Talk:Rex Reed

Village Voice article was a parody

In the article that lists his reviews of four movies, insulting the originating countries' cuisine, only the first item (from the Oldboy review), was real - the rest were parodies. Google searches on phrases from the other three reviews return no meaningful hits, and this Gawker post confirms it. Korny O'Near 19:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Miami Vice controversy

Is this even a controversy, or better yet: is it even notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? So a guy got his feet stuck: who cares? I've done that, too. Besides, a blogger isn't exactly a recommended source. I've removed this information per this edit but invite others to discuss otherwise if they feel that the info should be included. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 18:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Oldboy Review

As an editor with strong interest in Korea, I found Reed's review of Oldboy to be racist and ignorant both of Korean culture and cinema, and of American culture and cinema. (I do plan to put it into the Oldboy article as good example of ignorant film-reviewing.) However, I question whether the review warrants an entire section in his biography. If the editors of this article feel it does, HERE is an article that puts his review (and its cultural ignorance) into some perspective. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Link was dead, but I found an archive copy because I was interested to see what made BFI Sight and Sound magazine weigh in on the matter. Interesting article, but it is a broader examination of American critical perceptions of Korean films. It says that in their reviews of Old Boy Mahnola Dargis attacked the from above, and "Rex Reed struck from below", and that's the only mention of Reed so not relevant enough. -- 109.76.153.121 (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Frank

Should this be in the controversy section:

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2011/06/youre-schmuck.html

76.22.32.86 (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

In 1974 Reed wrote a nasty review about Frank Sinatra and Jerry Lewis wrote a letter in reponse. I'm not sure it should be included either unless the quality of the whole controversies section is improved but it does go to show Rex Reed has been doing this sort of thing for a long time and his sometimes nasty comments are nothing new. -- 109.76.152.228 (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Salon.com article Rex Reed: A career of offensiveness makes it clear that he has a history of controversy and lists a few examples. His comments against Marisa Tomei seem particularly unfair (and here the source of Ebert saying Rex Reed owes Marisa Tomei an apology). -- 109.79.177.91 (talk) 05:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

cabin in the woods

the cabin in the woods section is pretty much OR right now. I didn't take it out because his review is getting media coverage that comes to the same conclusion, but it will need to be rewritten or at least sourced (citing the review itself as an example of how the review is controversial is nonsensical). Here's something to get you started and move this article back toward an encyclopedia and away from a raging facebook post: http://www.thelmagazine.com/TheMeasure/archives/2012/04/12/how-i-lost-my-respect-for-rex-reed http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/tag/rex-reed-is-an-idiot http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/12/cabin-in-the-woods-spoilers-village-voice-observer_n_1419326.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ryan/the-cabin-in-the-woods-25-questions_b_1420590.html

Wickedjacob (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

nothing here supports that criticism of Reed's review of Cabin in the Woods deserves special attention. I can find numerous similar incidents of complaints of Reed and all other major movie reviewers. Major movie reviewers get these kinds of complaints all the time. There is no reason to include this one over any of the others. Also, it is Cabin in the Woods that Reed reviewed, not Citizen Kane. BashBrannigan (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree but not worth the battle. Wickedjacob (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It's your favorite movie isn't reason for inclusion

There's an obvious trend in this article for editors adding reviews of movies by Reed for which someone has criticized. The problem with this is that every review by Reed has received criticism from someone. In the time I've been monitoring this article there's been at least three: Cabin in the Woods, Old Boy and just now Identity Thief. Bias is at play here as editors are selectively adding negative reactions for movies that mean something personal to them. However, criticism of individual reviews is par for the course for reviewers and not at all notable. It's a pain in the neck to explain to editors this and the solution might be to just let editors add them at will and eventually it will become absurd as the article is filled with them. BashBrannigan (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I do think there should only be a few reviews that are notable enough. Unless there are way more major controversies that have happened than his reviews of Oldboy and Identity Thief, then I think they can stay. He respectively insults a nation and a famous actress. These reviews aren't about his opinions on the films themselves and what the plots are.--EclecticEnnui (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I see your point that the criticism isn't directly related to the film itself and in that case an argument could be made to include. But I think it could get out of hand as Reed has a reputation for inflammatory reviews. I think I'll just let these go and see how many are added. BashBrannigan (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason not to have controversey sections

