The blurb on Changeling by Brad Brevet at ropeofsilicon, is confusing. He readily admits that there’s an "overwhelming amount of positive reviews," and yet he says he doesn’t like to say something is a ‘contender,’ for Oscar until it’s been ’seriously judged.’ Given that this film premiered in May, and as we all know, received glowing reviews from critics worldwide, and a 10 min standing ovation — and that it also has been reviewed by a significant number of critics additionally this week and has been praised to the gills — well, I just have to say…what are you waiting for? Or is it just plainly obvious that you won’t give a fair shake to this film no matter what. Why are you standards for this film do very different than others that come down the pike. There’s a fair amount of evidence that you’ve named as ‘contenders,’ other films in other years, that have NOT had the good fortune like ‘Changeling,’ as having "overwhelmingly positive reviews," — and that sometimes you name as ‘contenders,’ films which have more than a few negative reviews - that you somehow still overlook and give an Oscar bearth to. Considering I’ve seen a miniscule amount of outright negativity for this film, and an "overwhelming," amount of praise from the best of the best. Given that this is Eastwood, and that Jolie’s performance is being universally praised. I have to wonder what’s going on here. Even your title is misleading. One would think that this film had garnered negative reviews instead of the excellent reviews it has. I’m starting to think the Oscars and the press associated with them - those that try to dictate outcomes with predictions and sway public opinion and industry opinion, are in the pockets of agencies aznd other entities. I’m watching this whole process very closely.