<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://s2.wp.com/wp-content/themes/vip/newyorkobserver/stylesheets/rss.css"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Observer &#187; X-Men Origins: Wolverine</title>
	<atom:link href="http://observer.com/term/x-men-origins-wolverine/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://observer.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 19:06:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language></language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='observer.com' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://observer.com/osd.xml" title="Observer" />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://observer.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
				
		<title>The Sad Truth About Ryan Reynolds&#8217; Career</title>

		<comments>http://observer.com/2009/06/the-sad-truth-about-ryan-reynolds-career/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:53:15 -0400</pubDate>
					<link>http://observer.com/2009/06/the-sad-truth-about-ryan-reynolds-career/</link>
			<dc:creator>Christopher Rosen</dc:creator>
				
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.observer.com/2009/06/the-sad-truth-about-ryan-reynolds-career/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft" src="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/ryan-reynolds.jpg?w=300&h=221" /><!--StartFragment--></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ryan Reynolds is not a movie star. Oh sure, he&rsquo;s famous&mdash;or, at least famous enough to get himself on the cover of <em><a href="http://www.bestweekever.tv/2009/06/17/fastest-way-to-washboard-abs-get-on-the-entertainment-weekly-cover/">Entertainment Weekly</a></em> to show off his ridiculously chiseled abs&mdash;but, no matter how much we&rsquo;d like to see this likable actor take the next step, it just seems like he&rsquo;ll be forever stuck in the shadows of the B- and C-list. Think about it this way: Bradley Cooper wasn&rsquo;t a movie star either, but now that <em>The Hangover </em>has exploded into a pop culture litmus test (&ldquo;<em>You </em>haven&rsquo;t seen it yet?&rdquo;), that dude is a bona fide name. Ryan Reynolds? He might still be best known as Van Wilder.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sadly, <em>this</em> should have been the Year of the Reynolds. In March, he co-starred in <em>Adventureland</em>, playing against the normal expectations of a &ldquo;Ryan Reynolds character&rdquo; as a charming-womanizer-who-really-isn&rsquo;t-all-that-charming-but-is-kind-of-a-loser. (P.S., is it too early to call <em>Adventureland</em> the most underrated movie of 2009? We didn&rsquo;t think so.) Then in May he was the only supporting actor who managed to survive <em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine </em>with his reputation intact (we hope Liev Schreiber cashed a big check for his so-called &ldquo;work&rdquo; in that disaster); that film got him top billing in <em>Deadpool</em>, a spinoff film from <em>Wolverine</em>. And out this Friday is the surprisingly not-terrible-looking romantic comedy, <em>The Proposal</em>, where Mr. Reynolds gets to co-star with America's Speed-heart, Sandra Bullock. While we have no doubt that this is another solid performance&mdash;<a href="/2009/movies/hold-geritol-sandy-bullock-still-has-sass"><em>The Observer</em>&rsquo;s own Sara Vilkomerson confirms our suspicions in her review</a>&mdash;the sheer fact that he&rsquo;s even in <em>The Proposal</em> helps prove our point. Despite the matinee idol good looks and wonderfully quick comedic timing, Mr. Reynolds has never carried anything on his very formidable shoulders. And while that&rsquo;s fine for a young actor, Mr. Reynolds has been knocking around for the better part of a decade. Worse, it seems like he always winds up playing second fiddle in these oddly second-rate enterprises: As much as we love Sandra Bullock, in the last decade are so, she's no&nbsp;Reese Witherspoon when it comes to box office.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(To be fair, the aforementioned Mr. Cooper has never carried a movie, either, but he&rsquo;s also been part of two mammoth successes in the last five years: <em>Wedding Crashers</em>, and now, <em>The Hangover</em>.)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Earlier this week, <em>Movieline</em> <a href="http://www.movieline.com/2009/06/ew-and-mens-health-swap-ryan-reynolds-covers-apparently.php">wondered if Mr. Reynolds was too good-looking to play comedy</a>; the assumption being that people don&rsquo;t want to see him making jokes because he&rsquo;s so dreamy. We don&rsquo;t buy that premise for one second&mdash;this is Hollywood we&rsquo;re talking about, where being good-looking is the coin of the realm&mdash;but it shows the lengths that people will go to cut Mr. Reynolds some slack: <em>He&rsquo;s not more famous because he&rsquo;s too hot!</em> We all want him to succeed, but eventually, reality has to be faced; this is a &ldquo;walks like a duck&rdquo; situation: Ryan Reynolds is not a movie star, and, chances are, he never will be. Don&rsquo;t feel too badly for him though &hellip; he <em>is</em> still married to Scarlett Johansson.</p>
<p><!--EndFragment--></p>
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft" src="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/ryan-reynolds.jpg?w=300&h=221" /><!--StartFragment--></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ryan Reynolds is not a movie star. Oh sure, he&rsquo;s famous&mdash;or, at least famous enough to get himself on the cover of <em><a href="http://www.bestweekever.tv/2009/06/17/fastest-way-to-washboard-abs-get-on-the-entertainment-weekly-cover/">Entertainment Weekly</a></em> to show off his ridiculously chiseled abs&mdash;but, no matter how much we&rsquo;d like to see this likable actor take the next step, it just seems like he&rsquo;ll be forever stuck in the shadows of the B- and C-list. Think about it this way: Bradley Cooper wasn&rsquo;t a movie star either, but now that <em>The Hangover </em>has exploded into a pop culture litmus test (&ldquo;<em>You </em>haven&rsquo;t seen it yet?&rdquo;), that dude is a bona fide name. Ryan Reynolds? He might still be best known as Van Wilder.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sadly, <em>this</em> should have been the Year of the Reynolds. In March, he co-starred in <em>Adventureland</em>, playing against the normal expectations of a &ldquo;Ryan Reynolds character&rdquo; as a charming-womanizer-who-really-isn&rsquo;t-all-that-charming-but-is-kind-of-a-loser. (P.S., is it too early to call <em>Adventureland</em> the most underrated movie of 2009? We didn&rsquo;t think so.) Then in May he was the only supporting actor who managed to survive <em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine </em>with his reputation intact (we hope Liev Schreiber cashed a big check for his so-called &ldquo;work&rdquo; in that disaster); that film got him top billing in <em>Deadpool</em>, a spinoff film from <em>Wolverine</em>. And out this Friday is the surprisingly not-terrible-looking romantic comedy, <em>The Proposal</em>, where Mr. Reynolds gets to co-star with America's Speed-heart, Sandra Bullock. While we have no doubt that this is another solid performance&mdash;<a href="/2009/movies/hold-geritol-sandy-bullock-still-has-sass"><em>The Observer</em>&rsquo;s own Sara Vilkomerson confirms our suspicions in her review</a>&mdash;the sheer fact that he&rsquo;s even in <em>The Proposal</em> helps prove our point. Despite the matinee idol good looks and wonderfully quick comedic timing, Mr. Reynolds has never carried anything on his very formidable shoulders. And while that&rsquo;s fine for a young actor, Mr. Reynolds has been knocking around for the better part of a decade. Worse, it seems like he always winds up playing second fiddle in these oddly second-rate enterprises: As much as we love Sandra Bullock, in the last decade are so, she's no&nbsp;Reese Witherspoon when it comes to box office.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(To be fair, the aforementioned Mr. Cooper has never carried a movie, either, but he&rsquo;s also been part of two mammoth successes in the last five years: <em>Wedding Crashers</em>, and now, <em>The Hangover</em>.)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Earlier this week, <em>Movieline</em> <a href="http://www.movieline.com/2009/06/ew-and-mens-health-swap-ryan-reynolds-covers-apparently.php">wondered if Mr. Reynolds was too good-looking to play comedy</a>; the assumption being that people don&rsquo;t want to see him making jokes because he&rsquo;s so dreamy. We don&rsquo;t buy that premise for one second&mdash;this is Hollywood we&rsquo;re talking about, where being good-looking is the coin of the realm&mdash;but it shows the lengths that people will go to cut Mr. Reynolds some slack: <em>He&rsquo;s not more famous because he&rsquo;s too hot!</em> We all want him to succeed, but eventually, reality has to be faced; this is a &ldquo;walks like a duck&rdquo; situation: Ryan Reynolds is not a movie star, and, chances are, he never will be. Don&rsquo;t feel too badly for him though &hellip; he <em>is</em> still married to Scarlett Johansson.</p>
<p><!--EndFragment--></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://observer.com/2009/06/the-sad-truth-about-ryan-reynolds-career/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/becf95fa833b8aeb13f7720732bd6dc6?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">jhanasobserver</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/ryan-reynolds.jpg?w=300&#38;h=221" medium="image" />
	</item>
		<item>
				
		<title>Box Office Breakdown: Angels &amp; Demons Spreads its Wings</title>

		<comments>http://observer.com/2009/05/box-office-breakdown-iangels-demonsi-spreads-its-wings/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2009 12:07:20 -0400</pubDate>
					<link>http://observer.com/2009/05/box-office-breakdown-iangels-demonsi-spreads-its-wings/</link>
			<dc:creator>Christopher Rosen</dc:creator>
				
