SPY WHO LOVED ME, THE

(July 1977, U.S.)

1977 was it! I was going to see my first James Bond movie on the big screen, uncut and unedited. This was a major step for a ten year-old boy who’d already gotten his feet wet in the world of James Bond with bits and pieces of other movies already shown on ABC-TV. From the moment THE SPY WHO LOVED ME opened, it seemed I hadn’t drifted too far from my last screen experience of THE DEEP because it was an underwater adventure all over again that involved the disappearance of nuclear submarines. All of a sudden, though, the movie switched to the snowy ski slopes with Bond being chased by enemy spies who were trying to kill him. Then he was flying! Well, not really flying but performing a daring escape off a cliff by parachute…and this was all before the opening credits and song by Carly Simon, whom I was actually aware of because I liked one of her older hit songs, “You’re So Vain”.

Because of my limited experience and knowledge of complex plot lines such as nuclear missiles, world domination and the strained relationships and mistrust that still existed between the Soviet Union and much of the rest of the world (England included), the story behind the action went right over my little head. Still, there was incredible spy action and thrills on the screen before me that included chases, exploding helicopters, shootouts and a cool looking white car that moved underwater. As for Barbara Bach…well, she was just stunning to look at! Apparently, at age ten, I recognized the visual appeal of beautiful women in the movies (thank you, Jacqueline and thank you, Barbara!).

But let’s be honest for a moment; despite even the great action and the beautiful women, what made THE SPY WHO LOVED ME so ultra-cool to me was the character of Jaws. This man (if you could really call him that) was an incredible powerhouse of gigantic destruction. This was an enemy that seemingly could not die, and just how was the great James Bond supposed to defeat someone…something like that? He could lift huge boulders, stop moving vans and bite through anything with his own steel teeth (those same teeth could get him electrocuted, too). What really sent things over the top (in a good way) for me was when Jaws was attacked by a shark (even today, the irony of that is priceless) and he ended up biting the shark to death. This was, perhaps, suspension of disbelief, even in a James Bond movie, at its ultimate level, but my young mind hardly cared or knew any better. This was incredible fun at the movies, the most I’d had since STAR WARS (though certainly not better). It seemed the summer blockbuster season of ‘’77 was off to a fantastic start.

When THE SPY WHO LOVED ME made its television premiere on the ABC Sunday Night Movie in November 1980, the Bond movie seemed as I remembered it three years earlier on screen. Well, sort of. For this TV airing, I saw something I’d never seen before. It was a black title card with a message in white that read, “Although edited for television, some parents may consider this James Bond film unsuitable for younger family members. Viewer discretion is advised.” Seriously? What was the problem? I’d seen the movie myself three years ago and I didn’t recall anything so terrible about it. Was the network concerned about murderous violence by Jaws or perhaps just the display of excessive upper cleavage by Barbara Bach...particularly when her cleavage was soaking wet and just incredibly yummy to look at?

Well, regardless of their reason, I enjoyed this great Bond movie again and this time it had some deeper meaning of familiarity to me because I’d also seen MOONRAKER on screen just a year ago and the famous character behind Roger Moore, as well as Jaws, were like old friends. But even old friends have a way of changing over time. While THE SPY WHO LOVED ME remains one of my preferred Bond films in the legendary franchise, it has managed to move down a few notches since I was a kid. The action and drama under the direction of Lewis Gilbert, at times, falls short in some sequences. The first example is when Bond and Anya are trying to escape from Jaws in the white van in Egypt and he manages to temporarily stop them by grabbing the back end of it. What could’ve been a thrilling moment with even a touch of terror, is substituted for pure silliness, even in the accompanying soundtrack when they finally escape and the van appears to fall apart as they drive it. Perhaps my sense of humor is off, but it simply doesn’t work for me.
Speaking of the soundtrack, I’ve always believed the music of any Bond film during that period loses something significant when it’s not scored by John Barry (that’s just me). What really disappoints me, though, is the climactic destruction of Stromberg’s Atlantis and the escape of our two heroes done without the dramatic use of any soundtrack music. What should be a sequence of sheer excitement becomes bland in its delivery (do I blame Marvin Hamlisch for that bogus decision?). Still, the film offers the political excitement and tension of nuclear conflict and the twisted vision of a criminal madman seeking global domination in a world he creates by his own hand, in this case, under the sea. In fact, if you take a moment to consider the other two Bond films under Gilbert’s direction, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE and MOONRAKER, these reccuring themes are present, as well. Performances do not fall short, either, as Moore gives one of his better ones, making him an Barbara one of the better Bond film couples. Still, in the end, it's Bond...and if we can't sit back and accept each new Bond film as "the biggest, the best, and beyond", then perhaps we need to find a new screen action hero.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Anya Amasova: "The man I loved. He was in Austria three weeks ago. Did you kill him?"
James Bond: "When someone's behind you on skis at forty miles per hour trying to put a bullet in your back, you don't always have time to remember a face. In our business, Anya, people get killed. We both know that. So did he. It was either him or me. The answer to the question is yes. I did kill him."
Anya: "Then, when this mission is over, I will kill you!"

