Talk:The Promotion

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Chicago

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Quebec?

any idea why its named quebec?

Why Quebec? What is the sigification?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.226.213.254 (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

POV "Critical reception"

I haven't seen the movie, and I'm not that interested in it, so I'm not speaking here from any particular bias.

The lift of the negative Hollywood Reporter review is unnecessary, and obviously placed by someone who didn't care for the film. It's sufficient to have the Rotten Tomatoes info without quoting several lines from a single, negative review.

I've also removed the phrase "It didn't even clear $30,000 on it's [sic] opening weekend." This information is completely meaningless without context, again obviously placed by someone who a) didn't care for the film, and b) doesn't understand box office returns. The movie opened on only six (6) screens, which gave it a per-screen average (the real mark of success or failure in cases like this) of $4,816, which is higher than the second week of The Strangers, for example. PacificBoy 20:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]