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.observer.com/2009/05/box-office-breakdown-iangels-demonsi-spreads-its-wings/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft" src="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/hanks.jpg?w=300&h=199" /><a href="http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/">Tom Hanks soared at the box office this weekend</a> as <em>Angels &amp; Demons</em> held off a furious push from J.J. Abrams&rsquo; <em>Star Trek</em> to land in first place with an estimated $48 million in grosses. While that represents a significant step down from <em>The Da Vinci Code</em>&mdash;that film opened almost three years ago to the day with $77.1 million&mdash;<em>Angels &amp; Demons</em> still grossed over $150 million worldwide and should be a moneymaker for Sony despite a hefty price tag. Beaming into second place was <em>Star Trek</em> with a very healthy $43 million, bringing its total to $147.6 million after only 10 days. As we do each Monday, here&rsquo;s a breakdown of the top five at the box office.</p>
<p><strong>1.<em> Angels &amp; Demons</em>: $48 million ($48 million total)</strong></p>
<p>Basically, the perception of this number depends on whether or not you&rsquo;re an optimist. For those of you who are: <em>Angels &amp; Demons</em> is the second biggest opening of Tom Hanks&rsquo; illustrious career (behind only <em>The Da Vinci Code</em>) and will quite possibly be one of the five biggest worldwide grossers of the year. For those of you who aren&rsquo;t: <em>Angels &amp; Demons </em>opened almost $30 million lower than its predecessor and only managed to procure the sixth best opening weekend of 2009, lagging behind such luminaries as <em>Watchmen</em> and <em>Fast &amp; Furious. </em>As always, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.</p>
<p><strong>2. <em>Star Trek</em>: $43 million ($147.6 million total)</strong></p>
<p>Legs alert! The beloved franchise reboot eased only 43 percent in weekend number two, putting it in the same company as <em>Batman Begins</em>, which performed similarly during its second weekend in 2005. If <em>Star Trek</em> can make it through Memorial Day without taking a major plunge, there&rsquo;s an outside chance it can hit $300 million overall. The first real hit of 2009 is upon us.</p>
<p><strong>3.<em> X-Men Origins: Wolverine</em>: $14.8 million ($151.1 million total)</strong></p>
<p>After a disastrous, <em>Watchmen</em>-like drop last weekend, <em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine </em>stabilized somewhat, shedding only 44 percent of its audience to place third. Despite the better news, though, it appears that <em>Wolverine </em>will top out before it can pass the $200 million barrier. After such a gigantic opening, that has to sting 20th Century Fox just a little bit.</p>
<p><strong>4. <em>Ghosts of Girlfriends Past</em>: $6.8 million ($40 million total)</strong></p>
<p>Another weekend, another small decline. <em>Ghosts of Girlfriends Past</em> will wind up ranking as one of Matthew McConaughey&rsquo;s lowest-grossing romantic comedies, but after opening with such a thud, clearly the film has connected with the audience on some level&mdash;this is the second straight week with a decline under 35 percent. Since the box office is so male-dominated right now&mdash;the top three films barely have one female lead combined&mdash;it&rsquo;s no wonder this is holding up so well.</p>
<p><strong>5. <em>Obsessed</em>: $4.6 million ($62.5 million total)</strong></p>
<p><em>Obsessed </em>edged out&nbsp;<em>17 Again </em>($3.4 million/$58.3 million) and <em>Monsters vs. Aliens </em>($3 million/$190 million) for the fifth spot at the box office, pushing its overall gross to nearly $63 million. Further proof that people will see anything in the movie theater is not needed.</p>
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft" src="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/hanks.jpg?w=300&h=199" /><a href="http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/">Tom Hanks soared at the box office this weekend</a> as <em>Angels &amp; Demons</em> held off a furious push from J.J. Abrams&rsquo; <em>Star Trek</em> to land in first place with an estimated $48 million in grosses. While that represents a significant step down from <em>The Da Vinci Code</em>&mdash;that film opened almost three years ago to the day with $77.1 million&mdash;<em>Angels &amp; Demons</em> still grossed over $150 million worldwide and should be a moneymaker for Sony despite a hefty price tag. Beaming into second place was <em>Star Trek</em> with a very healthy $43 million, bringing its total to $147.6 million after only 10 days. As we do each Monday, here&rsquo;s a breakdown of the top five at the box office.</p>
<p><strong>1.<em> Angels &amp; Demons</em>: $48 million ($48 million total)</strong></p>
<p>Basically, the perception of this number depends on whether or not you&rsquo;re an optimist. For those of you who are: <em>Angels &amp; Demons</em> is the second biggest opening of Tom Hanks&rsquo; illustrious career (behind only <em>The Da Vinci Code</em>) and will quite possibly be one of the five biggest worldwide grossers of the year. For those of you who aren&rsquo;t: <em>Angels &amp; Demons </em>opened almost $30 million lower than its predecessor and only managed to procure the sixth best opening weekend of 2009, lagging behind such luminaries as <em>Watchmen</em> and <em>Fast &amp; Furious. </em>As always, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.</p>
<p><strong>2. <em>Star Trek</em>: $43 million ($147.6 million total)</strong></p>
<p>Legs alert! The beloved franchise reboot eased only 43 percent in weekend number two, putting it in the same company as <em>Batman Begins</em>, which performed similarly during its second weekend in 2005. If <em>Star Trek</em> can make it through Memorial Day without taking a major plunge, there&rsquo;s an outside chance it can hit $300 million overall. The first real hit of 2009 is upon us.</p>
<p><strong>3.<em> X-Men Origins: Wolverine</em>: $14.8 million ($151.1 million total)</strong></p>
<p>After a disastrous, <em>Watchmen</em>-like drop last weekend, <em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine </em>stabilized somewhat, shedding only 44 percent of its audience to place third. Despite the better news, though, it appears that <em>Wolverine </em>will top out before it can pass the $200 million barrier. After such a gigantic opening, that has to sting 20th Century Fox just a little bit.</p>
<p><strong>4. <em>Ghosts of Girlfriends Past</em>: $6.8 million ($40 million total)</strong></p>
<p>Another weekend, another small decline. <em>Ghosts of Girlfriends Past</em> will wind up ranking as one of Matthew McConaughey&rsquo;s lowest-grossing romantic comedies, but after opening with such a thud, clearly the film has connected with the audience on some level&mdash;this is the second straight week with a decline under 35 percent. Since the box office is so male-dominated right now&mdash;the top three films barely have one female lead combined&mdash;it&rsquo;s no wonder this is holding up so well.</p>
<p><strong>5. <em>Obsessed</em>: $4.6 million ($62.5 million total)</strong></p>
<p><em>Obsessed </em>edged out&nbsp;<em>17 Again </em>($3.4 million/$58.3 million) and <em>Monsters vs. Aliens </em>($3 million/$190 million) for the fifth spot at the box office, pushing its overall gross to nearly $63 million. Further proof that people will see anything in the movie theater is not needed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://observer.com/2009/05/box-office-breakdown-iangels-demonsi-spreads-its-wings/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/becf95fa833b8aeb13f7720732bd6dc6?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">jhanasobserver</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/hanks.jpg?w=300&#38;h=199" medium="image" />
	</item>
		<item>
				
		<title>Box Office Breakdown: Star Trek Boldly Goes to the Top of the Charts</title>

		<comments>http://observer.com/2009/05/box-office-breakdown-istar-treki-boldly-goes-to-the-top-of-the-charts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2009 12:17:41 -0400</pubDate>
					<link>http://observer.com/2009/05/box-office-breakdown-istar-treki-boldly-goes-to-the-top-of-the-charts/</link>
			<dc:creator>Christopher Rosen</dc:creator>
				
