• Tom O’Neil podcasts it with Rosemarie DeWitt. [Gold Derby]
• Jeffrey Wells comes back to the “Valkyrie” poster with admiration a few weeks later. [Hollywood Elsewhere]
• John Campea is excited about the “WALL-E” Best Picture campaign. [The Movie Blog]
• Debuting the new “Valkyrie” trailer. [Yahoo! Movies]
• Anne Thompson takes her first real stab at the season. [Thompson on Hollywood]
• Can a Pulitzer Prize winner save the “Spider-Man” franchise? [The Hollywood Reporter]
• A grown-up’s guide to Halloween movies. [Premiere]
8 responses so far
1 10-31-2008 at 6:28 am
Jonathan Spuij said...
Since when does the Spiderman franchise need “saving”?
2 10-31-2008 at 7:40 am
Diego said...
Go for it Wall E!! Best motion picture!
3 10-31-2008 at 7:42 am
McGuff said...
Jonathan, I can appreciate that a lot of people liked the first two Spider-Man movies made this decade — I quite liked the second one. I had some distinct excitement for the third one after a trailer that was, in short, amazing.
But, without question, Spider-Man 3 was one of 2007’s largest cinematic disappointments, and well worth a negative comment from Blake in his piece today. It was, simply, horrible.
It will need something distinct — to be saved by someone — to get me excited again.
4 10-31-2008 at 8:04 am
Guy Lodge said...
Diego, can I remind you that we’re not Academy voters? If you’re going to keep up this campaigning for “WALL-E” in virtually every vaguely related post, it’s going to get rather tiring.
I’m also a fan of the film, by the way — don’t get me wrong.
5 10-31-2008 at 8:09 am
Jamieson said...
re: Spider-man 4…If Jamie Vanderbilt is out, I’m out. Count me uninterested now.
I think he could have finally given us an interesting Spider-man movie (I’ve found the franchise rather bland thusfar, and in the case of 3…awful).
I admit I’m unfamiliar with Lindsay-Abaire, but Vanderbilt’s involvement had finally gotten me excited for Spider-man.
6 10-31-2008 at 11:19 am
Jonathan Spuij said...
3 was just a little crammed, but still enjoyable. Let’s not start bashing something when it isn’t up to par with it’s previous isntallments, but still an entertaining flick nonetheless.
7 10-31-2008 at 12:01 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
No, 3 sucked (IMO). Righteously. I wasn’t entertained in the slightest.
Sorry.
8 10-31-2008 at 5:06 pm
Jamieson said...
I concur. 3 sucked and deserves to be treated without kid gloves.
And I still contend that the standard wasn’t even very high to live up to anyway. I think 1 and 2 are passable entertainment but not remarkable in any way.