SPY GAME

November 2001, U.S.)

There's this little game of pretend I like to play with Tony Scott's SPY GAME. Although Robert Redford's character of Nathan Muir is in no way related to his character of Joe Turner in Sidney Pollack's 1975 film THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR, I like to imagine that Redford is once again Joe Turner in SPY GAME and we're getting a glimpse of what his life in the CIA has been like for the past twenty-six years, just for the fun of deluding myself and making things more interesting. Interestingly, I found myself doing the same thing with another Tony Scott film, ENEMY OF THE STATE (1998) and Gene Hackman's character in relation to his previous one in Coppola's THE CONVERSATION (1974).

Robert Redford and Brad Pitt is an instant attraction in the world of Hollywood chemistry. One only need to recall Redford's direction of Pitt in A RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT (1992) to know how well the two served each other. Now on screen together, that chemistry is not lost. Whether we choose to think of Pitt as a younger version of Redford himself or a direct prodigal son of the veteran actor and director, it works well, nonetheless. As Tom Bishop, Pitt may be very well be considered the intelligent CIA operative with the shooting skills of John Rambo. Still, he's not flawless. The start of the film is in 1991 and Tom has just been captured and imprisoned in Suzhou near China. Questioned under torture and refusing to divulge information, he's sentenced to be executed in twenty-four hours even and the United States and China are on the verge of a major trade agreement. Back home, the CIA will not claim Bishop as one of their own, for fear of jeopardizing the agreement. Nathan, on his last day on the job before retirement, has other plans in mind to get his "boy" that he ultimately feels responsible for, out of prison without the knowledge of his soon-to-be former superiors.

As Nathan sits in an endless debriefing among those that are deciding the fate of Tom's existence, he describes how he recruited Tom back in 1975 at the close of the Vietnam War. Like Col. Trautman and Rambo, he trained him and cut him loose on the world of our enemies when the time was right. These events included Berlin in '76 and Beirut in '85. Unlike Rambo, however, Tom is weakened by feelings of love toward a missionary woman he met in Lebanon. Because we know from the movies that the CIA inevitably means lies and deception, Nathan tips off the Chinese about the woman when he concludes that Tom's feelings for her will compromise his cover and his mission. We learn soon enough that it was that same woman Tom was trying to rescue at the start of the film when he was captured. Through his feelings of consciousness and skills as a former operative, Nathan creates and forges a plan to rescue Tom before his execution without the knowledge of those he's lying to. Deception and lies are now working on our side as it's a race against time to rescue the hero and the lady from certain doom. Rescued they are, and it's a rather intriguing moment when Tom realizes it was Nathan who was responsible for his rescue when the simple words of "Operation Dinner Out" are spoken. He understands, and so do we, and we're glad we were there to watch it all happen.

