and speeding helicopters decides to slow down long enough for us to get back onto the ground, it's the minute-by-minute thrill of watching characters do their job in a race against time that holds our attention and imagination quite well. If Bond films can continue to do that effectively, then I believe the franchise may still have a long way to go before it gets too stale (if that happens, Richard K. may have to find a new passion to consume himself with...Heaven forbid! LOL!).

Favorite line or dialogue:

Ernst Stavro Blofeld: "You came across me so many times and yet you never saw me. Le Chiffre, Greene, Silva..."
James Bond: "All dead."
Blofeld: "That's right. A nice pattern developed. You interfered in my world, I destroyed yours. Or did you think it was coincidence that all the women in your life ended up dead?"

SPARTACUS

(October 1960, U.S.)

Stanley Kubrick's SPARTACUS may be the most anti-Kubrick, Stanley Kubrick film of his glorious career. No long tracking shots, no intense stares from its characters, none of that "Kubrick touch" that made his style of filmmaking so unique. SPARTACUS is pretty much a pure textbook Hollywood product in which Kubrick didn't have complete creative control over filming, initially resulting in his leaving the Hollywood system to exercise the rest of his career in England. SPARTACUS, despite being a huge box office success in the world of epic historical dramas, as well as gaining four Oscar awards, was considered a disappointment by Kubrick. The film was also released at a time when American blacklisting was coming to an end, thus allowing screenwriter Dalton Trumbo (a film was made about him in 2015 starring Bryan Cranston) to receive his proper credit due to Kirk Douglas' insistence. Even future President John F. Kennedy went to see and praised the film, despite a public outcry and demonstration against his doing so.

In the time of the first Century BC, the ancient Republic of Rome is in its highest period of strength and glory, its hard labor performed by armies of helpless slaves. One of these slaves is Spartacus (played by Douglas), whose insubordinate behavior leads to a sentence of crucifixion. However, he's saved from death when he's, instead, sold to unscrupulous businessman Lentulus Batiatus (played by Peter Ustinov) who runs a school for training gladiators for public display and entertainment for those of Rome's royalty and power. Spartacus' trainer Marcellus (played by Charles McGraw) is constantly taunting and abusing him. Even when Spartacus is given the opportunity to have sex with the slave girl Varinia (played by Jean Simmons) and he refuses to molest her in any way, he's mocked from above as being "less than a man". This abuse finally goes too far one day, and the slaves violently revolt against their masters and escape their bondage into the Italian countryside.

As leader of the revolt, Spartacus and his fugitive army of former slaves elect to leave Italy and return to their homes. Along the way, the overtake the estates of other Roman slave owners and leaders, thus establishing their power and strength. Accumulating the money they need, they elect to hire the dreaded pirates of Cilicia to take them out of the country by sea. One of the new slave arrivals turns out to be Varinia, whom Spartacus eventually falls in love with. Another slave is the "singer of songs" Antoninus (played by Tony Curtis), who fled Rome when his master Crassus (played by Laurence Olivier) tried to seduce him. As life develops among the slaves and Varinia is soon pregnant with Spartacus' baby, the cloud of an inevitable battle between the slave army and the armies of Rome is imminent. Despite feelings of inadequacies, Spartacus proves to be an effective leader and organizer of what will be a powerful army of his own. Not powerful enough, unfortunately. By the time the epic battle has concluded, many slaves are dead and those that lived have been captured again, including Spartacus. This re-capture is followed by one of the film's most memorable moments when every captured slave refuses to allow Spartacus himself to be identified to Crassus, each of them boldly and proudly declaring, "I'm Spartacus!"

Unlike many other films of this genre, the rebellious heroes don't remain heroes for too long. In what almost feels like an unfair resolution, true or not, those who stood up against the power and mighty force Rome's tyranny are ultimately placed right back where they were as helpless slaves. Spartacus is condemned to slow and painful death by crucifixion. The only victory at the end of all this is Varinia's exit out of Rome with Spartacus' newborn son, whom she comfortingly places in front of his dying eyes, declaring that the child is free and will someday learn about his father's legacy.

As a Kubrick film, SPARTACUS stands alone for not only reasons mentioned above, but also in its love story. Look at any other Kubrick film, and you'll see that love and romance wasn't exactly his strongest point. General Buck Turgidson didn't exactly love his mistress in DR. STRANGELOVE (1964), Redmond Barry wasn't too much head-over-heels with Lady Lyndon in BARRY LYNDON (1975), and Jack Torrance certainly didn't offer his unconditional devotion to Wendy in THE SHINING (1980). The love and romance between Spartacus and Varinia, however, seems natural and unspoiled under Kubrick's direction. Was Kubrick a love-struck sentimentalist at heart, or was he simply just doing what the Hollywood big shots behind the production told him to do? We may never really know, as the disputes and controversies behind SPARTACUS were just as infamous as the film itself. And speaking of controversy, it's almost no wonder that the body servant bath scene between Laurence Olivier and Tony Curtis, in which homosexual tendencies are more-than-bluntly applied through the analogy of "eating oysters" and "eating snails", was removed from the final print for a time, until it was finally restored in 1991. Actually, it wasn't a genuine restoration, to be truthful. The dialogue had to be re-dubbed by Curtis, who was now sixty-six years old, and Anthony Hopkins had to provide the voice-over for Crassus because Olivier had been dead for two years already (nice mimic job, Anthony!). In a world of cinema where many classic films are restored through the use of modern technology, this is actually one of the more impressive stories I've heard in the history of Hollywood.