They become dumping grounds for slow news day items. If his recent review turns into anything larger, maybe revisit in 6 months to a year. --Malerooster (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed the stuff about Tomei. One site is dead and the other confirms that this is gossip/rumor material. --Malerooster (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the text about Marisa Tomei and Reed claiming her Academy Award was a mistake. If you make any effort to look there's no shortage of sources about the urban legend, and Reed in particular perpetuating it, and Roger Ebert calling him out saying he owes Tomei an apology. -- 109.79.177.91 (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

"Life"

The first section, "Life," that follows the Table of Contents recounts at length Reed's shoplifting arrest and subsequent dismissed case. The section has little additional information other than his birthplace, and where he presently lives. The section preceeds the article's lengthy description of his long career and controversies.

Even if he had been convicted of a minor crime such as stealing a few CDs, I don't think the placement of the incident at the top of the article would be warranted. The fact that the case was dismissed makes this placement an even more dubious proposition.

Reed has had a long career. One alleged shoplifting charge of under $100 in merchandise is a small footnote to the arc of his life; not its most significant event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.232.77 (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

This guy is an idiot

Enough said. Sounds and looks like one as well. --2601:40E:8100:9E7D:21F:F3FF:FED8:B336 (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like original research to me. Might be a better fit over on IMDB.2600:1014:B116:7957:0:4B:B31C:C401 (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rex Reed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060320015012/http://www.nyfcc.com:80/members.php?member=22 to http://www.nyfcc.com/members.php?member=22

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Sexual orientation

Isn't Reed gay? I noticed that any references to his sexuality were removed from the article and that he is no longer listed under any categories pertaining to one's sexuality. Is there a reason for this change? ^{TheRealFolkBloos}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but there is no direct source which states that, so it was probably removed because of that. You could interpret perhaps his statement: "Love is not something that I’ve been really good at. I think people are intimidated by people with opinions. How do you go start looking for a wife or a boyfriend or a significant other?" --Clibenfoart (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Offensive comments

Isn't that a bit too much of orginial research? Controversies should only be covered if there really was a controversy with media coverage about it. It was the case with the Melissa McCarthy film, but probably not with the Irish film review. --Clibenfoart (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• (→Controversies: a controversy can only be there if there is media coverage around it, which was not the case with those I removed).

It shows poor writing and poor judgement to bluntly point out ethnic cliches and stereotypes, and not expect it to make a stink (maybe it is deliberate attempt to be sensational?). In isolation each of the points is not very substantial but the do seem to show a pattern. The Irish review was not restored but the other items were all added back and no one seems to have made any effort to discuss the supposed controversies.

It does seem like WP:OR and WP:COATRACK and there should be more supporting coverage to show there was actual controversy over the remarks or at least outside source responding to his pattern of abrasive criticism. Some copyediting could be done to make the section more succinct. (I should note that Zellweger's appearance has gone through some dramatic changes and in that case there may be context for his remarks that has been lost). The section should also do more to include his reply (if any) to these controversies. WP:BLP is supposed to hold editors to a higher standard than this. -- 109.76.152.228 (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

His review might seem mean taken out of context but there was so much commentary on Zellweger's appearance that she herself commented on it and it is explained in her article, see Renée_Zellweger#Public_image. -- 109.76.135.145 (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

McCarthy responded to the review several months later, but she was classy enough to rise above it so it probably isn't worth mentioning here. I will probably add it to the Identity Thief (film) article instead though. (Edit: Original source was a New York Times interview)-- 109.76.135.145 (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)