In any film about spies and espionage, the final outcome is often never in any doubt. We know the heroes will win and the American spirit will triumph. Perhaps it triumphs even more in a film released just two months after the events of 9/11. Still, it's impossible to deny that it works even better when we watch Redford and Pitt work together. They feed off each other with a degree of cleverness and intrigue that reminds us of solid acting crafts behind what is wholeheartedly a cat-and-mouse action thriller. Still, I can't help but wish that someone on the writing team of SPY GAME had, indeed, come up with the simple idea of re-introducing us to the former character of Joe Turner. As I said, it makes things a little more interesting.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Nathan Muir (over the phone): "We're on for tonight."
Commander Wiley (over the phone): "Roger sir, understand. Operation Dinner Out is a GO. Confirm."
Nathan: "Correct, Dinner Out is a go."
Dr. William Byars (overhearing): "Dinner Out is a go? Hell of a way to speak to your wife."
Vincent Vy Ngo: "Why do you think they keep dumping him."

MY NEW WRITER'S WEBSITE

I am pleased and proud to be able to share with you my new writer's website. Like many things in life, it's a continuous work-in-progress that will further promote my film blog, my first book (COMING SOON) and future writing projects to come.

https://ericf567.wixsite.com/ericfriedmannwriter

Any and all inquiries regarding my writing can be emailed to ericfriedmannwriter@gmail.com.

Thank you all again for your continued enthusiasm, encouragement and support!

Warmest Regards,
Eric Friedmann, Writer

SPOTLIGHT

(November 2015, U.S.)

Despite the events of the film SPOTLIGHT having taken place only seventeen years ago, it practically feels ancient because one can't help but wonder what's happened to the hardcore investigative journalism of the press today. It almost seems as if the the pursuit of getting the story and discovering the truth on behalf of the American people is nearly dead because of everything that social media and smart phones are able to capture on their own. I mean, why waste time trying to discover what our own (bullshit) president has done or said when he's already proudly displaying it on his own Twitter account? Why dig around for the truth and its consequences when there don't seem to be any consequences any more? Gone, it seems, are the days of Watergate or the Iran-Contra Affair when we were still shocked and horrified to learn what our so-called "trusted" government was really up to behind the shadows and closed doors. Today, we find things out relatively quickly as soon as CNN reports it to us and we allow it to just pass through time until the next big "shocker" comes along.

Tom McCarthy's film takes place in 2001 during the months before 9/11. Again, it's not too long ago, but it's before social media and iPhones were running our lives and there's still something to be said for the Boston Globe's "Spotlight" team and their investigation into cases of widespread child sex abuse by numerous Roman Catholic priests throughout Massachusetts. Even in what's considered our modern day and age, Boston is a tightly-wound city in which Catholic faith and the desire to protect and cover-up sex crimes committed by the Boston Archdiocese are common ground. As the reputable newspaper digs, discovers and reveals, they're lined up against lawyers, politicians and the entire church body that will stand against them to protect what they consider to be an invaluable religious faith and the comfort it brings to their lives. In this world of sweeping the truth under the rug, no one in Boston wants to hear about crimes committed against innocent children by those in the church they've come to depend on. The film effectively explores the daily process of a team (comprising of talented folks like Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo and Rachel McAdams) that have committed themselves to uncovering the truth (surely echoing the spirit and thrills of ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN) in the name of the innocent who have forever been damaged (even as adults) by those they thought they could believe in. Even when the Spotlight team is forced to de-prioritize their big story after the September 11th attacks occur, the film doesn't waste too much time deterring itself away from our main focus. Momentum is quickly regained and new truths are revealed when hardcore documents are finally made available to the public that confirm the Cardinal's knowledge of all criminal incidents within the church and his apparent decisions to ignore it. By early 2002, the story has gone to print, these twisted pedophiles priests have been exposed and the Spotlight team find themselves inundated with phone calls from more victims who have finally gained the courage to come forward and tell their stories.

Like many others, I became aware of the epidemic cases of pedophile priests throughout this country (and the world) shortly after 9/11, re-confirming that our new century was off to a very bad start. Like others, I'm sure, I had no idea that the problem stretched as far back in time as it did. SPOTLIGHT successfully brings the story into the light through its lurid and intricate detailing of the facts behind the story while providing just the right amount of drama behind its main characters within the newspaper, as well as its victims who must suffer through the pain of telling their stories. It reminds me of a time not too long ago when the power of the press still (seemingly) produced results and inevitably consequences for those who betrayed the law and our public trust. Today, we have sadly allowed ourselves to erode into a society where we not only know about the problem, but will (again, seemingly) do nothing about it. Why else would a piece of garbage like Donald Trump still be sitting in the White House? Where, oh where, are Woodward, Bernstein and "Deep Throat" when we really need them??

