Runtime in infobox is unsourced; you can use the BBFC as source: [1]
Used The New York Times as a source as I think it's more reliable
The BBFC is considered reliable per Template:Infobox_film#Parameters; the ones in NYT is likely incorrect because they retrieve movie datas such as bill of credits from IMDb, which is unreliable per WP:RS/IMDB
Ok, fair enough
I see some instances of the conjunction 'however', which WP:HOWEVER advices editors to eschew.
Just kept one of them as I think it improves the flow of the prose
"When an intruder breaks into the couple's house during the following night," → 'during' unnecessary
Fixed by another editor
behaviours → US spelling
Fixed by another editor
"There's less imput, coming from one brain." → Requires the {{sic}} template if it's the source's typo, otherwise fix it yourself if it's yours alone.
Turner Classic Movies has shooting dates of the film: [2]. The source also reports that the movie premiered at the Seattle International Film Festival on May 16, 1996 before the theatrical release months later. So update the infobox, lead and Release sections that it was premiered at said location on that date.
Updated the infobox and the release section, though I don't think it's actually necessary to include it in the lead because it already says that it's a 1996 film in the first sentence.
I was hoping you would report the principal photography dates in the Production section, hence why I gave you this source. And I believe the Seattle International Film Festival can be shortened to SIFF in infobox.
Sorry, I completely forgot about the shooting dates. I added them.
"in the United States and Canada" → in North America?
Done
"It was rated R by the MPAA film rating system because it includes profanity, disturbing violence and sexual suggestiveness." → What's the significance of this? This seems an unpopular fact to me...
Removed by another editor
"The Trigger Effect received generally favorable reviews from critics." → needs a reliable, independent source per MoS
It is backed by the Rotten Tomatoes ref in the following sentence.
Rotten Tomatoes—and any review aggregators for that matter—may not be used as a source, especially in a movie that predates its inception (The movie was released in 1996, about two years before RT was founded.) Per WP:ROTTEN, "Review aggregators are not arbiters of critical consensus; sections about critical reception should also benefit from other reliable sources, such as books and periodicals reporting in retrospect how a film was received by critics." If you cannot find a source for this claim, then removing it along with the RT report would be the last resort.
I couldn't find any retrospective source that says that the film received generally positive reviews, but I can cite the individual contemporary reviews that are used in the article. After all, Wikipedia is a WP:TERTIARY source that summarizes what WP:SECONDARY sources say. Would you agree with that? Most of the contemporary reviews were mixed, though, so I would have to change the sentence to "the film received generally mixed reviews upon release". --Niwi3 (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No I wouldn't, as that would be textbook synthesis. We don't ever combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. We only summarize what is reported by authoritative sources and stick to them, that's it. Oddly enough, I did find on Koepp's bio on Metacritic that the movie received mixed reviews on release: [3]. You may use Metacritic as source, though I would get rid of the RT report because, as I reiterate what it says at WP:ROTTEN, reviews are usually published in newspapers, magazines and such before Y2K, and it makes no sense that the reception to this movie was mixed while on RT it has an aggregate score of 75% at the "Tomatometer", which is obviously positive. You need a 60 to be a "fresh" tomato. Finally, in the sentence "the film received generally mixed reviews upon release," 'generally' is needless redundancy. Slightlymad04:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have a pretty strict interpretation of the WP:SYNTH policy. I'm simply offering a summary, not producing a new thesis that isn't verifiable (see SYNTH is not summary). In any case, I cited the Metacritic ref and removed the Rotten Tomatoes ref to avoid any controversy it may cause. --Niwi3 (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Reception has claims that are supported with excessive citations. There's no need to cite more than three reviews if several sources say X, as it's automatically considered a widespread opinion. For instance, in the sentence to something like this: "The ending was criticized for being safe and predictable, especially when compared to the riskier narrative prior to it," the NYT, WaPo and New York magazine sources will suffice.
Kept the three most relevent ones
"with an average rating" → "and an average rating"
Fixed by another editor
New York magazine source is missing ISSN inline
Added
If the publisher's name is basically the same as the work, it shouldn't be included- {{Cite web}}'s canonical example is The New York Times (Company), which you do in ref 18. Plus, unnecessary italics for Rotten Tomatoes, Box Office Mojo and AllMovie; use the 'publisher' para so they won't be rendered in italics.
I think I have fixed all the issues you listed above. I also expanded the production section a bit with a new ref I found. Please let me know if there are more issues that need to be fixed. Thanks --Niwi3 (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
. Slightlymad 15:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)