kirsten dunst Tagged Articles at Cinematical

I can't wait for the day when Spider-Man 4 leaves the world of speculation, and moves before the camera. Until that day, we can enjoy plenty of rumors and hints as to who or what Spidey will be battling in #4.

Sam Raimi recently gave a few more riddles to the MTV Splash Page, revealing that they still don't have a villain for Spider-Man 4. While Raimi "loves" the story of the Lizard, the Spider-Man team isn't exactly looking to tie up those little mentions of Dr. Curt Connors. Instead, look for a baddie who will toy with Peter's internal and external demons a little bit: "What we're trying to do right now is really understand the journey Peter is going to go on this time and have the villain maybe be a counter to that growth, something that he has to overcome. Or maybe he has to grow in a way to overcome the villain, because there always seem to be stories of coming of age, of a young man growing up and learning things about life, so once we are identifying the exact movement that Peter has to grow to, I think the villain-and we're trying this right now; we're trying to choose a villain based on who would be the proper counter to that growth, so we really have dramatic conflict."

With several drafts and screenwriters behind them, and Spider-Man 4 set to go before cameras in March or April, I'm honestly surprised they still don't have a villain in mind. Naturally, Raimi might be exaggerating and they are working with one (there's a coy "I can't say" at the beginning), but I find its sketchiness a bit troubling. What about you, Cinematical readers and Spidey fans?And does Raimi's latest riddle give you any indication of who the villain might be?

Given the long and fruitful friendship of Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell, it should really come as no surprise that Campbell is going to be in Spider-Man 4. What could be surprising is how much screen time he might earn this time around.

Campbell told Access Hollywood that Spider-Man 4 is set to begin shooting January 2010, and that he's been told by Raimi that he has "a major part. The kicker is that the well-chinned actor knows not what that role might be. Access Hollywood immediately began speculating that he'll be stepping into the villain's shoes, and says fans are touting him for Mysterio. But hey, in our own comments we currently have one vote for Campbell as Mysterio and one for him as Lizard, so I'm going to borrow their investigative technique and say that fan consensus is divided.

As Slashfilm notes, "a major part" could simply mean that Campbell's recurring cameo could throw another kink into Peter Parker's life. As Spidey and Campbell fans know, every time he's appeared in the series he's done something to nudge the superhero into his destiny, and it could be that he does something very drastic to Parker's life. Perhaps he's Mephisto and he'll pull a One More Day, reverse the entire franchise series, and that's how we'll get our reboot.

The Spider-Man franchise might just be heading down the road for a divorce from Sam Raimi and all his players, if I'm interpreting Variety and its sources right. Sony has "quietly" hired screenwriter James Vanderbilt to pen the fifth and sixth installments of the web-slinger franchise. Nothing wrong with that at all, of course. Vanderbilt has good work to his name, and a superhero franchise could do a lot worse than hiring the Zodiac screenwriter. However, Raimi didn't care for Vanderbilt's take and replaced him with David Lindsay-Abaire. He's currently having Gary Ross rewrite that script. However, Sony / Columbia and Marvel Studios loved Vanderbilt's ideas, in part because they form a big, interconnected storyline. (I can see Marvel all over that, can't you?) In fact, that was the original plan for Spidey films 4 and 5 which were to be shot back to back, but the idea was scrapped.

But here's where things could get really ugly. Raimi, Tobey Maguire, and Kirsten Dunst are reportedly not signed to installments 5 and 6, and with Raimi boarding World of Warcraft, the studio is even more uncertain that he'll return. So Vanderbilt's scripts are being eyed not as sequels but as a blueprint for a franchise "reboot." Obviously, there's no further details on what that would mean beyond a new cast and crew.

But Sony is that anxious for more Spider-Man, and they feel the franchise is moving too slowly. Now, I'm sure a lot of fans feel the same way, but at what cost do we want more Spider-Man? I'm cool with them bringing another director on board, as it could breathe some fresh life into the series, but new actors? If Spidey was a character that had numerous incarnations, that'd be one thing, but he's only ever been Peter Parker, and Parker and Maguire are one and the same in my mind. This is going to be one web that'll be very interesting (and possibly very disappointing) to see Sony weave ...

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...

With Sam Raimi dragging everyone to hell this past week, Spider-Man 4 rumors are flying as fast and furious as its webby hero. The New York Post caught up with Sony producer Todd Black to pump him for info, and here's what he had to confirm and deny.

Black says Kirsten Dunst is returning as Mary Jane, which may quash all that undecided talk that has plagued the film since it was first announced. However, there are no plans to unite Peter and Mary Jane in holy matrimony. All rumors of Morbius being the villain are false, but it will be someone from the Spidey comics, and Black drops a very slight hint as to who it could be: "We're just coming up with who the villain's going to be now. We'll be shooting in New York again. Trust me, people will appreciate who we pick, because it'll be a big part of New York."

The villain that hint really points to is Kingpin, but he was in Daredevil which suggests Fox has the rights to that particular villain. (Are there crossover claims? I honestly have no idea.) There are a lot of similar mobsters to pick from, but would they resist the temptation for a supervillain and go all real-world? As for other NY based villains, could it be Wraith? He was a NYPD patrolman, and has a tragic origin story that would be pretty ideal. Two weaker suggestions would be Jackal, who was an Empire State University professor, but as they didn't kill Gwen Stacy, I don't know how they would work him in. I think Hydro-Man lives in the Hudson, but that skirts too close to Sandman. Argh, I'm no good at this guessing game. I'll hand it over to you Spidey fans and go enjoy the weekend.