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.observer.com/2009/05/box-office-breakdown-istar-treki-boldly-goes-to-the-top-of-the-charts/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft" src="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/chris-pine-star-trek_l_1.jpg?w=300&h=200" />Live long and prosperous! While members of the USS Enterprise might have had their phasers set for stun, <em>Star Trek</em> absolutely killed at the box office this weekend, <a href="http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/">grossing an estimated $72.5 million over the frame</a>, and $76.5 million total since opening on Thursday night. <a href="http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2585&amp;p=.htm">That number makes it the biggest opening weekend in the history of the franchise</a>, topping the $30.7 million start from <em>Star Trek: First Contact </em>13 years ago. Last week&rsquo;s No. 1 choice, <em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine</em>, didn&rsquo;t fare nearly as well, crumbling 68 percent to land with a thud in second. As we do each Monday, here&rsquo;s a breakdown of the top five at the box office.</p>
<p><strong>1.<em> Star Trek</em>: $72.5 million ($76.5 million total)</strong></p>
<p>The movies to keep in mind when looking at this opening for <em>Star Trek</em> are <em><a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=jamesbond21.htm">Casino Royale</a> </em>and <em><a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=batmanbegins.htm">Batman Begins</a></em>. Both were critically acclaimed reboots of fledgling franchises; both opened strong, but maybe not as strong as everyone expected; and both films saw the opening weekend account for 24 percent of their box office total. If <em>Star Trek</em> follows suit, it could see a final gross upward of $300 million. (We&rsquo;re talking <em>Iron Man</em> levels here, people!) Ironically, <em>Star Trek</em> played almost opposite of what you&rsquo;d expect from a summer blockbuster: <a href="http://www.hitfix.com/articles/2009-5-10-a-franchise-reborn-star-trek-hits-76-5-million-opening-weekend">65 percent of the audience was over 25</a>, meaning that despite a fresh young cast, the kiddies mainly stayed away. However, with only Tom Hanks and the Illuminati hitting screens next weekend, we think the youngsters will start coming out like Tribbles. And since us grown-ups already love it, <em>Star Trek</em> has the look of a leggy hit.</p>
<p><strong>2. <em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine</em>: $27 million ($129.6 million total)</strong></p>
<p>Not good. The 68 percent drop that <em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine</em> experienced this weekend puts it on the same path as other front-loaded non-blockbusters like <em>Cloverfield</em> and Ang Lee&rsquo;s disastrous <em>Hulk</em>; at this rate, it&rsquo;ll be a chore for <em>Wolverine</em> to cross $200 million. Think of it this way: in <em>its</em> second weekend, <em>Watchmen</em> &ldquo;only&rdquo; plunged 67 percent.</p>
<p><strong>3.<em> Ghosts of Girlfriends Past</em>: $10.4 million ($30.2 million total)</strong></p>
<p>Sure, the total number is still very small, especially for a Matthew McConaughey rom-com, but there are some hopeful signs. <em>Ghosts of Girlfriends Past</em> only shed 32 percent of its audience this weekend, which means the word of mouth has been solid. Couple that with the fact that the next mainstream romantic comedy, <em>The Proposal</em>, doesn&rsquo;t hit theaters until June 19, and <em>Ghosts of Girlfriends Past</em> could wind up making a respectable amount of cash before all is said and done.</p>
<p><strong>4. <em>Obsessed</em>: $6.6 million ($56.2 million total)</strong></p>
<p>Two questions: 1. Who are the people still seeing this in theaters? 2. Don&rsquo;t they realize it&rsquo;ll be on DVD by July?</p>
<p><strong>5. <em>17 Again</em>: $4.4 million ($54.1 million total)</strong></p>
<p>The body swap comedy held off the opening of <em>Next Day Air </em>($4 million/$4 million total) to place fifth, bringing its overall total to $54.1 million. While the numbers aren&rsquo;t huge&mdash;<em>17 Again</em> will wind up grossing slightly more than the last body swap comedy, <em>13 Going on 30</em>, and decidedly less than <em>Hannah Montana: The Movie</em>&mdash;the film had the lowest decline in the top 10, easing only 30 percent in its fourth weekend. It appears Zac Efron is ready to graduate into blockbusters.</p>
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft" src="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/chris-pine-star-trek_l_1.jpg?w=300&h=200" />Live long and prosperous! While members of the USS Enterprise might have had their phasers set for stun, <em>Star Trek</em> absolutely killed at the box office this weekend, <a href="http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/">grossing an estimated $72.5 million over the frame</a>, and $76.5 million total since opening on Thursday night. <a href="http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2585&amp;p=.htm">That number makes it the biggest opening weekend in the history of the franchise</a>, topping the $30.7 million start from <em>Star Trek: First Contact </em>13 years ago. Last week&rsquo;s No. 1 choice, <em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine</em>, didn&rsquo;t fare nearly as well, crumbling 68 percent to land with a thud in second. As we do each Monday, here&rsquo;s a breakdown of the top five at the box office.</p>
<p><strong>1.<em> Star Trek</em>: $72.5 million ($76.5 million total)</strong></p>
<p>The movies to keep in mind when looking at this opening for <em>Star Trek</em> are <em><a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=jamesbond21.htm">Casino Royale</a> </em>and <em><a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=batmanbegins.htm">Batman Begins</a></em>. Both were critically acclaimed reboots of fledgling franchises; both opened strong, but maybe not as strong as everyone expected; and both films saw the opening weekend account for 24 percent of their box office total. If <em>Star Trek</em> follows suit, it could see a final gross upward of $300 million. (We&rsquo;re talking <em>Iron Man</em> levels here, people!) Ironically, <em>Star Trek</em> played almost opposite of what you&rsquo;d expect from a summer blockbuster: <a href="http://www.hitfix.com/articles/2009-5-10-a-franchise-reborn-star-trek-hits-76-5-million-opening-weekend">65 percent of the audience was over 25</a>, meaning that despite a fresh young cast, the kiddies mainly stayed away. However, with only Tom Hanks and the Illuminati hitting screens next weekend, we think the youngsters will start coming out like Tribbles. And since us grown-ups already love it, <em>Star Trek</em> has the look of a leggy hit.</p>
<p><strong>2. <em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine</em>: $27 million ($129.6 million total)</strong></p>
<p>Not good. The 68 percent drop that <em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine</em> experienced this weekend puts it on the same path as other front-loaded non-blockbusters like <em>Cloverfield</em> and Ang Lee&rsquo;s disastrous <em>Hulk</em>; at this rate, it&rsquo;ll be a chore for <em>Wolverine</em> to cross $200 million. Think of it this way: in <em>its</em> second weekend, <em>Watchmen</em> &ldquo;only&rdquo; plunged 67 percent.</p>
<p><strong>3.<em> Ghosts of Girlfriends Past</em>: $10.4 million ($30.2 million total)</strong></p>
<p>Sure, the total number is still very small, especially for a Matthew McConaughey rom-com, but there are some hopeful signs. <em>Ghosts of Girlfriends Past</em> only shed 32 percent of its audience this weekend, which means the word of mouth has been solid. Couple that with the fact that the next mainstream romantic comedy, <em>The Proposal</em>, doesn&rsquo;t hit theaters until June 19, and <em>Ghosts of Girlfriends Past</em> could wind up making a respectable amount of cash before all is said and done.</p>
<p><strong>4. <em>Obsessed</em>: $6.6 million ($56.2 million total)</strong></p>
<p>Two questions: 1. Who are the people still seeing this in theaters? 2. Don&rsquo;t they realize it&rsquo;ll be on DVD by July?</p>
<p><strong>5. <em>17 Again</em>: $4.4 million ($54.1 million total)</strong></p>
<p>The body swap comedy held off the opening of <em>Next Day Air </em>($4 million/$4 million total) to place fifth, bringing its overall total to $54.1 million. While the numbers aren&rsquo;t huge&mdash;<em>17 Again</em> will wind up grossing slightly more than the last body swap comedy, <em>13 Going on 30</em>, and decidedly less than <em>Hannah Montana: The Movie</em>&mdash;the film had the lowest decline in the top 10, easing only 30 percent in its fourth weekend. It appears Zac Efron is ready to graduate into blockbusters.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://observer.com/2009/05/box-office-breakdown-istar-treki-boldly-goes-to-the-top-of-the-charts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/becf95fa833b8aeb13f7720732bd6dc6?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">jhanasobserver</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/chris-pine-star-trek_l_1.jpg?w=300&#38;h=200" medium="image" />
	</item>
		<item>
				
		<title>Comic Book Movies: The Beginning is the End is the Beginning</title>

		<comments>http://observer.com/2009/05/comic-book-movies-the-beginning-is-the-end-is-the-beginning/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2009 17:53:27 -0400</pubDate>
					<link>http://observer.com/2009/05/comic-book-movies-the-beginning-is-the-end-is-the-beginning/</link>
			<dc:creator>Christopher Rosen</dc:creator>
				
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.observer.com/2009/05/comic-book-movies-the-beginning-is-the-end-is-the-beginning/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft" src="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/xmen-wolverine.jpg?w=300&h=300" />The phrase &ldquo;you never get a second chance to make a first impression&rdquo; isn&rsquo;t just ad copy for <em>Head and Shoulders</em> anymore &hellip; apparently it&rsquo;s the mantra of comic book adaptations, too! Watching <em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine</em> over the weekend, we couldn&rsquo;t help but notice that the most exciting, creative and downright awesome part of the entire film was the opening credits. Director Gavin Hood (clearly overwhelmed) uses the titles to go on a travelogue of American conflict, as Wolverine and his half-brother Sabertooth fight in everything from the Civil War through Vietnam. It&rsquo;s a great sequence, one that establishes the duality of Wolverine: He&rsquo;s a killing machine who isn&rsquo;t sure if he wants to be a killing machine. That the rest of the film fails to procure as much existential strife, however, comes as no surprise; <em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine</em> is just the latest comic-book film to treat its titles like a miniature movie, albeit one infinitely better than what follows.</p>
<p>To pinpoint when this phenomenon started, we&rsquo;d have to head all the way back to the summer of 2004, when <em>Spider-Man 2</em>&mdash;the <em>Godfather Part II </em>of comic-book adaptations&mdash;<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSDU2tu7rpk">managed to squeeze the entire first movie into a sequence of paneled illustrations</a>. The trick worked because it was original and inclusive&mdash;if you hadn&rsquo;t seen the first <em>Spider-Man</em>, you were all caught up by the time the sequel started in earnest&mdash;but also because <em>Spider-Man 2</em> happens to be a great movie. Last summer&rsquo;s forgotten <em>The Incredible Hulk</em> (we doubt even star Ed Norton remembers this film existed) wasn&rsquo;t so lucky, despite using a similar tactic for its main titles. And, of course, the pi&egrave;ce de r&eacute;sistance in this movement occurred just this past March in Zack Snyder&rsquo;s <em>Watchmen</em>. While the movie wound up being entirely mediocre, the opening credits sequence&mdash;<a href="http://pixelatedgeek.com/2009/03/watchmen-opening-credits-video/">a five-minute scrapbook of the original graphic novel by way of James Ellroy and scored with Bob Dylan</a>&mdash;ranks as one of the best moments of the entire year, and likely still will by the time 2009 draws to a close.</p>
<p>And that brings us back to <em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine</em>. Like <em>Watchmen</em> on a smaller scale, the opening credits get you prepared for something fantastic, but the movie never delivers. It seems that comic-book films have increasingly become something akin to pop albums&mdash;top heavy with hits&mdash;and the hits are getting smaller. Call us picky, but we expect a bit more from our superheroes than having them reduced to the celluloid version of a Lady Gaga album. As witnessed by the opening credits, these directors clearly have talent&mdash;why not use it for all two hours of running time?</p>
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft" src="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/xmen-wolverine.jpg?w=300&h=300" />The phrase &ldquo;you never get a second chance to make a first impression&rdquo; isn&rsquo;t just ad copy for <em>Head and Shoulders</em> anymore &hellip; apparently it&rsquo;s the mantra of comic book adaptations, too! Watching <em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine</em> over the weekend, we couldn&rsquo;t help but notice that the most exciting, creative and downright awesome part of the entire film was the opening credits. Director Gavin Hood (clearly overwhelmed) uses the titles to go on a travelogue of American conflict, as Wolverine and his half-brother Sabertooth fight in everything from the Civil War through Vietnam. It&rsquo;s a great sequence, one that establishes the duality of Wolverine: He&rsquo;s a killing machine who isn&rsquo;t sure if he wants to be a killing machine. That the rest of the film fails to procure as much existential strife, however, comes as no surprise; <em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine</em> is just the latest comic-book film to treat its titles like a miniature movie, albeit one infinitely better than what follows.</p>
<p>To pinpoint when this phenomenon started, we&rsquo;d have to head all the way back to the summer of 2004, when <em>Spider-Man 2</em>&mdash;the <em>Godfather Part II </em>of comic-book adaptations&mdash;<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSDU2tu7rpk">managed to squeeze the entire first movie into a sequence of paneled illustrations</a>. The trick worked because it was original and inclusive&mdash;if you hadn&rsquo;t seen the first <em>Spider-Man</em>, you were all caught up by the time the sequel started in earnest&mdash;but also because <em>Spider-Man 2</em> happens to be a great movie. Last summer&rsquo;s forgotten <em>The Incredible Hulk</em> (we doubt even star Ed Norton remembers this film existed) wasn&rsquo;t so lucky, despite using a similar tactic for its main titles. And, of course, the pi&egrave;ce de r&eacute;sistance in this movement occurred just this past March in Zack Snyder&rsquo;s <em>Watchmen</em>. While the movie wound up being entirely mediocre, the opening credits sequence&mdash;<a href="http://pixelatedgeek.com/2009/03/watchmen-opening-credits-video/">a five-minute scrapbook of the original graphic novel by way of James Ellroy and scored with Bob Dylan</a>&mdash;ranks as one of the best moments of the entire year, and likely still will by the time 2009 draws to a close.</p>
<p>And that brings us back to <em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine</em>. Like <em>Watchmen</em> on a smaller scale, the opening credits get you prepared for something fantastic, but the movie never delivers. It seems that comic-book films have increasingly become something akin to pop albums&mdash;top heavy with hits&mdash;and the hits are getting smaller. Call us picky, but we expect a bit more from our superheroes than having them reduced to the celluloid version of a Lady Gaga album. As witnessed by the opening credits, these directors clearly have talent&mdash;why not use it for all two hours of running time?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://observer.com/2009/05/comic-book-movies-the-beginning-is-the-end-is-the-beginning/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/becf95fa833b8aeb13f7720732bd6dc6?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">jhanasobserver</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/xmen-wolverine.jpg?w=300&#38;h=300" medium="image" />
	</item>
		<item>
				
