Laid in america rotten tomatoes
The account as it is in the plot summary is void of judgment and emotionality. It cannot, in my opinion be made more concise.
![laid in america rotten tomatoes laid in america rotten tomatoes](https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/06/23/tomatolandcover_custom-6e6df2c09b01e38fb4b16ab8b116b5d1a06e57fc-s1100-c50.jpg)
That Sylvia was tortured not only by the adult in charge of her but daily by the children in the neighborhood as well? Should that be removed in order to fulfill the "command" to editors on the main page of this article asking that 'unnecessary details' need removal? I put it before the Wikipedia Commons to state clearly which of the details appear to be unnecessary. Is that, for instance, an unnecessary detail? Gertrude was sent to prison for the murder of Sylvia. It is a chronologically accurate account, stated briefly, of the most important turning points in a fact-based true story. It does not include everything or close to everything in the film it is describing. I am not sure what could be considered 'unnecessary details' in the plot summary. Please help improve it by removing unnecessary details and making it more concise. "This plot summary may be too long or overly detailed. ĭisagree with request for shortening article plot summary
Laid in america rotten tomatoes movie#
![laid in america rotten tomatoes laid in america rotten tomatoes](https://flxt.tmsimg.com/assets/p10915_p_v13_am.jpg)
I had a decent rough draft of a revamped reception section that got eaten in an unfortunate flash drive incident and just didn't have the heart to rewrite it again (I generally stick to editing text for readability and plot summaries so dealing with all of the refs and pull quotes was a bit more mental effort for me than I normally exert around here). We were able to drum up some sources to better reflect the mixed reviews the film actually received.
Laid in america rotten tomatoes professional#
How much is the opinion of a professional critic really worth, if the vast majority disagrees with it? - Bubbleking ( talk) 20:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC) Back when this conversation was new, I was talking with an editor who had a WP:COI because he'd worked on the film. In short, it seemed extremely well received, so the post-Showtime reviews are no surprise. There was a discussion/Q & A afterwards with some of the creators, during which it was made clear that the bulk of the audience felt as though we had just seen something incredibly moving and well executed. A number of audience members were moved to tears. I worked at Sundance that year and happened to see this film. I agree that it would be beneficial to downplay the heavy-handed critics. I sincerely wish there was a way to communicate this in the entry, because the Rotten Tomatoes reviews are not at all representative of the bulk of reviews that were published. The review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reported that 29% of critics gave the film positive reviews. There seems to be a lot to add here, considering the awards won - and something should be said about the similar film scheduled to come out on its original release date which /was/ released in theatres. Opening paragraph states "controversy amongst the critics" but does not actually mention what that controversy is anywhere in the article.
![laid in america rotten tomatoes laid in america rotten tomatoes](https://static1.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/RT-superhero-movies-2.jpg)
Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.70.65 ( talk) 00:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC) controversy amongst the critics When the film was actually screened on Showtime - the exact same cut, by the way - the reviews were overwhelmingly positive, with the New York Times calling it "one of the best movies to appear on television in years." Hence the nominations that followed. The problem with the Rotten Tomatoes rating is those are a few random reviews that appeared when the film was at Sundance, where Variety and Hollywood Reporter posted angry reviews, and most of the online community followed suit.