Have you ever listened to a director talk about one of their stars and wonder where the love and dedication came from? There's something refreshing in the loyalty that inspires it, in a business that's so often fickle -- but nevertheless, it sometimes boggles the mind.

The most recent manifestation of this is Sam Raimi. He's gearing up for the next installation of Spider-Man, and unsurprisingly, the subject of Mary Jane came up when he was talking about the film with MTV: "'I can't imagine making a Spider-Man movie without Kirsten [Dunst],' he said, seemingly contemplating the idea in his head with a long pause. 'Of course it can be done because Spider Man has existed without the character of Mary-Jane, but she's one of my favorite parts and it would be a shame not to have her in the picture. I'm hoping she'll be in it and I'm planning on having a story with her in it.'"

Evil Dead without Bruce Campbell, that would be unimaginable. But I'm sure there are many fans out there who could very easily imagine a Kirsten-free Spider-Man, whether that meant recasting Mary Jane or letting Peter Parker fight bad guys without the distraction of drama-filled love. For some of us, that absence is not only imaginable -- it's desired. There's little more aggravating than a supposedly epic love that doesn't contain enough on-screen chemistry to contain it. But the directorial love lives on.

Has there ever been a moment when a director gushes over an actor that you couldn't comprehend?

Don't worry hardcore Spidey fans, Evan Rachel Wood is not replacing Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane, Peter Parker's girlfriend. However, according to the actress herself, she's signed on to play Mary Jane in Spider-Man: The Musical, which begins rehearsals in June, 2009, and will most likely arrive on Broadway before the next big-screen sequel in early 2010.

We've known for awhile now that the musical's director, Julie Taymor, has been championing her Across the Universe stars for the lead roles in the musical. Now that Wood has nabbed the co-lead, will Jim Sturgess play Spidey? According to Wood, who spoke with IESB at a press junket for The Wrestler, they're "still trying to convince him." It's important to note that both Wood and Sturgess have workshopped the musical with Taymor recently, so chances are good both will open the show in New York. Remember, music and lyrics have been provided by U2's Bono and The Edge -- and with two pretty movie stars in the starring roles, this thing could take off. Whaddya think? Will Spidey ruin his superheroic kickass appeal by deciding to belt out a tune or three on Broadway?

Okay, so the truth is a bit less exciting than the headline might suggest, since David Lindsay-Abaire, who is signing on to write the screenplay for Spider-Man 4, also wrote Inkheart and had a hand in the awful, low-rent Robots. So we're not exactly getting John Updike, here. Still, Lindsay-Abaire did win a real, honest-to-goodness pulitzer for his 2007 Broadway play Rabbit Hole, which he's also currently adapting for the screen. (He got a Tony, too.)

This means they'll be scrapping a previous draft by Zodiac's James Vanderbilt -- or whatever he had managed to write, since just a short while ago Sam Raimi was claiming that he still didn't have a script. Of course, we have no idea what the plot is, though it hasn't stopped us from speculating. Will it be Lizard? Maybe it'll be Lizard.

Anyway, Raimi is excitedly returning, as we know, and Tobey Maguire has signed on too. The Hollywood Reporter story insists that Kirsten Dunst is "expected to return" as well. My stance on all of this is pretty clear-cut: I love this character and Raimi's take on him, think the third film was criminally underappreciated, and want more, as soon as possible. And I'm glad that they've brought on a serious, thoughtful writer, Robots or no Robots. This franchise deserves it.

In researching this list, I made two realizations: most horror films don't bother with supporting casts; the supporters are often ghosts and monsters and supernatural forces (the other humans tend not to listen). And also, there are more great performances by women in horror films. Consider just the list of women who were nominated for -- or won -- Oscars for horror films: Patty McCormack, Janet Leigh, Ruth Gordon, Linda Blair, Ellen Burstyn, Sissy Spacek, Piper Laurie, Sigourney Weaver, Kathy Bates, Jodie Foster, Juliette Lewis, Toni Collette, etc. Perhaps women are more intuitively in touch with the supernatural. Either way, I think I came up with a pretty good list:

1. Maria Ouspenskaya in The Wolf Man (1941)
Her name's a mouthful, but once you learn to say it, you'll never forget it. She was born in 1876, which put her at about 65 when The Wolf Man was made. She was a theater actor, before the movies were invented, she became an acting teacher and she received two Oscar nominations prior to this role. She plays Maleva (what a great name!), the old gypsy woman, and mother to Bela (Bela Lugosi), who possesses the knowledge of all things werewolf. With eyes like obsidian, her line readings are quiet, mysterious, intelligent, and though she's practically half the size of star Lon Chaney Jr., she towers over him.

2. Christina Ricci in Addams Family Values (1993)
Every once in a while the movie gods smile down and create something wonderful, like the moment that young Ricci walked into the "Addams Family" auditions, hoping for the role of Wednesday. The resulting movie, released in 1991, wasn't very good, but the sequel was much improved and Ricci was so good in both that she clearly announced the beginning of a fascinating career full of brave, unusual choices. With her round, pale face, huge eyes and tiny mouth shaped like a talon, she was scary and funny and just a little bit odd, and when she grew older, she took on a dangerous kind of sexiness. She could be the direct genre descendant of Elsa Lanchester or Barbara Steele.