SpiderMan Tagged Articles at Cinematical

Movie music has certainly changed over the years. What was once the domain of an orchestra and studio musicians is long gone, and now the top-40 soundtrack reigns supreme. Sometimes it works, like in the case of Martin Scorsese's use of pop music, and sometimes it really doesn't -- and that's where today's list comes in. SPIN has compiled what they say are the worst movie songs of all time, so make sure your earplugs are handy because we're about to look back at the Top 10 Worst Movie Songs, Ever!

So let's get right to the list, shall we? Grabbing the top spot for the worst of all time was P. Diddy and Jimmy Page's Kashmir update for Godzilla, Come With Me. But if you thought that song was bad, wait till you get a load of the other nominees, including Vanilla Ice's Ninja Rap, Limp Bizkit's Take a Look Around from Mission Impossible II, and Nickelback's Spider-Man song, Hero. Judging by SPIN's list it seems like 'geek' movies took most of the hits -- although how Evanescence's theme for Daredevil escaped I'll never know. But rather than complain about what wasn't included in SPIN's list, I've decided to make my very own list of great and not-so-great movie songs.

After the jump: My Top 10 Favorite (and most hated) songs from the movies...

Well, Spider-Man is back in the headlines and it's official: Kirsten Dunst will be back for another turn as Peter Parker's main squeeze, Mary Jane. Now this might sound odd, but I feel like I've spent a lot of time defending Kirsten Dunst over the years. Not to the population at large mind you, but when you have those discussions with friends or family or maybe even the occasional reader out there about the actors you like or dislike, Dunst always shoots to the top of the Yuck, I So Hate Her list. That's why, today, I'm here to ask the big question of all you haters out there: What did Kirsten Dunst ever do to you?

Do a quick search on the internet for Dunst and stories pop up about stints in rehab (and it didn't help that her name worked so well with drunk), body snark on a level that would make a mean girl blush, and just about every unflattering comment you can think of -- for goodness sake, some of the sleazier wags out there thought the proof of Jake Gyllenhaal's homosexuality was the fact that he was dating her. But today I will come out of the closet and proclaim: My name is Jessica and I like Kirsten Dunst.

After the jump: find out why, and my picks for her top five films...

Is there room in Hollywood for more than one giant robot franchise? Well, Warner Bros. certainly seems to think so. The long-gestating feature film version of the classic anime Robotech isn't dead in the water yet -- and to prove it, WB has hired two new writers to give the script another polish. The Hollywood Reporter has announced that Alfred Gough and Miles Millar have signed to write the live-action adaption.

Robotech originally aired during the '80s in North America (and was compiled from three different series' released in Japan); the film is being described as "A sprawling sci-fi epic" and takes place in a not-too-distant future where humans have developed giant robots from an alien technology. When another invasion looms, mankind hops in their giant robots to fend off the alien hoard, and the fate of the human race is left in the hands of two young pilots. Tobey Maguire will still produce, but it remains to be seen if Maguire will star -- and at the rate this project is moving, Maguire is going to be in his 40's by the time this film hits theaters.

Gough and Millar aren't the first writers to take a stab at the anime classic. Back in June, we reported that Lawrence Kasdan was drafting a script, but the project seemed to stall after that. According to THR, Warners is keen to get the film into production, and the hiring of Millar and Gough could give the film a needed boost of "geek cred" since both worked on Spider Man 2 and The Mummy Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, as well as a stint writing for Smallville.

It looks like it could be some time before Robotech finally makes its way to the big screen, but here's your chance to sound off on whether you would actually want to see it on the big screen ...

In my review of Dan in Real Life on Friday, I mentioned what an excellent writer I find Peter Hedges to be. He wrote my favorite novel, What's Eating Gilbert Grape, as well as the screenplay for the Johnny Depp adaptation. He co-wrote About a Boy, and wrote and directed Pieces of April. All great stuff. Dan is the weakest of that lot, but still an entertaining film. It seems other people are fans of Hedges as well, he's just been signed to write and direct Everything Changes, an adaptation of the Jonathan Trapper book of the same name. Hedges was hired to adapt the book, and loved it so much he opted to direct as well.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, the story focuses on "a man on the verge of marrying the perfect girl when he undergoes a life crisis as he faces feelings for his recently deceased best friend's wife and also deals with the sudden arrival of his womanizing, estranged father." Did you follow all of that? The film will most likely star Tobey Maguire, who will also co-produce with Wendy Finerman (Forrest Gump). It will be good to see Maguire back in non-Spider-Man roles, his vicious performance in the otherwise limp The Good German reminded me how good he can be. Have any of you read Everything Changes? Thoughts?