		<title>Box Office Breakdown: Wolverine Cuts the Competition to Ribbons</title>

		<comments>http://observer.com/2009/05/box-office-breakdown-iwolverinei-cuts-the-competition-to-ribbons/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2009 12:32:41 -0400</pubDate>
					<link>http://observer.com/2009/05/box-office-breakdown-iwolverinei-cuts-the-competition-to-ribbons/</link>
			<dc:creator>Christopher Rosen</dc:creator>
				
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.observer.com/2009/05/box-office-breakdown-iwolverinei-cuts-the-competition-to-ribbons/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft" src="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/obsessed_1.jpg?w=300&h=199" />It turns out all the consternation over whether bootlegged versions of <em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine</em> would hurt the film&rsquo;s bottom line was a bit unwarranted. <a href="http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2009&amp;wknd=18&amp;p=.htm">Hugh Jackman and his adamantium claws tore up the box office over the weekend as <em>Wolverine </em>grossed an estimated $87 million to pace the field and get summer started off on the right foot</a>. Things weren&rsquo;t so happy in the Matthew McConaughey household, however: despite opening in second place, <em>Ghosts of Girlfriends Past</em> pulled in a lackluster $15.3 million. As we do each Monday, here&rsquo;s a breakdown of the top five at the box office.</p>
<p><strong>1.<em> X-Men Origins: Wolverine</em>: $87 million ($87 million total)</strong></p>
<p>For a movie with such negative pre-release buzz, terrible reviews and what amounted to a remarkably stiff ad campaign, an $87 million opening for <em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine</em> is a clear success. However, before we get too excited, consider that <em>Wolverine<span style="font-style: normal"> </span></em><span style="font-style: normal">opened to $15 million less than</span><em><span style="font-style: normal"> </span><a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=x3.htm">X-Men: The Last Stand</a><span style="font-style: normal"> </span></em><span style="font-style: normal">did in 2006 and roughly $12 million less than</span><em><span style="font-style: normal"> </span><a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=ironman.htm">Iron Man</a><span style="font-style: normal"> </span></em><span style="font-style: normal">did during the same calendar weekend last year</span>. Still, this is the biggest opening, thus far, of 2009, and unless the word of mouth is just horrendous, <em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine</em> will probably wind up grossing over $200 million. And based on the audience we saw it with&mdash;they actually applauded at the end!&mdash;we think that final number is more than possible. Lest we forget, there aren&rsquo;t any other straight-up superhero movies coming out this summer. <em>Wolverine </em>has the comic book demographic all to itself.</p>
<p><strong>2. <em>Ghosts of Girlfriends Past</em>: $15.3 million ($15.3 million total)</strong></p>
<p>To find a Matthew McConaughey romantic comedy with such a small start, you&rsquo;d have to go all the way back to 2001 when <em><a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=matthewmcconaughey.htm">The Wedding Planner</a><span style="font-style: normal"> </span></em><span style="font-style: normal">opened in January of that year with $13.5 million</span>. His last three shirtless romps&mdash;<em>How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days</em>, <em>Failure to Launch </em>and <em>Fool&rsquo;s Gold</em>&mdash;all opened over $20 million. So, what went wrong? There is the little matter of positioning&mdash;the previous romantic dalliances opened during the winter months&mdash;but, more important, are the co-stars. Kate Hudson and Sarah Jessica Parker are reliable box office draws &hellip; Jennifer Garner is not. For an actress that is so beloved (and deservedly so), Ms. Garner hasn&rsquo;t really capitalized on her goodwill. Does she want to be an action star, like Linda Hamilton, or, America&rsquo;s sweetheart, like Julia Roberts? Until she figures it out, expect more box office disappointment.</p>
<p><strong>3.<em> Obsessed</em>: $12.2 million ($47 million total)</strong></p>
<p>We&rsquo;ll say this for <em>Obsessed</em>: it held up remarkably well, dropping &ldquo;only&rdquo; 57 percent from last weekend&rsquo;s No. 1 bow. (We figured on this thing falling at least 65 percent.) Apparently audiences love the idea of seeing Beyonc&eacute; and Ali Larter go all <em>Flavor of Love </em>on each other, and, honestly, who can blame them? Someone has to wipe that smug look off Ms. Larter&rsquo;s face, so who better than Beyonc&eacute;.</p>
<p><strong>4. <em>17 Again</em>: $6.4 million ($48.5 million total)</strong></p>
<p>If you&rsquo;re looking for a metric to judge Zac Efron&rsquo;s future staying power, take a peak at the theater counts. In its third weekend,&nbsp;<em>17 Again</em>, down 45 percent from last week, still showed in more theaters than <em>Ghosts of Girlfriends Past</em>. Even theater owners are hip to the fact that girls love their Efron.</p>
<p><strong>5. <em>Monsters vs. Aliens</em>: $5.8 million ($182.4 million total)</strong></p>
<p>The current titleholder of &ldquo;biggest box office hit of the year,&rdquo; <em>Monsters vs. Aliens</em> narrowly beat out <em>The Soloist </em>($5.6 million/$18.1 million total) to claim the fifth spot over the weekend. With Pixar&rsquo;s <em>Up</em> not coming until the end of the month, we full expect <em>Monsters vs. Aliens</em> to cruise past $200 million. Somewhere Jeffrey Katzenberg just did another fist pump.</p>
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft" src="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/obsessed_1.jpg?w=300&h=199" />It turns out all the consternation over whether bootlegged versions of <em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine</em> would hurt the film&rsquo;s bottom line was a bit unwarranted. <a href="http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2009&amp;wknd=18&amp;p=.htm">Hugh Jackman and his adamantium claws tore up the box office over the weekend as <em>Wolverine </em>grossed an estimated $87 million to pace the field and get summer started off on the right foot</a>. Things weren&rsquo;t so happy in the Matthew McConaughey household, however: despite opening in second place, <em>Ghosts of Girlfriends Past</em> pulled in a lackluster $15.3 million. As we do each Monday, here&rsquo;s a breakdown of the top five at the box office.</p>
<p><strong>1.<em> X-Men Origins: Wolverine</em>: $87 million ($87 million total)</strong></p>
<p>For a movie with such negative pre-release buzz, terrible reviews and what amounted to a remarkably stiff ad campaign, an $87 million opening for <em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine</em> is a clear success. However, before we get too excited, consider that <em>Wolverine<span style="font-style: normal"> </span></em><span style="font-style: normal">opened to $15 million less than</span><em><span style="font-style: normal"> </span><a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=x3.htm">X-Men: The Last Stand</a><span style="font-style: normal"> </span></em><span style="font-style: normal">did in 2006 and roughly $12 million less than</span><em><span style="font-style: normal"> </span><a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=ironman.htm">Iron Man</a><span style="font-style: normal"> </span></em><span style="font-style: normal">did during the same calendar weekend last year</span>. Still, this is the biggest opening, thus far, of 2009, and unless the word of mouth is just horrendous, <em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine</em> will probably wind up grossing over $200 million. And based on the audience we saw it with&mdash;they actually applauded at the end!&mdash;we think that final number is more than possible. Lest we forget, there aren&rsquo;t any other straight-up superhero movies coming out this summer. <em>Wolverine </em>has the comic book demographic all to itself.</p>
<p><strong>2. <em>Ghosts of Girlfriends Past</em>: $15.3 million ($15.3 million total)</strong></p>
<p>To find a Matthew McConaughey romantic comedy with such a small start, you&rsquo;d have to go all the way back to 2001 when <em><a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=matthewmcconaughey.htm">The Wedding Planner</a><span style="font-style: normal"> </span></em><span style="font-style: normal">opened in January of that year with $13.5 million</span>. His last three shirtless romps&mdash;<em>How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days</em>, <em>Failure to Launch </em>and <em>Fool&rsquo;s Gold</em>&mdash;all opened over $20 million. So, what went wrong? There is the little matter of positioning&mdash;the previous romantic dalliances opened during the winter months&mdash;but, more important, are the co-stars. Kate Hudson and Sarah Jessica Parker are reliable box office draws &hellip; Jennifer Garner is not. For an actress that is so beloved (and deservedly so), Ms. Garner hasn&rsquo;t really capitalized on her goodwill. Does she want to be an action star, like Linda Hamilton, or, America&rsquo;s sweetheart, like Julia Roberts? Until she figures it out, expect more box office disappointment.</p>
<p><strong>3.<em> Obsessed</em>: $12.2 million ($47 million total)</strong></p>
<p>We&rsquo;ll say this for <em>Obsessed</em>: it held up remarkably well, dropping &ldquo;only&rdquo; 57 percent from last weekend&rsquo;s No. 1 bow. (We figured on this thing falling at least 65 percent.) Apparently audiences love the idea of seeing Beyonc&eacute; and Ali Larter go all <em>Flavor of Love </em>on each other, and, honestly, who can blame them? Someone has to wipe that smug look off Ms. Larter&rsquo;s face, so who better than Beyonc&eacute;.</p>
<p><strong>4. <em>17 Again</em>: $6.4 million ($48.5 million total)</strong></p>
<p>If you&rsquo;re looking for a metric to judge Zac Efron&rsquo;s future staying power, take a peak at the theater counts. In its third weekend,&nbsp;<em>17 Again</em>, down 45 percent from last week, still showed in more theaters than <em>Ghosts of Girlfriends Past</em>. Even theater owners are hip to the fact that girls love their Efron.</p>
<p><strong>5. <em>Monsters vs. Aliens</em>: $5.8 million ($182.4 million total)</strong></p>
<p>The current titleholder of &ldquo;biggest box office hit of the year,&rdquo; <em>Monsters vs. Aliens</em> narrowly beat out <em>The Soloist </em>($5.6 million/$18.1 million total) to claim the fifth spot over the weekend. With Pixar&rsquo;s <em>Up</em> not coming until the end of the month, we full expect <em>Monsters vs. Aliens</em> to cruise past $200 million. Somewhere Jeffrey Katzenberg just did another fist pump.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://observer.com/2009/05/box-office-breakdown-iwolverinei-cuts-the-competition-to-ribbons/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/becf95fa833b8aeb13f7720732bd6dc6?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">jhanasobserver</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/obsessed_1.jpg?w=300&#38;h=199" medium="image" />
	</item>
		<item>
				
