From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
|
Editing Guidelines |
Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article:
- If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film)
- When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references.
- Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
|
|
|
|
|
A plot summary needs to be added to this film article, or the current one needs to be expanded. |
|
This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. A possibility for American films from before 1964 would be a screenshot from the trailer, as these are now in the public domain. Please make sure fair use is properly observed, or the image will be removed. See WP:Films MOS for image guidelines and assistance in uploading. |
|
Please add more information about the cast and the crew, discussing the "behind the scenes" aspects of the production process, and giving insights into the casting and staffing where possible. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines for more advice. |
any idea why its named quebec?
[edit] 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).
[edit] 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)