Sony has accused the Walt Disney Company of bending the rules in announcing the box office totals for Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. The main issue in question is whether Pirates 3 or Spider-Man 3 brought in the most gold doubloons over its first six days of worldwide release. Sony spokesman Steve Eltzer is claiming that At World's End opened in at least two areas on the previous Tuesday, which would add a seventh day of grosses to what Disney announced as a six-day record. Disney is claiming "we had previews that generated $1.4 million. And in keeping with industry practice, we rolled it into the opening day." I, Patrick Walsh, am claiming that if these people would put as much work into their movies as they do into arguing about insanely trivial financial records, moviegoers would be a hell of a lot happier.

Sony opened Spider-Man 3 on a Tuesday in some territories overseas and announced a "six-day opening record" of $232 million. Disney announced its "six-day opening record" of $251 for Pirates. And both have been grumbling and bickering back and forth ever since. "While there may or may not be other territories that opened prior to Wednesday, we believe that as more day-and-date releases enter the market, there should be a consistent standard in international box office reporting," says Eltzer. "This issue is larger than an opening-week box office statistic." Hear hear! Way to focus on the truly important issues, boys! This is a sad day indeed. I thought Hollywood was supposed to be a world of magical entertainments and childlike wonder, and now we come to find out that these people seem to be most interested in ... money? Who knew?

In a story about this summer's blockbuster franchises and the plans for their continuation, iF Magazine shares this interesting quote from Sony Pictures chairperson Amy Pascal: "If you want the kind of longevity we're hoping for with Spider-Man, you have to think of them as stand-alone movies, not '1-2-3-4'. They're sort of like the James Bond stories." I find this statement quite amusing considering the definite three-part story arc followed in the first few Spider-Man movies. Plus, if Sony didn't mean for us to think of each as a numerical installment, the studio might have wanted to title the sequels differently than Spider-Man 2 and Spider-Man 3. They should have done something more along the lines of The Dark Knight or Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer.

But thinking of the Spider-Man series as being like the 007 franchise would make it okay for Sony to replace Tobey Maguire in the role of Peter Parker/Spider-Man, which could happen if the actor refuses the reported $20 million offer to return. Sony is currently looking for screenwriters to pen Spider-Man 4, though the studio has already been talking with David Koepp, who wrote the first installment, about signing on. Koepp is also responsible for writing the next Indiana Jones movie, a fourth installment in a franchise that does actually consist of stand-alone parts. Whoever is hired for the script, though, it may, according to Pascal's statement, be more of a one-shot rather than the beginning of another trilogy (the studio is apparently interested in at least three more films). Perhaps they can title it one of the following number-less suggestions: Spider-Man: Maximum Carnage; Spider-Man and the Lizard's Tale; Doc Octopussy. Or, if they re-cast and reboot, a la The Incredible Hulk: The Amazing Spider-Man; The Spectacular Spider-Man; Web of Spider-Man; etc.

You'd think that Spider-Man creator Stan Lee would receive privileged information about Spider-Man 4, but apparently he doesn't even know what is going on in the comics, let alone the movie scripts. Still, he is smart enough to know what should happen in the next installment of the series: Dr. Curt Connors, who we've briefly seen in parts 2 and 3, should finally turn into The Lizard. Of course, an appearance from the scaly villain has been expected since Connors was first alluded to in the first film. In addition to suggesting that The Lizard should be the next villain, in a video interview with Reelz Channel's Dailies, Lee also discusses the possibility of Peter Parker ending up with Gwen Stacy rather than Mary Jane in part 4.

Lee's suggestion is simply that, a suggestion, as long as he has no real creative input, but he is right to say The Lizard is a logical next step. Certainly such logic makes it less of a surprise when we hear rumors about the villain already being a lock for the film. However, expecting a villain because of onscreen allusions means we should also logically predict that Man-Wolf and Robot-Master will show up at some point, too. Anyway, Lee probably wants to see another one of his own creations like The Lizard on the big screen instead of any of Spidey's newer villains, like Carnage, who is also being talked about for #4. For me, either villain or both is fine, just as long as Spidey doesn't team up with Venom to fight them. I actually stopped reading the comics following the Maximum Carnage storyline (though I did give the good-guy Venom series a fair shot), and I'd probably stop watching the movies at the same point. I know the end of Spider-Man 3 suggests this couldn't happen, but you never know -- either with comic books or the movies.

I saw Spider-Man 3 Saturday night. It was a total mess, but the visuals were incredible, the fight scenes were thrilling, and I enjoyed enough of the film to make it worth my time. Still, it occurred to me on the way home that with a few simple changes, the film could have been a superhero classic. And

Before we begin, please know that I'm not a die-hard Spidey fan. The first two Spider-Man films were entertaining enough, but I forgot them immediately afterward. I know when you read that heading you probably thought this article would consist of complaints like "Why didn't they do such-and-such with the character of Venom like they did in Issue #231 of blah-blah-bloo?" But that's not me. This article comes from the point of view of an average guy with no knowledge of comic books who went into Spider-Man 3 with no expectations. Here's what I would have changed to make the movie more entertaining to me. SPOILERS AHEAD!