		<title>Opening this Weekend: Summer Starts with Wolverine, Matthew McConaughey and &#8230; Jim Jarmusch?!</title>

		<comments>http://observer.com/2009/05/opening-this-weekend-summer-starts-with-iwolverinei-matthew-mcconaughey-and-jim-jarmusch/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 12:55:45 -0400</pubDate>
					<link>http://observer.com/2009/05/opening-this-weekend-summer-starts-with-iwolverinei-matthew-mcconaughey-and-jim-jarmusch/</link>
			<dc:creator>Christopher Rosen</dc:creator>
				
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.observer.com/2009/05/opening-this-weekend-summer-starts-with-iwolverinei-matthew-mcconaughey-and-jim-jarmusch/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft" src="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/ghosts.jpg?w=300&h=199" />Is Sasha Grey the next big star? For the uninitiated, Ms. Grey is the just-turned-21-year-old porn actress who finds herself at the center of the latest pillbox-sized indie from Steven Soderbergh, <em>The Girlfriend Experience</em>, and if the buzz is to be believed, mainstream success is within her reach&mdash;<a href="http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-04-29/film/soderbergh-s-girlfriend-experience-porn-star-is-a-true-character/">in his <em>Village Voice </em>review, J. Hoberman compares her to Marlon Brando in <em>Last Tango in Paris</em></a>. That Ms. Grey is something of a walking contradiction only adds to her mystique: <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2009/04/29/sasha-grey-the-dirtiest-girl-in-the-world-the-story-behind-the-story/">She cites Jean Luc-Godard with regularity</a>, appears to be much smarter than her years and yet has also starred in 150 porn films with catchy titles like <em>Face Invaders 4</em>. <em>The Girlfriend Experience</em> doesn&rsquo;t open theatrically until the end of May, but it&rsquo;s currently available both online (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Girlfriend-Experience-Pre-Theatrical-Rental/dp/B00284GCEE/ref=amb_link_84223211_2?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&amp;pf_rd_s=right-1&amp;pf_rd_r=01XCNY51TT2R4J7GQXV7&amp;pf_rd_t=101&amp;pf_rd_p=475738971&amp;pf_rd_i=16261631">via Amazon</a>) and on demand, so you can see for yourself what all the fuss is about. If a Nietzsche-quoting porn star isn&rsquo;t your idea of a good time, though, three movies hit actual theaters this weekend as Hollywood prepares for what should be another summer of record-breaking box office. As we do every Friday, here&rsquo;s a handy guide to the new releases.</p>
<p><strong><em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine</em></strong></p>
<p><em>What&rsquo;s the story:</em>&nbsp;For a movie that has spent the last few months dodging one publicity landmine after another&mdash;reshoots, bad buzz, online leaks&mdash;<a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5grj_kIC7aCNVNJVY710xiI8ztH5wD97RJT8O1">we weren&rsquo;t the least bit surprised to read that the outbreak of swine flu negatively affected&nbsp;<em>Wolverine</em>&rsquo;s box office in Mexico</a>. While we won&rsquo;t say the film is cursed, we can only imagine a swarm of locusts is just around the corner. As for the plot &hellip; you know the drill: Hugh Jackman stars as the titular mutant and fights with Liev Schrieber&rsquo;s Sabertooth and Danny Huston&rsquo;s General Stryker while stuff blows up really good. For <em>The Observer</em>'s take, check out Sara Vilkomerson's review <a href="/2009/movies/eat-it-critics-i-kind-liked-wolverine">here</a>.</p>
<p><em>Who should see it:</em> Magneto.</p>
<p><strong><em>Ghosts of Girlfriends Past</em></strong></p>
<p><em>What&rsquo;s the story: </em>Counterprogramming at work! While all the boys are busy sharpening their claws at the showings of <em>Wolverine</em>, New Line hopes that the girls go see Matthew McConaughey and Jennifer Garner meet-cute in <em>Ghosts of Girlfriends Past</em>. Don&rsquo;t expect too much though: The film, a romantic comedy version of <em>A Christmas Carol</em>, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhjUCGlXu28">looks like straight poison</a>. Not even the presence of Lacey Chabert&mdash;<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghINGBueuQw">presumably still trying to make &ldquo;fetch&rdquo; happen</a>&mdash;and the always-welcome sight of Breckin Meyer (<em>Clueless </em>for life!) can get us excited for this mess.</p>
<p><em>Who should see it:</em> Kate Hudson.<strong><em></em></strong></p>
<p><strong><em>The Limits of Control</em></strong></p>
<p><em>What&rsquo;s the story:</em> It wouldn&rsquo;t be the first weekend of summer without a little indie goodness. Enter Jim Jarmusch&rsquo;s <em>The Limits of Control</em>, the director&rsquo;s first effort since taking Bill Murray on a deadpan road trip in <em>Broken Flowers</em> back in 2005. Mr. Murray makes an appearance here as well (along with other famous faces like Tilda Swinton, Gael Garcia Bernal and John Hurt), but the real star of the show is Isaach de Bankol&eacute;, a frequent Jarmusch collaborator seen most recently gritting his teeth on this season of <em>24</em>. We&rsquo;ve found Mr. Jarmusch&rsquo;s work to be hit or miss, and unfortunately it sounds like this film&mdash;the story of a mysterious loner on a dreamlike quest&mdash;fits into the latter category. <em>The Limits of Control</em> has a <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/limits_of_control/">19 percent Fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes</a> and our own <a href="/2009/movies/vamoose-jarmusch">Rex Reed</a> called it &ldquo;pure, undiluted crap.&rdquo; Hmm, what time is <em>Wolverine </em>showing again?<strong></strong></p>
<p><em>Who should see it:</em> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0165798/">Ghost Dog</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft" src="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/ghosts.jpg?w=300&h=199" />Is Sasha Grey the next big star? For the uninitiated, Ms. Grey is the just-turned-21-year-old porn actress who finds herself at the center of the latest pillbox-sized indie from Steven Soderbergh, <em>The Girlfriend Experience</em>, and if the buzz is to be believed, mainstream success is within her reach&mdash;<a href="http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-04-29/film/soderbergh-s-girlfriend-experience-porn-star-is-a-true-character/">in his <em>Village Voice </em>review, J. Hoberman compares her to Marlon Brando in <em>Last Tango in Paris</em></a>. That Ms. Grey is something of a walking contradiction only adds to her mystique: <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2009/04/29/sasha-grey-the-dirtiest-girl-in-the-world-the-story-behind-the-story/">She cites Jean Luc-Godard with regularity</a>, appears to be much smarter than her years and yet has also starred in 150 porn films with catchy titles like <em>Face Invaders 4</em>. <em>The Girlfriend Experience</em> doesn&rsquo;t open theatrically until the end of May, but it&rsquo;s currently available both online (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Girlfriend-Experience-Pre-Theatrical-Rental/dp/B00284GCEE/ref=amb_link_84223211_2?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&amp;pf_rd_s=right-1&amp;pf_rd_r=01XCNY51TT2R4J7GQXV7&amp;pf_rd_t=101&amp;pf_rd_p=475738971&amp;pf_rd_i=16261631">via Amazon</a>) and on demand, so you can see for yourself what all the fuss is about. If a Nietzsche-quoting porn star isn&rsquo;t your idea of a good time, though, three movies hit actual theaters this weekend as Hollywood prepares for what should be another summer of record-breaking box office. As we do every Friday, here&rsquo;s a handy guide to the new releases.</p>
<p><strong><em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine</em></strong></p>
<p><em>What&rsquo;s the story:</em>&nbsp;For a movie that has spent the last few months dodging one publicity landmine after another&mdash;reshoots, bad buzz, online leaks&mdash;<a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5grj_kIC7aCNVNJVY710xiI8ztH5wD97RJT8O1">we weren&rsquo;t the least bit surprised to read that the outbreak of swine flu negatively affected&nbsp;<em>Wolverine</em>&rsquo;s box office in Mexico</a>. While we won&rsquo;t say the film is cursed, we can only imagine a swarm of locusts is just around the corner. As for the plot &hellip; you know the drill: Hugh Jackman stars as the titular mutant and fights with Liev Schrieber&rsquo;s Sabertooth and Danny Huston&rsquo;s General Stryker while stuff blows up really good. For <em>The Observer</em>'s take, check out Sara Vilkomerson's review <a href="/2009/movies/eat-it-critics-i-kind-liked-wolverine">here</a>.</p>
<p><em>Who should see it:</em> Magneto.</p>
<p><strong><em>Ghosts of Girlfriends Past</em></strong></p>
<p><em>What&rsquo;s the story: </em>Counterprogramming at work! While all the boys are busy sharpening their claws at the showings of <em>Wolverine</em>, New Line hopes that the girls go see Matthew McConaughey and Jennifer Garner meet-cute in <em>Ghosts of Girlfriends Past</em>. Don&rsquo;t expect too much though: The film, a romantic comedy version of <em>A Christmas Carol</em>, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhjUCGlXu28">looks like straight poison</a>. Not even the presence of Lacey Chabert&mdash;<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghINGBueuQw">presumably still trying to make &ldquo;fetch&rdquo; happen</a>&mdash;and the always-welcome sight of Breckin Meyer (<em>Clueless </em>for life!) can get us excited for this mess.</p>
<p><em>Who should see it:</em> Kate Hudson.<strong><em></em></strong></p>
<p><strong><em>The Limits of Control</em></strong></p>
<p><em>What&rsquo;s the story:</em> It wouldn&rsquo;t be the first weekend of summer without a little indie goodness. Enter Jim Jarmusch&rsquo;s <em>The Limits of Control</em>, the director&rsquo;s first effort since taking Bill Murray on a deadpan road trip in <em>Broken Flowers</em> back in 2005. Mr. Murray makes an appearance here as well (along with other famous faces like Tilda Swinton, Gael Garcia Bernal and John Hurt), but the real star of the show is Isaach de Bankol&eacute;, a frequent Jarmusch collaborator seen most recently gritting his teeth on this season of <em>24</em>. We&rsquo;ve found Mr. Jarmusch&rsquo;s work to be hit or miss, and unfortunately it sounds like this film&mdash;the story of a mysterious loner on a dreamlike quest&mdash;fits into the latter category. <em>The Limits of Control</em> has a <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/limits_of_control/">19 percent Fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes</a> and our own <a href="/2009/movies/vamoose-jarmusch">Rex Reed</a> called it &ldquo;pure, undiluted crap.&rdquo; Hmm, what time is <em>Wolverine </em>showing again?<strong></strong></p>
<p><em>Who should see it:</em> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0165798/">Ghost Dog</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://observer.com/2009/05/opening-this-weekend-summer-starts-with-iwolverinei-matthew-mcconaughey-and-jim-jarmusch/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/becf95fa833b8aeb13f7720732bd6dc6?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">jhanasobserver</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/ghosts.jpg?w=300&#38;h=199" medium="image" />
	</item>
		<item>
				