As a Jewish person, I also can't help but wonder why we've never really heard of pedophile Rabbis (at least, I haven't). Perhaps it's because they're not forced into a life of celibacy in the first place that may eventually turn their minds into a more dangerous and damaging direction? Just a thought.

SPOTLIGHT won the Oscar for Best Picture of 2015.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Walter Robinson: "We've got two stories here. We've got a story about degenerate clergy, and we've got a story about a bunch of lawyers turning child abuse into a cottage industry. Now, which story do you want us to write? Because we're writing one of them!"

SPLASH

(March 1984, U.S.)

When considering the life and career of Tom Hanks, one of our most gifted actors of today, it's hard to believe the man ever did anything silly. And yet, were I to travel back in time to his career prior to the early 1990's, it seems that just about everything he did on screen was silly. Back then, I never would have imagined that the star of BACHELOR PARTY (1984), VOLUNTEERS (1985) and DRAGNET (1987) would eventually blow our minds with the Oscar-winning performances two years in a row with PHILADELPHIA (1993) and FORREST GUMP (1994), as well as the unforgettable SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1998). Still, in 1984, I was hot to see SPLASH! It seemingly had everything that was familiar to me at the time. It starred that really funny guy from ABC-TV's BOSOM BUDDIES, that hot blonde chick from BLADE RUNNER (1982) and was directed by Richie Cunningham himself. I'd already seen his previous comedy with the Fonz, NIGHT SHIFT (1982), so it seemed that he had a knack for good comedy.

The film begins twenty years-ago in 1964 with eight year-old Allen Bauer nearly drowning after inexplicably jumping in the ocean while on vacation in Cape Cod with his family. Well, maybe not so inexplicably. Seems there's a little, blonde girl down there that he feels instantly connected to. He's with her only for a moment before he's rescued and will (seemingly) never see her again. Still, even as a child, whatever he felt when holding that little girl's hands proved quite strong because as a grown man, Allen (played by Hanks) has had nothing but failed relationships with women, perhaps never getting over what he felt as a child.

(or perhaps I'm getting way too psychologically-deep about a movie like SPLASH!)

Twenty years later, Allen and his older brother Freddie (played by John Candy) run their late father's wholesale produce business in New York City. Allen is depressed over his latest failed relationship and decides to return to Cape Cod to heal himself. Want to take a guess who he bumps into? She's all grown up, beautiful, naked (and played by Daryl Hannah) and instantly attracted to Allen. She's also apparently mute and communicates best by taking Allen and passionately kissing him (the best way to start a new relationship!). As the audience, we know she's really a mermaid, but Allen can't tell because she has legs out of the water. In the water, she's a most endearing fish who uses Allen's dropped wallet and maps aboard a sunken ship to locate New York City. Meanwhile, not too far down the shore, the ever-eccentric Dr. Walter Kornbluth (played by the ever-eccentric Eugene Levy) has witnessed the mermaid and is now obsessed with finding her again in the name of scientific discovery.

Let's now go to the island of Manhattan, where a naked, blonde woman has just arrived at the shores of the Statue of Liberty. This is a most pivotal scene in the film because it's the one and only moment we get to witness Daryl Hannah's ass in a PG-rated "family" movie (or perhaps it's just her body double)...

Anyway, what's the difference? It was a nice moment for a sixteen year-old young man with raging hormones for the opposite sex! After she arrested for indecent exposure, she's soon reunited with Allen and just as horny for his body as she was back in Cape Cod. Now in his care, she quickly learns English from American television and decides that she likes the name Madison for herself. Deeper and deeper in passion and in love do Allen and Madison fall, but it won't be too long before he discovers the fishy truth behind the woman he loves. Upon discovering her outrageous secret when she's exposed in public by Dr. Kornbluth with a garden hose, Allen is shocked, repulsed and even more confused about his love life than ever before (understandable). Inevitably, Dr. Kornbluth regrets his actions and decides to help both Madison and Allen escape their confinement at the hands of other greedy scientists. The escape scene is particularly noteworthy because it's one of John Candy's funniest moments as he not only convinces the guards that he's Swedish, but uses what he considers a useful piece of knowledge regarding Swedish porn films and the size of his penis (like I said before, this is a "family film). This is also perhaps where director Ron Howard is taking inspiration from Spielberg's E.T., as it's now a race against time for those who care about Madison to get her away from our big, bad, ol' government boys and get her back home where she belongs. So, steal the mermaid, steal a car, outrace the government and military forces through the crowded streets of Manhattan and we're eventually at the docks of New York harbor. Madison can go home now, but she can never return. Allen can go with her, and would survive under the water as long as he's with her, but he can never return. Just when we think that true love will not survive between man and fish, Allen jumps into the water and it's all happily ever-after as the two of them swim toward what appears to be an undiscovered underwater kingdom.

