<?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: [Review] Oscar Nominated Shorts: ‘Pear Cider and Cigarettes’	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.rotoscopers.com/2017/02/23/review-oscar-nominated-shorts-pear-cider-and-cigarettes/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.rotoscopers.com/2017/02/23/review-oscar-nominated-shorts-pear-cider-and-cigarettes/</link>
	<description>Animation News, Reviews, Interviews, Podcasts &#38; Videos!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2017 00:02:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Jonathan J. North		</title>
		<link>https://www.rotoscopers.com/2017/02/23/review-oscar-nominated-shorts-pear-cider-and-cigarettes/#comment-32706</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jonathan J. North]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2017 21:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rotoscopers.com/?p=42929#comment-32706</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.rotoscopers.com/2017/02/23/review-oscar-nominated-shorts-pear-cider-and-cigarettes/#comment-32699&quot;&gt;Rachel Wagner&lt;/a&gt;.

Totally agree. Also it kind of felt to me like they threw it in just so they could have one &quot;Adult&quot; short in the mix. Like the adult language and situations were the only reason it got nominated. I don&#039;t know. I really don&#039;t understand what was so special about it. It wasn&#039;t bad per say, it just wasn&#039;t that good.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.rotoscopers.com/2017/02/23/review-oscar-nominated-shorts-pear-cider-and-cigarettes/#comment-32699">Rachel Wagner</a>.</p>
<p>Totally agree. Also it kind of felt to me like they threw it in just so they could have one &#8220;Adult&#8221; short in the mix. Like the adult language and situations were the only reason it got nominated. I don&#8217;t know. I really don&#8217;t understand what was so special about it. It wasn&#8217;t bad per say, it just wasn&#8217;t that good.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Rachel Wagner		</title>
		<link>https://www.rotoscopers.com/2017/02/23/review-oscar-nominated-shorts-pear-cider-and-cigarettes/#comment-32699</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rachel Wagner]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rotoscopers.com/?p=42929#comment-32699</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Yeah I would have gone with  Inner Workings or Foxed instead of this. It&#039;s too long also. If it was 15 minutes it might be more tolerable ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah I would have gone with  Inner Workings or Foxed instead of this. It&#8217;s too long also. If it was 15 minutes it might be more tolerable </p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