		<title>Is it Weird That I Kind of Liked Wolverine? (Maybe, Yes)</title>

		<comments>http://observer.com/2009/05/is-it-weird-that-i-kind-of-liked-iwolverinei-maybe-yes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 11:59:04 -0400</pubDate>
					<link>http://observer.com/2009/05/is-it-weird-that-i-kind-of-liked-iwolverinei-maybe-yes/</link>
			<dc:creator>Sara Vilkomerson</dc:creator>
				
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.observer.com/2009/05/is-it-weird-that-i-kind-of-liked-iwolverinei-maybe-yes/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft" src="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/x-men-origins-wolverine1.jpg?w=300&h=224" />O.K., so I saw <em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine.</em> Much like all of you, I too had heard the talk from all those people who downloaded (for shame!) the incomplete version and took to the Internet to talk trash and etc. and&nbsp; as much as you sort of wish you didn&rsquo;t pay attention to such things, you know you do &hellip; which is all a long-winded way of saying<span>&nbsp; </span>that I was pleasantly surprised when I finally settled in and watched the film. But let me make this clear: There is no way I would call this a <em>good </em>movie. But! I was indeed entertained the whole way through, and there were enough genuinely interesting scenes to almost make up for the incredibly clunky moments provided by a very wooden screenplay. Did the plot points stick in my head five minutes after leaving the theater? Not so much ... but I know I was having fun while watching.</p>
<p>Hugh Jackman works his claws off as the title character (no surprise there: remember that amazing <a href="http://neptune.observer.com/2009/movies/most-bananas-oscars-ever">Oscar opener</a> he did in February? The man <em>commits</em>). We go way back in time and meet him as a little sickly boy and witness a family tragedy that brings on the rage, plus we meet his brother Victor/Sabertooth, played by Liev Schreiber, who threatens to steal this whole damn movie from all the other good-looking fellas onscreen. Because, my goodness there&rsquo;s a lot! We got Ryan Reynolds, <a href="/2009/movies/ladies-love-tim-riggins-what-about-gambit">Taylor Kitsch (a.k.a. Tim Riggins), </a>Dominic Monaghan&mdash;who brought some real sadness to his role&mdash;Will i Am (making his feature film debut) and Daniel Henney. There aren't really any ladies in this thing except for the very lovely Kyla Silverfox (played by Lynn Collins), who helps propel Wolverine towards his ultimate destiny. For all those who love an origins story (who doesn't), you are in luck, as this film, directed by Gavin Hood (<em>Tsotsi),&nbsp;</em>seeks to explain just how it is the mysterious Logan/Wolverine arrived as we met him way back in the first <em>X-Men</em> film in 2000.&nbsp;Now listen, I could prattle on here about which mutant does what, but while I've always loved the whole X-Men franchise, I can't pretend to know or understand all the crazy amounts of backstory on each of them. And, one can't really spend too much time worrying about why it is Hugh Jackman and Liev Schreiber don't age until they hit the age we see them at, how come they they seem to fight in every single war but yet Wolverine becomes Canadian with a weird New York accent, &nbsp;how exactly adamantium works, or what exactly the deal with that chick with the diamond skin is; I'll leave that up to the comic book geeks. I can't imagine how they'll react to this film. Compared to its X-Men cinematic siblings, I'd put it after number one and two but and maybe tie it with number three. One thing is for sure though ... I like it more than watching&nbsp;<em><a href="/2009/movies/who-watched-watchmen-me">Watchmen.&nbsp;</a><a href="/2009/movies/who-watched-watchmen-me">&nbsp;</a></em></p>
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft" src="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/x-men-origins-wolverine1.jpg?w=300&h=224" />O.K., so I saw <em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine.</em> Much like all of you, I too had heard the talk from all those people who downloaded (for shame!) the incomplete version and took to the Internet to talk trash and etc. and&nbsp; as much as you sort of wish you didn&rsquo;t pay attention to such things, you know you do &hellip; which is all a long-winded way of saying<span>&nbsp; </span>that I was pleasantly surprised when I finally settled in and watched the film. But let me make this clear: There is no way I would call this a <em>good </em>movie. But! I was indeed entertained the whole way through, and there were enough genuinely interesting scenes to almost make up for the incredibly clunky moments provided by a very wooden screenplay. Did the plot points stick in my head five minutes after leaving the theater? Not so much ... but I know I was having fun while watching.</p>
<p>Hugh Jackman works his claws off as the title character (no surprise there: remember that amazing <a href="http://neptune.observer.com/2009/movies/most-bananas-oscars-ever">Oscar opener</a> he did in February? The man <em>commits</em>). We go way back in time and meet him as a little sickly boy and witness a family tragedy that brings on the rage, plus we meet his brother Victor/Sabertooth, played by Liev Schreiber, who threatens to steal this whole damn movie from all the other good-looking fellas onscreen. Because, my goodness there&rsquo;s a lot! We got Ryan Reynolds, <a href="/2009/movies/ladies-love-tim-riggins-what-about-gambit">Taylor Kitsch (a.k.a. Tim Riggins), </a>Dominic Monaghan&mdash;who brought some real sadness to his role&mdash;Will i Am (making his feature film debut) and Daniel Henney. There aren't really any ladies in this thing except for the very lovely Kyla Silverfox (played by Lynn Collins), who helps propel Wolverine towards his ultimate destiny. For all those who love an origins story (who doesn't), you are in luck, as this film, directed by Gavin Hood (<em>Tsotsi),&nbsp;</em>seeks to explain just how it is the mysterious Logan/Wolverine arrived as we met him way back in the first <em>X-Men</em> film in 2000.&nbsp;Now listen, I could prattle on here about which mutant does what, but while I've always loved the whole X-Men franchise, I can't pretend to know or understand all the crazy amounts of backstory on each of them. And, one can't really spend too much time worrying about why it is Hugh Jackman and Liev Schreiber don't age until they hit the age we see them at, how come they they seem to fight in every single war but yet Wolverine becomes Canadian with a weird New York accent, &nbsp;how exactly adamantium works, or what exactly the deal with that chick with the diamond skin is; I'll leave that up to the comic book geeks. I can't imagine how they'll react to this film. Compared to its X-Men cinematic siblings, I'd put it after number one and two but and maybe tie it with number three. One thing is for sure though ... I like it more than watching&nbsp;<em><a href="/2009/movies/who-watched-watchmen-me">Watchmen.&nbsp;</a><a href="/2009/movies/who-watched-watchmen-me">&nbsp;</a></em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://observer.com/2009/05/is-it-weird-that-i-kind-of-liked-iwolverinei-maybe-yes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/becf95fa833b8aeb13f7720732bd6dc6?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">jhanasobserver</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/x-men-origins-wolverine1.jpg?w=300&#38;h=224" medium="image" />
	</item>
		<item>
				