It's easy for me to criticize Tom Hanks as being nothing more than silly during the early part of his career. But even that silliness was always accompanied with true heart in every performance. One can be merely a clown on screen, or one can be a clown with promise and potential. Allen Bauer represents what is, perhaps, most positive in human nature's ability to believe in love and the prices one must pay in order to keep it. Even his idiotic older brother, with all his womanizing, perversions and letters to Penthouse magazine, believes in the power of love for those other than himself (at least the guy is honest). SPLASH, if nothing else, is fun and romantic, with just the right humor to support an actor who would one day go on to much bigger and better things.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Freddie Bauer: "So, how is she?"
Allen Bauer: "How is she? She's...a mermaid. I don't understand. All my life I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's...she's a fish."
Freddie: "Nobody said love's perfect."
Allen: "Oh, Freddie, I don't expect it to be perfect! But for god's sake, it's usually human!"

SPIRIT OF ST. LOUIS, THE

(April 1957, U.S.)

Those of my generation may only be aware of Charles Lindbergh for two reasons. The first would be the infamous kidnapping and murder of his infant son Charles. Jr. in 1932, which at that time, was dubbed by the American media as the "Crime of the Century" (we in the 1990s would have bestowed that honor to the O.J. Simpson murders). Some of us may even recall the crime slightly fictionalized in Sidney Lumet's 1974 film version of Agatha Christie's MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS. The second would be James Stewart's performance as "Lindy" or "Slim" in Billy Wilder's THE SPIRIT OF ST. LOUIS, based on Lindbergh's autobiographical account of his 1927, thirty-three hour solo trans-Atlantic flight in a custom-built, single engine, single seat monoplane called "Spirit of St. Louis" from Roosevelt Field, Long Island across the Atlantic Ocean to Le Bourget Field in Paris, France; a flight that made aviation history.

Told in a rather non-linear format, the film not only chronicles the flight itself, but flashbacks and reminisces Lindbergh's early days in aviation, including his days as an airmail pilot, a flight instructor, a barnstorming pilot and a flying circus pilot. For the legendary flight itself, we see from its inception that it's an American undertaking that not only requires high finance, but also the necessary spirit that supports such historical undertakings. One cannot help but recall the 1983 film THE RIGHT STUFF, which chronicled the American spirit behind the space race of the 1960s. Unlike that film, though, Charles Lindbergh is alone on his journey and consequently, will die alone if the plane fails to reach its destiny. We're not just watching a pilot take command of a plane that he's come to know very well through design and weight calculations, but a man who's not slept in three days and struggles to maintain control over his fate, as well as his sanity. Even as he appears to be making social pleasantries with a fly that's determined to stay inside his plane for a while, we can surely appreciate the madness one must be facing traveling alone over the middle of the uncharted ocean and the subsequent need to talk to someone or something like a fly, or even himself.

As we travel alongside Lindbergh, it's easy to be overcome with feelings of not only dread for the inevitable dangers that face the place, but also the joys in realizing one's ultimate dream. From the moment he witness a flying seagull, we realize that land is close. From the moment he tries to hail fisherman below him to ask if the country of Ireland is nearby, we appreciate the humor as lighthearted measures in asking for directions. When he finally succumbs to sleepiness and conks out, we shudder at the sight of the plane flying off course and out of control, and then immediately breathe a sigh of relief when he regains his consciousness and perspective. The overhead shots of the lights of Paris are the physical signs of victory for not only Charles Lindbergh, but for the two hundred thousand French people who cheer his successful arrival and for the four million people of New York City who will honor him as a national hero with a ticker tape parade.