In the grand spectrum of the Kubrick library, SPARTACUS is, indeed, no DR. STRANGELOVE, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY or A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. It simply doesn't fit the director's style or technique. However, it becomes necessary to ignore the who and concentrate more on the what in this case. The film stands among some of the greatest biblical and historical epics of the era, alongside with THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (1956), BEN-HUR (1959) and EL CID (1961). Let's also not forget that without SPARTACUS, we likely never would have enjoyed Russell Crowe in GLADIATOR (2000). Let's at least be grateful for that!

Favorite line or dialogue:

Lentulus Batiatus (to Spartacus after he refuses to rape Varinia): "Perhaps you may not be an animal, Spartacus, but this sorry show gives me little hope you'll ever be a man."

SORRY, WRONG NUMBER

(September 1948, U.S.)

SORRY, WRONG NUMBER (adapted from the original Lucille Fletcher radio play) is, of course, old enough to feel completely dated (if not silly) to the average moviegoer, even lover of great black and white classics. However, the film opens with a message to the audience that I can't help but feel doesn't stray too far from the world we live in today...

"In the tangled networks of a great city, the telephone is the unseen link between a million lives...It is the servant of our common needs--the confidante of our inmost secrets...life and happiness wait upon its ring...and horror...and loneliness...and...death!!!

The year is 1948, but the message is clearly outlining its own version of what we consider our social media today and the equipment that ties us all together, sometimes whether we like it or not. The telephone, as simple as it may have been once, was still a quirky, little instrument that could, perhaps, throw a twist into one's life occasionally and enter them into circumstances of danger. The story is a somewhat simple one of a bedridden Manhattan woman who accidentally overhears a murder plot on the telephone when her line is crossed with another's. But to fully appreciate the victim of the story here, we have to understand just what sort of woman Leona Stevenson (played by the great Barbara Stanwyck) really is. She's a spoiled, rotten bitch who's never been shy about manipulating and controlling the men in her life, from her wealthy father to her whipped husband (in fact, there was probably nobody like Stanwyck who could play such a woman so damn well!). It's almost very easy not to feel an ounce of pity for her confined, bedridden condition, considering her abusive attitude toward everyone she comes into contact with, even the telephone operator. Even when the moment occurs when she accidentally overhears the murder plot of what will turn out to be her by 11:15 pm that night, she's only on the phone in the first place because she's desperately trying to tighten the leash she already has wrapped around her poor husband's neck. He's away somewhere, she's all alone, and she simply can't tolerate that.

Leona's history with her husband Henry (played by Burt Lancaster) is a pushy one from the moment she meets him when she quite literally steals him away from her college roommate during a dance simply because she's decided that she wants him. Does she really love him? She claims she does, but the appearance of her relationship with him is likely motivated to defy her controlling father, and nothing more. Once married, Henry's balls are forever inside of his wife's tight clutches. Even his bright career is in the hands of her father, whom he works for. When he boldly tries to break away into a business of his own, he's met with hostility and threats by Leona and her father, seemingly trapping and binding him to them forever. Too weak to simply say, "Fuck off!, and leave, it's no wonder he ultimately decides to commit illegal acts of embezzlement against his father in-law's company. Through Leona's endless, hysterical phone calls to various people all night, she manages to put the pieces together and learn of her husband's crimes and the financial and criminal consequences that have resulted. By the very end, she's also managed to discover that it was her own disgruntled husband who was responsible for putting the hit out on her so he could (presumably) inherit her money to get himself out of trouble. Interestingly, at the final moment before she's due to die at the hands of her paid assassins, there's the final conversation between her and Henry that brings confession, regret and mutual understanding between them as husband and wife. Turns out, they may have genuinely loved each other more than they ever realized. Alas, though, it's too late. Leona can't get out of bed to defend herself or scream out the window into the dark Manhattan night. She's been strangled and Henry's final, desperate attempt to save his estranged wife over the mighty telephone is met with only, "Sorry, wrong number." by one of her killers.

The film had a long history of radio adaptations before it, but it's truly the art of dark noir, circling camera work and looming shadows that brings its suspense to life, including the visuals of Stanwyck's bedroom windows facing the dark Manhattan skyline and bridge. Playing in real time, the various flashbacks help us to understand those involved with what we know is going to happen by the end of the night and decide for ourselves how much we pity those that are paying the price. Barbara and Burt play off well against each other as opposites who represent strength (her) and weakness (him). Their relationship outlines what, perhaps, represents a lot of sick, twisted marriages out there in real life where one controls the other who's more than willing to allow themselves to be controlled, even if they don't like it (like I said, a sick marriage!). I may have had Leona's killed myself if I were in such a personal hell (but hey, that's me...maybe!).