		<title>Single Person&#8217;s Movie: Gone in 60 Seconds</title>

		<comments>http://observer.com/2009/04/single-persons-movie-igone-in-60-secondsi/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:27:34 -0400</pubDate>
					<link>http://observer.com/2009/04/single-persons-movie-igone-in-60-secondsi/</link>
			<dc:creator>Christopher Rosen</dc:creator>
				
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.observer.com/2009/04/single-persons-movie-igone-in-60-secondsi/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft" src="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/gonein50.jpg?w=300&h=199" /><em>It's 2 a.m. and you awake with a jerk, alone in your fully lit apartment and still on the couch. On TV, the credits of some movie you've already seen a billion times are scrolling by. It feels like rock bottom. And we know, because we're just like you: single.</em></p>
<p><em>Need a movie to keep you company until you literally can't keep your eyes open? Join us tonight when we pass out to </em><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTisZKkuO1A&amp;feature=related">Gone in 60 Seconds</a><em> </em>[<em>starting @ 10:40 p.m. on</em> Starz]</p>
<p><em>Why we&rsquo;ll try to stay up and watch it:</em> With <em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine</em> opening next weekend, it feels like as good a time as any to point out that summer movies need to lighten up. Between budgets that rival government bailouts and plots that hedge to the dark side of moody, it seems like everyone involved with the production of these zeppelin-like spectacles has forgotten what it&rsquo;s like to have &hellip; well, lots of fun.</p>
<p>With that in mind, say hello to <em>Gone in 60 Seconds</em>. The 2000 remake of the 1974 film of the same name is classic summer entertainment. Released at the height of the &ldquo;Jerry Bruckheimer Rules the Earth&rdquo; era of moviemaking&mdash;<em>Gone in 60 Seconds</em> followed the trifecta of <em>The Rock</em>, <em>Con Air</em> and <em>Armageddon</em>&mdash;the film reminds us what it was like when blockbusters were nothing more than loud, stupid movies about human beings doing awesome things. Hence, the story is as easy as using Geico: A man (Nicolas Cage) has to save his brother from a mobster by stealing 50 cars in a single night. Add in some one-liners, a dreadlocked Angelina Jolie, War&rsquo;s <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1nwisCngTg&amp;feature=related">&ldquo;Low Rider&rdquo;</a> and fade to black.</p>
<p>While we have major problems with Mr. Cage whenever he plays serious&mdash;this includes his overrated Oscar-winning performance in <em>Leaving Las Vegas</em>&mdash;we could not love his goofy action hero work more. <em>Gone in 60 Seconds </em>is no exception. He&rsquo;s the Olivier of this particular genre, which makes us all the sadder when we see him frowning in stuff like <em>Knowing</em>. If you&rsquo;re going to put Mr. Cage in something that goes boom, at least let him have a good time.</p>
<p><em>When we&rsquo;ll probably fall asleep: </em>Since this is a movie about stealing cars, you can safely expect to see one thing: high-speed chases. Our favorite happens to be the last one, before the rote &ldquo;cop-shoots-the-bad-guy-to-save-the-antihero&rdquo; finale. This chase involves a traffic jam on a bridge; a flatbed truck that&rsquo;s set up to look like a ramp; a gorgeous (and flying) 1967 Shelby GT500 named Eleanor; and some absurd blue screen special effects. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2dJcuHxhvY&amp;feature=PlayList&amp;p=75EC88E2813984A2&amp;playnext=1&amp;playnext_from=PL&amp;index=57">That it ends up being more ridiculous than all that sounds should be no surprise</a>. So we&rsquo;ll make it until 12:25, 105 minutes into the film, when Mr. Cage embraces his inner Evil Knievel all while doing everything in his power not to wink at the camera. We&rsquo;d like to see Wolverine try something like that.</p>
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft" src="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/gonein50.jpg?w=300&h=199" /><em>It's 2 a.m. and you awake with a jerk, alone in your fully lit apartment and still on the couch. On TV, the credits of some movie you've already seen a billion times are scrolling by. It feels like rock bottom. And we know, because we're just like you: single.</em></p>
<p><em>Need a movie to keep you company until you literally can't keep your eyes open? Join us tonight when we pass out to </em><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTisZKkuO1A&amp;feature=related">Gone in 60 Seconds</a><em> </em>[<em>starting @ 10:40 p.m. on</em> Starz]</p>
<p><em>Why we&rsquo;ll try to stay up and watch it:</em> With <em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine</em> opening next weekend, it feels like as good a time as any to point out that summer movies need to lighten up. Between budgets that rival government bailouts and plots that hedge to the dark side of moody, it seems like everyone involved with the production of these zeppelin-like spectacles has forgotten what it&rsquo;s like to have &hellip; well, lots of fun.</p>
<p>With that in mind, say hello to <em>Gone in 60 Seconds</em>. The 2000 remake of the 1974 film of the same name is classic summer entertainment. Released at the height of the &ldquo;Jerry Bruckheimer Rules the Earth&rdquo; era of moviemaking&mdash;<em>Gone in 60 Seconds</em> followed the trifecta of <em>The Rock</em>, <em>Con Air</em> and <em>Armageddon</em>&mdash;the film reminds us what it was like when blockbusters were nothing more than loud, stupid movies about human beings doing awesome things. Hence, the story is as easy as using Geico: A man (Nicolas Cage) has to save his brother from a mobster by stealing 50 cars in a single night. Add in some one-liners, a dreadlocked Angelina Jolie, War&rsquo;s <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1nwisCngTg&amp;feature=related">&ldquo;Low Rider&rdquo;</a> and fade to black.</p>
<p>While we have major problems with Mr. Cage whenever he plays serious&mdash;this includes his overrated Oscar-winning performance in <em>Leaving Las Vegas</em>&mdash;we could not love his goofy action hero work more. <em>Gone in 60 Seconds </em>is no exception. He&rsquo;s the Olivier of this particular genre, which makes us all the sadder when we see him frowning in stuff like <em>Knowing</em>. If you&rsquo;re going to put Mr. Cage in something that goes boom, at least let him have a good time.</p>
<p><em>When we&rsquo;ll probably fall asleep: </em>Since this is a movie about stealing cars, you can safely expect to see one thing: high-speed chases. Our favorite happens to be the last one, before the rote &ldquo;cop-shoots-the-bad-guy-to-save-the-antihero&rdquo; finale. This chase involves a traffic jam on a bridge; a flatbed truck that&rsquo;s set up to look like a ramp; a gorgeous (and flying) 1967 Shelby GT500 named Eleanor; and some absurd blue screen special effects. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2dJcuHxhvY&amp;feature=PlayList&amp;p=75EC88E2813984A2&amp;playnext=1&amp;playnext_from=PL&amp;index=57">That it ends up being more ridiculous than all that sounds should be no surprise</a>. So we&rsquo;ll make it until 12:25, 105 minutes into the film, when Mr. Cage embraces his inner Evil Knievel all while doing everything in his power not to wink at the camera. We&rsquo;d like to see Wolverine try something like that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://observer.com/2009/04/single-persons-movie-igone-in-60-secondsi/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/becf95fa833b8aeb13f7720732bd6dc6?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">jhanasobserver</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/gonein50.jpg?w=300&#38;h=199" medium="image" />
	</item>
		<item>
				
		<title>Opening this Weekend: Russell Crowe Gets His Story, Zac Efron Gets His Fame and Crank 2 Gets&#8230; Crankier?</title>

