<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="todaycom/2.3.1" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Hugh Jackman:Third Choice for Wolverine Role?</title>
	<link>http://femmefatale.today.com/2009/02/18/hugh-jackmanthird-choice-for-wolverine-role/</link>
	<description>Just another Today.com weblog</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 25 Dec 2009 19:03:12 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://www.today.com/version-2.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: milyjohnson</title>
		<link>http://femmefatale.today.com/2009/02/18/hugh-jackmanthird-choice-for-wolverine-role/#comment-29</link>
		<dc:creator>milyjohnson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:10:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://femmefatale.today.com/2009/02/18/hugh-jackmanthird-choice-for-wolverine-role/#comment-29</guid>
		<description>Wow! I didn't know that Hugh Jackman wasn't the first choice to play Wolverine. I guess that would have been really different if Russell Crowe had taken the role instead of Hugh.  It's usually not a good sign when a new writer takes over for movie sequels. A new writer tends to forget the history of the previous movies.

http://theinformer.today.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow! I didn&#8217;t know that Hugh Jackman wasn&#8217;t the first choice to play Wolverine. I guess that would have been really different if Russell Crowe had taken the role instead of Hugh.  It&#8217;s usually not a good sign when a new writer takes over for movie sequels. A new writer tends to forget the history of the previous movies.</p>
<p><a href="http://theinformer.today.com" rel="nofollow">http://theinformer.today.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>