While not received too well in 1957, it impossible not to recognize now that THE SPIRIT OF ST. LOUIS deserves praise for not only a solid performance by a legendary actor like James Stewart (my favorite classic actor, by the way), but for Billy Wilder's ability to create a sense of suspense, tension, adventure and excitement in one man's spiritual determination to make history at a time when the 20th Century was still relatively new and the possibilities for man's historic achievements were still limitless. In fact, when I watch a film like this (or THE RIGHT STUFF, too, for that matter), I cannot help but become very cynical in my attitude toward human achievement in the 21st Century. What have we done? Where have we gone? What are we likely to do in the near future? If the answer to these important questions is merely the latest and greatest versions of the Apple iPhone and the money that phone addicts are willing to spend on it, then I fear we have no real future to look forward to. Sad!

Favorite line or dialogue:

Charles Lindbergh: "Did you wait in the rain all night?"
Girl: "Yes."
Charles: "Are you from New York?"
Girl: "No."
Charles: "Long Island?"
Girl: "No. I'm from Philadelphia."
Charles: "You came all the way from Philadelphia?"
Girl: "I had to. You needed my mirror."

SPIDER-MAN

(May 2002, U.S.)

Fifteen years - six Spider-Man movies. To those die hard fans who crave this stuff crammed down their throat every summer and holiday season, it may not seem like a lot. For me, the less-than-average fan of comic book heroes, Sam Raimi's original film that kicked it all off has been more than enough. It's not just because it's the best of the lot, in my opinion, but it's also timing and history that places the film in a high position of significance. SPIDER-MAN was the first comic book hero film to be released in movie theaters following the horrific events of September 11th just seven and a half months prior. It is virtually impossible for me to watch this film without deep reflection of not only New York City at that time, but my own feelings and memories as a city resident at that time. Hence, my post today of SPIDER-MAN is not just an interpretation of a beloved comic book hero film, but a tale of 9/11, as well.

The film was practically a tribute to the Twin Towers from the moment fans witnessed the first teaser movie poster featuring the city skyline's two towers reflected in the web slinger's huge eyes...

That poster was subsequently recalled by Sony following the terrorist attacks. The film's original teaser trailer ends with Spider-Man trapping the bad guys into a gigantic web spun between the World Trade Center towers. That trailer was also pulled after the attacks. Finally, any scenes of the towers that were filmed in 2001 were digitally removed from the final print following the attacks. However, despite Hollywood's best effort to sensitively protect its audience from any painful reminders of our worst day, the entire feel of Sam Raimi's film is still a film of New York City and the evil that dwells inside it...and ultimately the hero we need to fight it (but I'll get into further in a little while).

If you ever read the comic books or religiously followed the animated TV series that ran from 1967 to 1970 (as I did in re-runs), then you know very well the story of high school student and social outcast Peter Parker (played in the first three films by Toby Maguire) and how he came to develop superhuman spider powers following a bite from a genetically-engineered "super spider" (at least that's how it happens in the film). Peter's also in love with neighbor and fellow student Mary Jane Watson (played by Kirsten Dunst). One fateful day, while trying to win money at a wrestling match to buy a car to impress Mary, Peter allows a dangerous thief to escape capture. This same thief will later kill Peter's Uncle Ben (played by the late Cliff Robertson) during a car jacking. Guilt-ridden and now in the famous costume we all know so well, Peter takes on the role and responsibility (because "with great power comes great responsibility") of our friendly, neighborhood Spider-Man. But while he's a doer of good deeds and fighting injustice, it's the head of the Daily Bugle's J. Jonah Jameson (played by J.K. Simmons) who's convinced that Spider-Man is a menace, even as he hires Peter as the only freelance photographer who can manage to ever get a clear picture of the web crawler (oh, the irony of it all!). As a rescuer of the sweet damsel in distress, he manages to save Mary Jane three times. So it's no wonder that's she inevitably falls in love with her unknown hero who's also in love with her when he's just Peter (oh, the total irony of it all!). And to be perfectly honest, I'd be less than a truthful horny, heterosexual male if I didn't confess that Kirsten looks amazing in the rain-soaked street scene with her wet nipples poking through her blouse, just before the famous upside-down smooch...