		<comments>http://observer.com/2009/04/opening-this-weekend-russell-crowe-gets-his-story-zac-efron-gets-his-fame-and-icrank-2i-gets-crankier/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:08:09 -0400</pubDate>
					<link>http://observer.com/2009/04/opening-this-weekend-russell-crowe-gets-his-story-zac-efron-gets-his-fame-and-icrank-2i-gets-crankier/</link>
			<dc:creator>Christopher Rosen</dc:creator>
				
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.observer.com/2009/04/opening-this-weekend-russell-crowe-gets-his-story-zac-efron-gets-his-fame-and-icrank-2i-gets-crankier/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft" src="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/zac.jpg?w=300&h=199" />Conspiracy theorists might want to get out their tinfoil hats for this one. Despite being leaked onto the Internet, <em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine </em>is still tracking to be a huge success. Earlier this week, <em><a href="http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2009/04/wolverine-disas.html?xid=rss-hollywoodinsider-%27Wolverine%27+tracking+data%3A+Interest+in+the+film+remains+high%2C+despite+Internet+leak">Entertainment Weekly </a></em><a href="http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2009/04/wolverine-disas.html?xid=rss-hollywoodinsider-%27Wolverine%27+tracking+data%3A+Interest+in+the+film+remains+high%2C+despite+Internet+leak"><span style="font-style: normal">revealed details of a consumer report showing that the May 1st release remains the No. 1 choice for men over the age of 31</span></a>&mdash;in technical terms, the film&rsquo;s &ldquo;wanna-see&rdquo; levels are through the roof, and a huge opening weekend is all but assured. That sound you just heard was a sigh of relief coming from 20th Century Fox. But, we have to wonder: Was the leak nothing more than guerrilla marketing to the nth degree? Before the &ldquo;security breach,&rdquo; <em>Wolverine</em> was being set up as the first bomb of the summer; now, the film could be one of the summer&rsquo;s biggest <em>hits</em>. Of course box office tracking is notoriously unreliable&mdash;they&rsquo;re the same numbers that told us <em>Observe and Report </em>was going to make $20 million&mdash;so maybe <em>Wolverine </em>will be a dud after all. If looking for black helicopters isn&rsquo;t your thing, three movies open this weekend, and, as usual, there is something for everyone. As we do every Friday, here&rsquo;s a handy guide to the new releases.</p>
<p><strong><em>State of Play</em></strong></p>
<p><em>What&rsquo;s the story:</em> Based on the acclaimed BBC miniseries, <em>State of Play</em> finds Russell Crowe (looking increasingly like a fat Eddie Vedder) starring as the Last of the Mohicans&mdash;a Washington, D.C.&ndash;based investigative reporter tasked with solving the mystery of a congressman&rsquo;s dead mistress. The film culls the BBC original down from six hours to a manageable two thanks to help from a trio of testosterone-heavy screenwriters&mdash;Tony Gilroy (<em>Michael Clayton</em>, the <em>Bourne </em>movies), Matthew Michael Caranahan (<em>The Kingdom</em>) and Billy Ray (<em>Breach</em>, <em>Shattered Glass</em>)&mdash;and apparently leaves in enough of the essence to make fans happy. We can&rsquo;t say we&rsquo;re all that excited for <em>State of Play</em>, which looks a tad too on-the-nose for our tastes, but the fantastically pastiche cast&mdash;Ben Affleck, Rachel McAdams, Jason Bateman, Helen Mirren and Jeff Daniels, Viola Davis&mdash;has our interest piqued.</p>
<p><em>Who should see it:</em> Woodward and Bernstein.</p>
<p><strong><em>17 Again</em></strong></p>
<p><em>What&rsquo;s the story: </em>If you&rsquo;ve been waiting for the next big movie star to arrive, allow us to introduce to you Zac Efron. After being a part of ensemble successes like <em>High School Musical 3</em> and <em>Hairspray</em>, the Disney Channel stalwart steps out in front for the very first time in <em>17 Again</em>&mdash;a vapid-looking body-swap comedy that takes parts of <em>Big</em>, <em>Mrs. Doubtfire</em> and <em>Like Father, Like Son</em> and repurposes them for a new generation. We&rsquo;d like to hate, but Mr. Efron seems genuinely charming and self-effacing (for reference, check out his hosting stint on <em>Saturday Night Live</em> last weekend). We&rsquo;re powerless before his floppy hair and, chances are, audiences will be as well.</p>
<p><em>Who should see it:</em> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAeZlQgHIUc">Kirk Cameron</a>.<strong><em></em></strong></p>
<p><strong><em>Crank 2: High Voltage</em></strong></p>
<p><em>What&rsquo;s the story:</em>&nbsp;The tag line for <em>Crank 2: High Voltage</em>, a sequel to the surprise 2006 meathead action hit starring Jason Statham, says all you need to know about the follow-up: <a href="http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/crank-2-poster.jpg">&ldquo;He was dead &hellip; but he got better.&rdquo;</a> Sounds good to us!<strong></strong></p>
<p><em>Who should see it:</em> People who thought the first <em>Crank</em> was too reality-based.</p>
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft" src="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/zac.jpg?w=300&h=199" />Conspiracy theorists might want to get out their tinfoil hats for this one. Despite being leaked onto the Internet, <em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine </em>is still tracking to be a huge success. Earlier this week, <em><a href="http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2009/04/wolverine-disas.html?xid=rss-hollywoodinsider-%27Wolverine%27+tracking+data%3A+Interest+in+the+film+remains+high%2C+despite+Internet+leak">Entertainment Weekly </a></em><a href="http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2009/04/wolverine-disas.html?xid=rss-hollywoodinsider-%27Wolverine%27+tracking+data%3A+Interest+in+the+film+remains+high%2C+despite+Internet+leak"><span style="font-style: normal">revealed details of a consumer report showing that the May 1st release remains the No. 1 choice for men over the age of 31</span></a>&mdash;in technical terms, the film&rsquo;s &ldquo;wanna-see&rdquo; levels are through the roof, and a huge opening weekend is all but assured. That sound you just heard was a sigh of relief coming from 20th Century Fox. But, we have to wonder: Was the leak nothing more than guerrilla marketing to the nth degree? Before the &ldquo;security breach,&rdquo; <em>Wolverine</em> was being set up as the first bomb of the summer; now, the film could be one of the summer&rsquo;s biggest <em>hits</em>. Of course box office tracking is notoriously unreliable&mdash;they&rsquo;re the same numbers that told us <em>Observe and Report </em>was going to make $20 million&mdash;so maybe <em>Wolverine </em>will be a dud after all. If looking for black helicopters isn&rsquo;t your thing, three movies open this weekend, and, as usual, there is something for everyone. As we do every Friday, here&rsquo;s a handy guide to the new releases.</p>
<p><strong><em>State of Play</em></strong></p>
<p><em>What&rsquo;s the story:</em> Based on the acclaimed BBC miniseries, <em>State of Play</em> finds Russell Crowe (looking increasingly like a fat Eddie Vedder) starring as the Last of the Mohicans&mdash;a Washington, D.C.&ndash;based investigative reporter tasked with solving the mystery of a congressman&rsquo;s dead mistress. The film culls the BBC original down from six hours to a manageable two thanks to help from a trio of testosterone-heavy screenwriters&mdash;Tony Gilroy (<em>Michael Clayton</em>, the <em>Bourne </em>movies), Matthew Michael Caranahan (<em>The Kingdom</em>) and Billy Ray (<em>Breach</em>, <em>Shattered Glass</em>)&mdash;and apparently leaves in enough of the essence to make fans happy. We can&rsquo;t say we&rsquo;re all that excited for <em>State of Play</em>, which looks a tad too on-the-nose for our tastes, but the fantastically pastiche cast&mdash;Ben Affleck, Rachel McAdams, Jason Bateman, Helen Mirren and Jeff Daniels, Viola Davis&mdash;has our interest piqued.</p>
<p><em>Who should see it:</em> Woodward and Bernstein.</p>
<p><strong><em>17 Again</em></strong></p>
<p><em>What&rsquo;s the story: </em>If you&rsquo;ve been waiting for the next big movie star to arrive, allow us to introduce to you Zac Efron. After being a part of ensemble successes like <em>High School Musical 3</em> and <em>Hairspray</em>, the Disney Channel stalwart steps out in front for the very first time in <em>17 Again</em>&mdash;a vapid-looking body-swap comedy that takes parts of <em>Big</em>, <em>Mrs. Doubtfire</em> and <em>Like Father, Like Son</em> and repurposes them for a new generation. We&rsquo;d like to hate, but Mr. Efron seems genuinely charming and self-effacing (for reference, check out his hosting stint on <em>Saturday Night Live</em> last weekend). We&rsquo;re powerless before his floppy hair and, chances are, audiences will be as well.</p>
<p><em>Who should see it:</em> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAeZlQgHIUc">Kirk Cameron</a>.<strong><em></em></strong></p>
<p><strong><em>Crank 2: High Voltage</em></strong></p>
<p><em>What&rsquo;s the story:</em>&nbsp;The tag line for <em>Crank 2: High Voltage</em>, a sequel to the surprise 2006 meathead action hit starring Jason Statham, says all you need to know about the follow-up: <a href="http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/crank-2-poster.jpg">&ldquo;He was dead &hellip; but he got better.&rdquo;</a> Sounds good to us!<strong></strong></p>
<p><em>Who should see it:</em> People who thought the first <em>Crank</em> was too reality-based.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://observer.com/2009/04/opening-this-weekend-russell-crowe-gets-his-story-zac-efron-gets-his-fame-and-icrank-2i-gets-crankier/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/becf95fa833b8aeb13f7720732bd6dc6?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">jhanasobserver</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/zac.jpg?w=300&#38;h=199" medium="image" />
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