Favorite line or dialogue:

Henry Stevenson (to Leona): "I want you to do something. I want you to get yourself out of the bed, and get over to the window and scream as loud as you can! Otherwise you only have another three minutes to live!"

SORCERER

(June 1977, U.S.)

William Friedkin's SORCERER was practically doomed from the start when it was released in the summer of 1977. For starters, it's an existential American remake of what's generally considered a far superior French-Italian thriller, Henri-Georges Clouzot's THE WAGES OF FEAR (1953). It also contained no English language speaking parts for the first sixteen minutes of the film, which put off audiences, thinking they'd been duped into paying to see a foreign subtitled film and causing walk-outs from the theater. Because of this, theaters were actually prompted to issue a disclaimer on their lobby cards which read,

"YOUR ATTENTION, PLEASE. To dramatize the diverse backgrounds of the principal characters in 'Sorcerer', two of the opening sequences were filmed in the appropriate foreign languages – with sub-titles in English. Other than these opening scenes, 'Sorcerer' is an English language film."

Honestly, I don't know whether this was just simply a smart business tactic, or a pathetic appeal to lame-brain audience members who couldn't sum up enough patience and intelligence to sit though a lousy sixteen minutes of subtitled dialogue (regardless, it did nothing to improve the film's performance). Its title was also confusing, leading many to believe that it suggested an element a supernatural's likeness to his previous 1973 hit, THE EXORCIST. Finally, what really sealed the nail on the coffin of SORCERER was the fact that this little science fiction movie called STAR WARS had opened just a month prior and was really fucking things up for just about nearly every other movie released that summer. I can't say I really blame the people of that time choosing to ignore other films of that summer, even the new James Bond installment, because the dominating presence of STAR WARS was impossible to avoid. I mean, why so see a confusing film like SORCERER when you can keep seeing a galaxy far, far away again and again and again all summer?

Truth be told, SORCERER is a truly brilliant and visionary (and expensive!) film told with a director's passion in the heart of one of the world's most hellish places, or "the asshole of the world", much like Coppola's APOCALYPSE NOW two years later. It's story centers around four various men considered outcasts from the worlds in which they came, meeting together by chance in the god-forsaken village of Porvenir, somewhere in Latin America. The opening prologue of the film depicts each of their dire circumstances which forced them to abandon their country. The American who goes by the name of "Dominguez" (played by Roy Scheider, who also starred in Friedkin's THE FRENCH CONNECTION), is on the hit list by a New Jersey gangster, who's church he robbed and was then the only survivor of a car crash immediately following the robbery. What little economy the impoverished village has is highly dependent on an American oil company's production there. One day, without any warning, an oil well explodes, setting the stage for what will become the heart of the rest of the story. The only way to extinguish the raging fire is to use dynamite (I still don't understand how that works!). The only dynamite available has been sitting around, improperly stored for years, causing the nitroglycerin inside to become highly unstable and explosive at even the slightest vibration. The only way to bring this solution to the oil company two hundred miles away is to use trucks and to pay four dumb schmucks (I mean, men) to drive these highly dangerous vehicles across Mother Nature's worst terrain.

Embarking on their perilous journey, the four men must cooperate and overcome obstacles and hazards such as a downed dense tree and an extremely unstable wooden suspension bridge dangling above a raging river during a violent storm (see the movie poster's image). If the film's promotional attempt is to take its viewer into the realm and heart of suspense, then the bridge scene alone doesn't fail to disappoint. As you watch the bridge continuously teeter and totter above the water to the point of devastation, you cannot, for the life of you, believe that these men are actually accomplishing their attempts of survival. They all survive the bridge, but fate dictates that only one of them will survive in the end, and it's (perhaps predictably) Roy Scheider's American character who triumphs in the end by arriving at the scene on foot carrying just one box of the remaining nitroglycerin. And just when we think his life will finally turn around for the better with his newfound financial gain and readiness to leave the dreaded village, irony dictates that he's inevitably been betrayed and will be killed by the very gangsters he had previously escaped.

Remake or not, and despite its box office failure against STAR WARS, SORCERER is a highly overlooked classic of suspense, in my opinion. It's a film of high concept (perhaps even self-indulgent) commitment and visual crafting, accompanied by breathtaking cinematography of the dangers of the jungle and the mountains. The story's life and death suspense manages to combine the drama behind the desperation of human behavior and torment with its special effects, particularly the suspension bridge scene, which practically dominates the entire film's depiction of the hazards of the jungle, rain, flood, wind and fire. Roy Scheider continues to demonstrate why he was one of the best damn actors of the 1970s, beyond the great white shark. SORCERER will never be the high point of Friedkin's career, as THE FRENCH CONNECTION and THE EXORCIST were, but such comparison are unfair, if not outright wrong. If nothing else, the film continued to demonstrate the relentless toughness that Friedkin demonstrated in so many of the American films he gave us in the '70s and '80s (even the ones that didn't do so well at the box office...but who's counting?).

Favorite line or dialogue:

Jackie Scanlon: "Where am I going?"
Vinnie: "All I can say is it's a good place to lay low."
Jackie: "Why?"
Vinnie: "It's the kind of place nobody wants to go looking."