<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	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/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: New Pics, Clips and Negative Buzz for Eastwood&#039;s &#039;Changeling&#039;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/new_pics_clips_and_negative_buzz_for_eastwoods_changeling_20081003/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/new_pics_clips_and_negative_buzz_for_eastwoods_changeling_20081003</link>
	<description>The best and latest movie news, reviews, features and editorials - updated daily</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:57:37 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: brecken</title>
		<link>http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/new_pics_clips_and_negative_buzz_for_eastwoods_changeling_20081003#comment-3542</link>
		<dc:creator>brecken</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2008 22:48:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/news/?p=10466#comment-3542</guid>
		<description>The blurb on Changeling by Brad Brevet at ropeofsilicon, is confusing.  He readily admits that there&#039;s an &quot;overwhelming amount of positive reviews,&quot; and yet he says he doesn&#039;t like to say something is a &#039;contender,&#039; for Oscar until it&#039;s been &#039;seriously judged.&#039;  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&#039;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&#039;s a fair amount of evidence that you&#039;ve named as &#039;contenders,&#039; other films in other years, that have NOT had the good fortune like &#039;Changeling,&#039; as having &quot;overwhelmingly positive reviews,&quot; -- and that sometimes you name as &#039;contenders,&#039; films which have more than a few negative reviews - that you somehow still overlook and give an Oscar bearth to.  Considering I&#039;ve seen a miniscule amount of outright negativity for this film, and an &quot;overwhelming,&quot; amount of praise from the best of the best.  Given that this is Eastwood, and that Jolie&#039;s performance is being universally praised.  I have to wonder what&#039;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&#039;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&#039;m watching this whole process very closely.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The blurb on Changeling by Brad Brevet at ropeofsilicon, is confusing.  He readily admits that there&#039;s an &quot;overwhelming amount of positive reviews,&quot; and yet he says he doesn&#039;t like to say something is a &#039;contender,&#039; for Oscar until it&#039;s been &#039;seriously judged.&#039;  Given that this film premiered in May, and as we all know, received glowing reviews from critics worldwide, and a 10 min standing ovation &#8212; and that it also has been reviewed by a significant number of critics additionally this week and has been praised to the gills  &#8212; well, I just have to say&#8230;what are you waiting for?  Or is it just plainly obvious that you won&#039;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&#039;s a fair amount of evidence that you&#039;ve named as &#039;contenders,&#039; other films in other years, that have NOT had the good fortune like &#039;Changeling,&#039; as having &quot;overwhelmingly positive reviews,&quot; &#8212; and that sometimes you name as &#039;contenders,&#039; films which have more than a few negative reviews &#8211; that you somehow still overlook and give an Oscar bearth to.  Considering I&#039;ve seen a miniscule amount of outright negativity for this film, and an &quot;overwhelming,&quot; amount of praise from the best of the best.  Given that this is Eastwood, and that Jolie&#039;s performance is being universally praised.  I have to wonder what&#039;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&#039;m starting to think the Oscars and the press associated with them &#8211; 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&#039;m watching this whole process very closely.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