1) Kill Mary Jane in the opening scene

The Uncle stuff is played out, Peter needs something new to be upset about. And I used to love Kirsten Dunst, but now she "acts" her scenes like she can't wait for someone to yell "Cut!" so she can go and make out with one of The Strokes. Are we really supposed to believe that Peter would choose Dunst's dehydrated, negative, miserable Mary Jane over Bryce Dallas Howard's pants-explodingly hot, upbeat, and cheerful Gwen Stacey? Mary Jane is a terrible girlfriend! She spends the entire film whining about her lackluster singing abilities to a guy who spends his time keeping the city free from evil! She's dull, she's pouty, and she participates in elaborate Chubby Checker-scored cooking/dancing/infidelity montages with James Franco! Dump her!

2) Have your villains get upset before the last twenty minutes roll around

A no-brainer. I can't recall seeing a movie where the villains decided "You know, maybe we should kill the hero" so late in the game. The Sandman appeared to be thinking about what to have for dinner for most of the film. Venom doesn't even enter the picture until the last third. It's screenwriting 101, especially in a movie of this kind. By the end of Act One, you better be damn sure your audience knows who the antagonist is, and what your hero is up against. Nobody seems to have clear motives here. All the characters are confused and conflicted and don't really know who they want to kill and why or if they even want to. That's fine for a Scorsese film, but this is Spider-Man, people!

3) More J.K. Simmons and Bruce Campbell

In the few moments of screen time given to each of these fantastic character actors, they charged the movie with an energy that nearly all of the other actors lacked. As a huge Oz fan, it's always a little jarring to see J.K. Simmons in other roles – I kept expecting him to sexually assault Peter Parker. But once I got past that, the guy was hilarious. And Bruce Campbell's champagne back-and-forth in the restaurant was pure gold. Truth be told, Campbell should have played The Sandman. He certainly would have brought more life to it than Thomas Haden Church -- who must have thought he was playing the Sandman who puts kids to sleep.

One of the more appealing aspects of Marvel superheroes is that they are set in the real world as opposed to fictional places like Metropolis. Because of this, we can actually visit the city in which Spider-Man is an honorary (though fictional) resident: New York. Sure, we can't locate made-up places like Empire State University or read the Daily Bugle, but we can check out the locations used for those places in the movies. But if you are ever planning on doing some Spidey-related tourism in the Big Apple, you might want to schedule your trip around the "Spider-Man Week in New York City" event, which we told you about earlier this month. Seven days of fun-filled activities, being held in conjunction with the release of Spider-Man 3, begins April 30 and continues through the film's opening weekend.

Sony has just put up a special website that includes an interactive map to help you prepare for the festivities happening around the five boroughs. Some of the highlights of the event include a special exhibit of live spiders at the Museum of Natural History (inclusion of radioactive spiders is not likely), a Green Goblin mask-making workshop, opportunities to feel like a wall-crawler (at Chelsea Piers' rock-climbing wall) or a web-slinger (at the Trapeze School of New York City), an exclusive deal for redheads at Supercuts and our favorite, and a closing-night concert of Spidey-themed rap songs at the Apollo Theater. And don't forget about the sight-seeing (the famous Flatiron Buildling was used for the Bugle's offices), which will be made easier with a special tour through Gray Line.

In the vein of everyone having an opinion, many of which don't agree, The Guardian's film blog has a piece about superheroes -vs- talented actors. The spin -- the actors who are taking on the roles of comic icons are being fooled into doing so: "What seems to be happening is that the actors themselves are being duped into thinking that these are roles of Shakespearean complexity." Is that the case? The piece mentions George Clooney's less-than-loved Batman and Robin and Halle Berry's terrible stint as Catwoman. If either of them took on the roles thinking they were getting a meaty, complex story, they should probably get their heads examined.

The blog goes on to talk about the increase of suffering and torment in superhero roles, and that the ones who are truly successful don't take themselves seriously -- Spider-Man, Wolverine. Wait ... Hugh Jackman? His role isn't the darkest thing out there, but the character definitely has his share of angst. Considering the built-up aversion to dark superheroes, it's no surprise that the piece then goes on to describe Batman Begins as "a po-faced, dark (in every sense) and confusing two hours in the company of a man with the lowest voice and most clenched jaw in Gotham city." Sure, if Spidey had to fall into the depths of despair, that would be strange, but can you fault Batman for being dark? Isn't it supposed to be? It's based on an orphan who wants revenge. That's not light and happy fare, even if the television version made it that way.

What do you think? Are some superheroes failing because the actors are taking the roles too seriously? Did Eric Bana's green, fighting fiend fail because he made it too awkward and real life? Is Batman Begins not half as good as we've all said it is? Does suffering make superheroes smaller?