If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed. Learn more about Screen Rant or if you want more frequent updates follow us on Twitter. Thanks for visiting!

To quote the Joker, “It’s not about money. It’s about sending a message.”

Consider the message received, loud and clear.

The Dark Knight has officially dethroned former champ Spider-Man 3 to become the movie with the highest-grossing first-day premiere. Led by fan fervor, strong buzz, impeccable reviews from both fans and critics alike, and a all that talk, talk, talk, about the late Heath Ledger’s boundary-shattering performance as the Joker, Dark Knight managed to rake in $66.4 million in just its first day! (More than twice what The Love Guru has made all Summer.)

The 2007 Toronto International Film Festival ended recently and the 2008 Sundance Film Festival is just around the corner, and these have gotten me thinking (uh oh!).

I’ve been thinking about why it is that some movies that are so mediocre go on to earn hundreds of millions of dollars at the box office while other films that are just as good (and quite often far better) end up unseen not talked about. While I enjoy a good popcorn movie as much as the next guy, I do tend to hold even action and sci-fi movies to a higher standard than the average 14 year old.

So I find it extremely frustrating when movies that seem to be mediocre or worse make incredible amounts of money and give some directors credibility and the opportunity to pump out more schlock, while other movies that are better go on to make almost nothing and those directors continue to have to fight to get movies made.

Let’s look at some examples from the last 10 years or so…

By Vic Holtreman

Short version: Although at times it felt like a made-for-TV movie, a far better film than the first and more entertaining than the super-serious Spider-man 3.

So it’s possible.

Not only can a sequel be better than the original, but it can be done with the same director and writer. By process of elimination, it would seem that the blame for how bad the first film was can perhaps be laid at the feet of the one guy missing from the new production crew: writer Michael France. I can’t say for sure, but at the top level it seems like pretty much everyone from the first film was still there for the second one. Pure speculation on my part, of course.

Anyway, on to the review…

Soooo…. The prints of Spider-Man 3 running in movie theaters are barely dry and already a couple of days ago news began surfacing that yes, there will be a Spider-Man 4. Heck, there will even be a 5, 6 and beyond.

Yeah, we’ll just have to see about that. There is no doubt that Sam Raimi (director of the first three Spiderman movies) is not about to make a lifelong career out of ol’ web head. What does that mean? That either a new director or directors will be brought in, and each one will want to put his own personal mark on the franchise. Sure, it could turn out to be a good thing, but lets keep one thing in mind, shall we?

Nipples on the Batsuit.

By Vic Holtreman

Short version: Although Spiderman 3 is the weakest of the trilogy, it’s still good enough to be a member of the club.

Man… where to start on a review of a movie like this? Spider-Man 3 has been one of the most wildly anticipated movies coming out this year, so could it possibly live up to expectations? (By the way, this review is spoiler-free.)

My answer would have to be: Almost.

While the story of Spiderman 3 fits very nicely into an overall three-movie arc, there are problems with it that keep it from being as satisfying as it might have been. In the first film we meet Peter Parker as the geeky, picked-on teenager and watch him acquire his newfound powers, experiencing with him the initial giddiness and then the weight of responsibility that comes with those powers. In the second film we meet a character who has come to terms with who he is, but struggles with the amount of responsibility, difficulty and loneliness that comes with his new life.

We have a winner of Screen Rant’s Sideshow Collectibles Spider-Man 3 mini-bust contest:

The Spider-Man 3 Mini-Bust Winner is

Eric Hall

Thanks to everyone who entered and signed up for our daily movie/tv newsletter!

If any of you have some spare cash burning a hole in your pocket, check out the Ebay auction that’s coinciding with the opening of Spider-Man 3 today. It’s sponsored by Sony Pictures and they’re auctioning off some serious stuff… not aftermarket collectibles but actual costumes, wardrobe and props used in the movie!

You can either click here or on the image above to see what they have to offer.

It seems that Live Free or Die Hard, the long awaited fourth film in the Die Hard movie series is king of online movie buzz so far this year. This is according to the number of mentions of upcoming movies in blog as tracked by Nielsen BuzzMetrics.

Die Hard 4.0 (as I prefer to call it) even beat out mentions of Spider-Man 3 by 2 to 1, which I find very surprising.

Hey, just a reminder that this is the final week to enter Screen Rant’s Spider-Man 3 Mini-Bust Giveaway!

The contest ends midnight this Friday May 4th, the same day that Spider-Man 3 opens. I also want to remind you that all you have to do to enter is subscribe to our daily newsletter, but remember that you have to be a VERIFIED subscriber! That means you need to reply to the verification email or you won’t be entered (and you won’t receive our updates either!). This is in place to protect you from receiving unwanted emails.

You’ll be entering to win the collectible bust shown below.

So head on over to the contest page for more details and to enter!

And for tons more cool Spider-Man 3 movie stuff check out the new Screen Rant Movie Store.

Here’s this week’s edition of the Screen Rant podcast with my thoughts on this week’s news including why Death Race 3000 won’t be any good, the double-dose of “punking” received by AintItCoolNews, Iron Man updates, a reminder to enter the Spider-Man 3 contest and more!

powered by ODEO