<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>spiderman 3</title>
<link>http://www.cinemaroll.com/tags/spiderman 3</link>
<description>New posts about spiderman 3</description>
<item>
<title>Spoiler Alert: How These Movies Should Have Ended</title>
<link>http://www.cinemaroll.com/Cinemarolling/Spoiler-Alert-How-These-Movies-Should-Have-Ended.35019</link>
<description>
<![CDATA[<p><ol>
  <li> <strong>Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End</strong>- Jack should have sacrificed himself and stabbed the heart, becoming the captain. Will becoming the captain just didn't seem right to me.   </li>
 
  <li> <strong>Spiderman 3</strong>- Mary Jane should have died in the end instead of Harry.  First of all because Spiderman's girlfriend dies in the comic (although its actually Gwen Stacey instead of Mary Jane).  Second of all, I think it would have lent more to the dramatic effect. It seemed almost too obvious that Harry would die, the born again hero who pays the ultimate price. Although this is the safe, cliché, expected ending; I was hoping for something more meaningful, such as the death of Mary Jane.  Whatever the case, there was sure to be the same sappy emotional display by the always feminine Tobey Maguire.  </li>
 
  <li> <strong>Friday Night Lights</strong>- It should have shown the Panthers winning the championship like it does in the book.  </li>
 
  <li> <strong>Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King-</strong> It had like four endings and it picked the crappiest one to end with. Any of the other three would've been fine with me.  </li>
 
  <li> <strong>A large selection of films from the "80s-</strong> lose the freeze frame (excluding the mostly cliché inspirational sports movie, which without a freeze frame would be incomplete).  </li>
 
  <li> <strong>Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby- </strong>Could"ve done without the minute long homo kiss scene, which pretty much scarred me for life.  I cracked up for about the first five seconds until I found out they weren't stopping anytime soon.  </li>
 
  <li> <strong>Blades of Glory- </strong>When Chazz and Jimmy become constellations it should cut to the obsessed fan staring at them through at telescope and then climb into a self-made spaceship, blasting off towards the stars screaming “I'm coming Jimmy” at the top of his lungs.  Way too over the top, but its just a suggestion.  </li>
 
  <li> <strong>Monty Python and the Holy Grail- </strong>Instead of the police man turning off the camera, there should have been an all out brawl between the police and the knights in which the cameraman gets shot in the crossfire.  </li>
 </ol></p>
 
 
 
 <p>All I could think of at the moment. Wanted to get this out quick to see what you guys thought about it.  These are just ideas and probably are worse than the original endings since the directors obviously know way more about movies than I do. </p><a href="http://www.pheedo.com/click.phdo?x=&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cinemaroll.com%2FCinemarolling%2FSpoiler-Alert-How-These-Movies-Should-Have-Ended.35019"><img src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?x=&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cinemaroll.com%2FCinemarolling%2FSpoiler-Alert-How-These-Movies-Should-Have-Ended.35019" border="0"/></a>]]></description>
<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2007 06:27:02 PST</pubDate></item>
<item>
<title>Spiderman 3 - Fun but Flawed</title>
<link>http://www.cinemaroll.com/Action/Spiderman-3--Fun-but-Flawed.29494</link>
<description>
<![CDATA[<p>I'm a comic book geek. There's no other way of looking at it. So of course, <strong>Spiderman 3</strong> was a film I was looking forward to. And rightly so, Sam Raimi's done it again. Fusing the ever-present angst of the series with a mad humor reminiscent of his earlier films (<strong>Army of Darkness</strong> anyone? Bruce Dickinson even has a hilarious cameo as an officious waiter.) </p>
 
 <p>Content-wise, this is a weaker film. The Venom backstory is too much to fit into one film, the black suit really needs a film to itself, but alas, it doesn't, leaving Venom itself to have a pitiful amount of screen time. Granted the symbiote creature is beautifully rendered, but Venom just becomes boring. Sandman was another strange choice for a villain, a weaker character in the comics, but presented here as a nicely rounded figure. And of course, the Osborn family are back once again, raging green psychotic terror (and allowing Willem Dafoe a cameo, hurrah!). </p>

