Revision as of 05:40, 16 November 2014 edit11 Arlington (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,775 edits →Reception← Previous edit |
Revision as of 05:43, 16 November 2014 edit undo11 Arlington (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,775 editsm →ReceptionNext edit → |
Line 6: |
Line 6: |
|
We should probably hold off until release. 28 reviews out of what will probably be close to 200 isn't really representative, even if rotten tomatoes jumped the gun and wrote a consensus (which have changed in the past)] (]) 20:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
We should probably hold off until release. 28 reviews out of what will probably be close to 200 isn't really representative, even if rotten tomatoes jumped the gun and wrote a consensus (which have changed in the past)] (]) 20:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Agree with Muscat inasmuch as there's no such thing as "universal acclaim" - I modified to "wide acclaim." Richard Brody of The New Yorker panned the film, for instance, although he's clearly in the minority.] (]) 05:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
Agree with Muscat inasmuch as there's no such thing as "universal acclaim" - I modified to "wide acclaim." Richard Brody of The New Yorker panned the film, for instance, as did Rex Reed and a handful of other reviewers, although they are clearly in the minority.] (]) 05:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC) |
We should probably hold off until release. 28 reviews out of what will probably be close to 200 isn't really representative, even if rotten tomatoes jumped the gun and wrote a consensus (which have changed in the past)Muscat Hoe (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Muscat inasmuch as there's no such thing as "universal acclaim" - I modified to "wide acclaim." Richard Brody of The New Yorker panned the film, for instance, as did Rex Reed and a handful of other reviewers, although they are clearly in the minority.11 Arlington (talk) 05:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)