Talk:Let the Right One In (film)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Well-written: Some grammar mishaps, but most are ones I can work through myself. Make sure you agree with any changes I'll be making. If anything complicated is left, I'll list issues below.

The first sentence of the reception section talks about an average rating out of 26 reviews, but doesn't mention where the came from. The criticism from the US also lists 26 reviews which could be mixed up with these if not named.

Swedish source added by Peter

Melies D'Argent sounds French but the article doesn't mention whether it's a French award or something in a French-language country.

Apparently a Swiss award (Peter).

According to WP:LEAD the lead should be slightly longer. Perhaps include some info about the possible remake?

I wrote a little bit, could easily be further expanded.

It's a personal preference (but it seems to be common in GAs/FAs): I'd like to see the Cast and Award lists converted to a tabelized format. For the awards, a (Year - Win/Nominated - Festival/Group - Category - Recipient) format works.

Done for Awards. I am more reluctant to do it for Cast, and would prefer keeping it as is.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

"The film will screen in other major cities in other parts of Australia in the coming months."

The way this sentence is written is time sensitive and could turn stale any moment. Also, this sentence and the next one are not referenced.

Couldn't find a source, so I removed it.

I will check the accuracy of the references on the final pass of the article after changes have been made.

Broad in its coverage:

The development section doesn't give any details on the screenplay.

Yes, the "differences" section had been removed. It is now integrated with info about the screenplay / development

The post-production section gives no indication why Lina's voice was dubbed over or what the reason was for the intentional ambiguity of her character's gender. It's relegated to a hidden note in the plot section.

Elaborated on this. Development section also deals with it

Neutral:

The soundtrack section doesn't mention any negative comments. The reception section is the same. It mentions less glowing reviews but doesn't mention any that call the film outright bad.

See comment below. Added mention of negative review.

Stable: Not yet.
Illustrated:

File:Lack of ceiling cropped.jpg would benefit from an extended rationale that explains the commercial value of the picture is not damaged and that it is to give a critical commentary of the illustrated subject.

Done.

Thanks for the review! I will begin addressing the issues as soon as possible (in a few hours). A few comments: Judging from the backlog at GAN, I wasn't expecting the actual review to take place before in a few weeks. One of my planned changes was to rewrite the cast section to a prose format (like in V for Vendetta (film)). But if you feel that this affects the "stability" of the article at this point, this could be deferred. As for the gender ambiguity, this is without a doubt the most debated part of the article, as you can see from the talk page. But since the article has been quiescent lately.

There was a section devoted to this that would explain the dub. Its removal was masked by a bot edit, and I must admit I didn't even realize it was gone. Apparently it should go under production, with better referencing, and I guess, less comprehensive, per the cited guideline. Nevertheless, I feel that the removal was inappropriate.

I did some searching for a bad comment for the soundtrack, but couldn't find any from an RS. As for a truly bad review, again, I don't know of any, having checked at least 100-150 of them. Perhaps Owen Gleiberman's infamous "brain twister" review is the closest you'll get. decltype (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A 98/96% approval rating at Rotten Tomatoes seems like a very high score to me. If anyone thought it was genuinely crappy, they appear to be in a very small minority. Swedish critics were more critical as far as I can tell, but I haven't seen anyone who gave it anything less than 3 out of 5. With that in mind, would it really be neutral to cite a review that outright panned the film?

Peter ^Isotalo 10:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is remarkably high. WP:DUE clearly states that minority views should not be given undue weight. I think Gleiberman's review is ideal for a cite, as it is on the slightly negative side, from a notable critic. decltype (talk) 10:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how notable Owen Gleiberman is as a critic , I hadn't encountered the name before today but I think his piece on LTROI is so short and off the mark that hardly counts as a review. As several have commented under his piece, he gives the impression that he hasn't watched the movie. Hence I'm erasing from the article the quote from his review. The other 2 negative reviews from Rotten Tomatoes are respectable so if anyone wants to include a negative quote it should be from those , I'm too lazy myself to find them again. Spiros Bousbouras (talk) 13:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether he is "off the mark" or not is entirely subjective. Whether he watched the film or not is just speculation. I therefore see no argument why any of the other reviews would be better, especially since this was written by a notable critic and appeared in a large, well-known publication. decltype (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, neutrality doesn't mean minority views should be ignored. They should be given appropriate weight. The film has been received well, so based on the Rotten Tomatoes ranking, I think giving at least 1 negative critical comment to offset all the positive comments is a good idea. Otherwise we'd be giving the impression no negative comments exist. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up

"Reeves has said that the remake will retain the original's early 1980s setting and may be set in Littleton, Colorado." This phrase confuses time and geographical setting. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten. decltype (talk) 03:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Eli eventually learns of Oskar's victimization at school, and encourages him to stand up for himself. This emboldens Oskar to later stand up to his tormentors during a field trip, where Oskar strikes Conny, his main antagonist, in the ear with a pole, opening a gash on his head." The underlined words seem out of place. The first two are too formal the latter is just weird, probably because of the verb. "causing" instead of "opening" would be better in my opinion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten. decltype (talk) 03:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The plot summary contains several phrases with too much clauses and commas. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you were referring to a few sentences who were literally a mile long. I have fixed most of them. decltype (talk) 03:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]