<p>So while James Franco (as Harry Osborn) and the wonderful Tobey Maguire have a lot of fun being angsty, dorky, violent, and occasionally pretty campy, poor Kirstin Dunst has to resign herself to screaming and singing (or miming, and badly dubbed at that) as the unfortunate Mary Jane Watson. Poor MJ, she really isn't lucky in love is she? The supporting cast range from marvelous (Thomas Haden Church's Sandman) to ridiculous (Topher Grace's one-dimensional Eddie Brock). The comic-book name dropping is getting ridiculous too, Gwen Stacy and Dr Connors are thrown into the mix, and don't add much.</p>
 
 <p>Yet all of these flaws are forgivable, thanks to lovely performances from some of the central roles and Raimi's delightful direction. As well as including some genuinely beautiful shots, there's some really hilarious sequences when Peter Parker is experimenting with the powers of the black suit (his hair changes color every time he wears it, too, which is a nice touch). These scenes are so good they could easily be reedited into an arty short piece on drug addiction, but it's a lovely change from the angst and silly pseudo-science of the rest of the film. The climactic battle is a thing of beauty, recalling the brutality of the first film, and, even though some things in it should NEVER happen in the context of <strong>Spiderman</strong>, it touched a little fan girl nerve.</p>
 
 <p>If you're a fan of superheroes, or just want a fun few hours escapism with good old Hollywood silliness, go see this film. Don't expect the dark delights of the first film, or the unrepentant cool of the second, but go, grab some popcorn and settle in for fun CGI, interesting characters, and a delicious streak of surreal humor.</p><a href="http://www.pheedo.com/click.phdo?x=&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cinemaroll.com%2FAction%2FSpiderman-3--Fun-but-Flawed.29494"><img src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?x=&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cinemaroll.com%2FAction%2FSpiderman-3--Fun-but-Flawed.29494" border="0"/></a>]]></description>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2007 06:24:11 PST</pubDate></item>
<item>
<title>A.j.'s Film Fanaticism: Spiderman 3 Review</title>
<link>http://www.cinemaroll.com/Fantasy/Ajs-Film-Fanaticism-Spiderman-3-Review.29681</link>
<description>
<![CDATA[<p>As a friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend of the Dean-like James Franco, yesterday I decided to succumb to the commercialism surrounding Sam Raimi's third installment of the Spider-Man movie series. </p>

 <p>Perched low in a theater filled with geriatric film goers, my palms sweaty from embarrassment, I heaved a sigh of utter disdain. My would-be girlfriend laid a hand on my arm in an attempt at comfort, but even her silky hands couldn't provide me with consolation on this incredibly humid Louisiana afternoon.</p>

 <p>139 minutes, I thought. Two hours and nineteen 60-second spurts of melodrama, pointless action, see-through subtext, and Kirsten Dunst (Well, that last one didn't seem so bad.) I clenched the drink-holders in the stadium-seating theater and braced myself for the inevitable.</p>

 <p>Approximately ten minutes into the film, a revelation occurred to me. Wait a minute... This is actually decent. Am I hearing myself correctly in thinking that? And more importantly, why am I talking to myself? Getting back to the matter at hand...</p>

 <p>This is all you need to know: Raimi manages to embody the campy nature of comic books through his direction, and the roles are perfectly cast. The difference between this film and the previous two is that this is as character-driven as a plot-heavy, Hollywood cookie-cutter movie can get. Even more astonishing than Topher Grace's performance is that of Bryce Dallas Howard, who plays the adorably annoying Gwen Stacey. The villains are believable, as opposed to Spider-Man's former nemeses, The Green Goblin and Dr. Octopus. And last - but certainly not least - is Peter Parker's figurative time travel back into the 70's. Don't understand quite yet? You will when you see it.</p><a href="http://www.pheedo.com/click.phdo?x=&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cinemaroll.com%2FFantasy%2FAjs-Film-Fanaticism-Spiderman-3-Review.29681"><img src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?x=&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cinemaroll.com%2FFantasy%2FAjs-Film-Fanaticism-Spiderman-3-Review.29681" border="0"/></a>]]></description>
<pubDate>Sun, 13 May 2007 08:40:19 PST</pubDate></item>
</channel>
</rss>
