Talk:Masked and Anonymous

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Bob Dylan Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bob Dylan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bob Dylan on Wikipedia, including songs, albums, concepts, people, books, and movies related to him. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bob DylanWikipedia:WikiProject Bob DylanTemplate:WikiProject Bob DylanBob Dylan
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Untitled

Many of the actors, including... and then what? The sentence just lists the cast and has no point in the end.

important?

val kilmer and fred ward played important parts??? DKK

mixed reviews?

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Re: "The film received mixed reviews from critics." Is there no wiki standard to what is characterized as mixed reviews? Surely there need not be complete uniformity to consider a film a critical failure or success. An RT score of 25% is very telling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.194.127.36 (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

The article body says "poor" instead of "mixed", so I replaced the word in the lead section. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am a bit confused about the allegedly "positive" reviews. I have trouble understanding why "Dylan and his band are really idiots," is a positive review, unless that is some "oppositve day" in-jargon of the source. If that is the case, surely the review must contain some actual praise that could be understood by people that are not regular readers of "The Idiots of America?" Likewise, I have trouble understanding how the Washington Post review, which calls the film "vexing," "indulgent," "pretentious," and "pop culture curio" could be definitively called a "positive" review. 173.11.183.118 (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

alias Sergei Petrov

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It is relevant that Dylan wrote this vanity project under the alias Sergei Petrov and this should be mentioned, rather than simply having the linked name in the sidebar credit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.194.127.36 (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I updated the article accordingly. I mentioned in the lead section that he used the alias. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Add topic