Spider-Man's arch enemy in this first film is the Green Goblin, who's the insanely powerful brainchild of billionaire Norman Osborn (played chillingly by Willem Dafoe). Unaware of Peter's true identity, he also sees himself as his father figure, practically ignoring his own son Harry (played by James Franco). Such personal affections don't count for much when good must ultimately fight evil in the face of great danger and peril. During an attack on the Roosevelt Island Tram car (that car was also the scene of a hostage situation in Sylvester Stallone's 1981 cop film NIGHTHAWKS), Spider-Man is forced to choose between saving Mary Jane or the poor children in the Tram car (he saves both, of course!). In the end, Green Goblin is defeated, Norman Osborn is killed, Harry swears revenge against Spider-Man, love is revealed and rejected, and the stage is set for the future heroics and responsibility of the amazing Spider-Man. Whether or not you consider his adventures any good after this one is strictly up to your own cinematic opinions and tastes. For myself, Spider-Man's screen time ends for me after Raimi's first film. Despite it's popularity, SPIDER-MAN 2 did nothing for me. Everything that has followed since hasn't been worth my time.

I'd like to return now to the tone of 9/11 that absorbs this film. As previously mentioned, the filmmakers do their best to shield us of any reminders that once existed with the World Trade Center towers. Still, we cannot ignore that this is still New York City, and it's far from ever being a paradise on Earth. The city is filled with danger and with evil, and the actions of such evil still comes in the form of violence, of acts of terror, of explosions and of innocent lives damaged. Any comic book super hero film will boldly shove those hard facts in our face. But it's the realization and understanding of SPIDER-MAN as a heroic film that follows a real-life event of tragedy that reminds us of how much we hold dear our heroes of action and justice...even if those heroes are fiction.

That in mind, I'd like to conclude with a piece of Spider-Man history that I've always considered very moving and poignant for our time. In December 2001, Marvel Comics released the Amazing Spider-Man, Volume 2, Issue #36 - "Stand Tall", a 9/11 tribute comic book with an all black cover. The story focuses on Spider-Man (as well as other Marvel heroes and villains) coping with the devastation and sorrow following the terrorist attacks. Despite it being a work of fictional characters that do not exist in our real lives, one cannot help but reflect on the themes behind the true evil we live with and the heroes we depend on that do exist in our lives, primarily the great first responders of the city. Still, it's impossible not to fantasize of what we wish existed in our life. Spider-Man, Superman, Captain America and any other beloved character we grew up with are ideas many of us can't help but cling to in times of horrible crisis, despite their being merely imaginary.

There are two images from the comic book that speak wonders for me in their effort to help us connect with the myth of the comic book hero and those who so desperately need him. The first is Spider-Man staring in horror at the ground's devastation following the tower's collapse...

Even as our great hero is horrified at what he's witnessed, he speaks to us by reminding us that "Only madmen could contain the thought, execute the act, fly the planes. The sane world will always be vulnerable to madmen, because we cannot go where they go to conceive of such things. We could not see it coming. We could not be here before it happened. We could not stop it. But we are here now. You cannot see us for the dust, but we are here. You cannot hear us for the cries, but we are here."

The second image is the cries of desperation from innocent people who are running for their lives from the cataclysmic collapse of the towers as they beg for understanding from Spider-Man when they ask him, "Where were you? How could you let this happen?"...

We are reading nothing more than a comic book, but how can we not ask somewhere deep down in our own minds and hearts how such an evil deed could possibly happen to us and why wasn't there a hero to stop it from happening in the first place? These are haunting questions that are likely to never be answered, but I applaud Marvel Comics for just one brief moment, in trying to artistically express those feelings of fear and confusion by reminding us of legendary heroes of good and justice like the amazing Spider-Man.

Always remember September 11, 2001.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Wrestling Promoter (after Peter allows a thief to escape with cash): "You coulda taken that guy apart! Now he's gonna get away with my money!"
Peter Parker: "I missed the part where that's my problem!"