Talk:Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Reviews

Resolved

Following the first press screening today, there are naturally both positive and negative reviews. However, until Rotten Tomatoes calculates the ratio, the only truly objective fact that can be mentioned in the article is the applause, which is in the release section. I know we're excited, but it'd be better to wait until the rating arrives to write out a reception section without possibly having to completely overhaul in future. Alientraveller (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've readded the reception section for a few reasons. 1) This cites reliable sources, The Times and AFP, never the AICN review directly. Whatever its accuracy, the fact it exists was enough to be repeated in major newspapers worldwide, and is notable enough for a mention through secondary sources. 2) Any new reviews/Rotten Tomatoes ratio should obviously be added, but that doesn't at all negate the need to have info on the pre-release expectations. 3) "Mixed reviews" is a statement right out of the AFP article and echoed by other overview news articles, so it is certainly verifiable and relevant. I don't think a complete overhaul will be needed, considering all new info will not change the pre-expectations at Cannes nor the initial reaction of the press after the first press screening. Joshdboz (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny, as soon as I spoke RT started up their tomatometer! Ah well. Alientraveller (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

How about adding Roger Ebert's review or at least the high rating? http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080518/REVIEWS/969461084/1023 *SPOILERS* Sikunit (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not if we get more complaints about the Ebert Wikipedia fetish :-) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Plot Cleanup

The plot section needs a major cleanup concerning the way it is written as it is appaling. I just managed to divide the section into paragraphs with a few links in it for some claroty as it was just a bloc of text. Katana Geldar 09:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In this do we really need to have minor squabbles and amusing scenes amongst others? Could this not just stick to the general plot? Simply south (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for starting similar topics. And yes, clean it up if you've seen it. Alas, no one took the wisdom of the note I put in the section to readers regarding WP:MOSFILMS's and plot length. Alientraveller (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to read it just yet, because I'm seeing the movie in about 4 hours, but once I do, I can do some serious gettin yelled at worthy slashing. "I come not to bring peace, but a sword." ColdFusion650 (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, This question is regarding the plot section where you mention the mayas. If the movie is set to take place in south america then it would be incorrect to mention the maya. If anything it should say Incas. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.247.14 (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually watching the movie right now, and it does in fact say mayan. I'm honestly too lazy to check everything, but yeah, Mayan.--Dmcman (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be the Mayans as the actually disappeared, the Incas were killed off by the Spaniards. Looks a lot better, this article does. Katana Geldar 10:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katana Geldar (talk • contribs)

Academic Festival Overture

Is the 'Academic Festival Overture' quotation during the motorcycle chase scene in the college worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.166.5 (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"Hangar 51"

Anyone else besides me think it is safe to make "Hangar 51" in the plot section of the article link to "Area 51" in Wikipedia? Wtlegis (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. I linked nuclear test town to Nevada Test Site for context, and because that's what the film was obviously referring to. Always helpful to explain esoteric info (conspiracy theories, alien abductions, and such). Kinkyturnip (talk) 06:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw the film tonight and if I remember correctly, wasn't Hanger 51 in Arizona? I do agree, how ever, that it was a thinly veiled reference to Area 51. JPINFV (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Willful suspension of disbelief: what's wrong with the plot summary

Isn't it jarring to plunk the reader in the Nevada desert and state Russian agents are driving a convoy onto a U.S. military site? Not exactly an everyday occurrence. An earlier edit mentioned the agents — who are better descibed as KGB instead of Communists — infiltrating the military convoy, thus giving this preposterous plot device context and making it a tad easier to swallow.

Think big picture, people. Gotta say, tho', everyone did a great job whittling down that 5,000 word essay to a three-paragraph plot summary. Good work, Wikis. Kinkyturnip (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Mutt

Why is there no mention in this article of Mutt being Indy's son? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.13.105 (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the article? ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The Ark from Indy 1

It's probably minor and/or unimportant, but there should be some mention of the Ark (from the first movie) making a re-apearance. I.E. When indy drives the truck through a wall of crates, a partially hit one reveals the top half of the Ark, namely the bird with wings exposed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyOmega (talk • contribs) 00:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Bird seriously? Someone does not know their Bible. Think about what Biblical creatures also have wings and are probably more likely to appear on the resting place of God. ColdFusion650 (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

well what it is is unimportant on the discussion page no flaming or fighting here and if you dont have an intelligent response do not post one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.108.195 (talk) 09:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

ColdFusion650's responses are intelligent. Can you blame him for being Wiki-weary at comments like "why doesn't plot summary mention that Mutt is Indy's son?" (it does), or confusing the Ark of the Covenant with Noah's Ark and mistaking angel's wings for bird wings? I think ColdFusion650, like most Wikis, cares about truth and knowledge. What better place to squelch misinformation than the talk page — before it finds its way into the entry. Kinkyturnip (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Before this discussion becomes any more unnecessary, no I don't think it should be mentioned in the article that the Ark is briefly seen in the film. It's a wonderful little piece of nostalgia, just like the similar piece of Raiders nostalgia involving the Ark in The Last Crusade, and should be left for those who haven't seen the film yet to discover... unless they read this talk page. Damn. --Bentonia School (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiki-weary, did you come up with that? :) ColdFusion650 (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm ashamed to say I did. Pretty lame, huh? Kinkyturnip (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Might be worth having a section on references to the other films (and Star Wars - I noticed a couple) in the entry. Though would probably be inaccurate until the dvd came out for people to study. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.43.241 (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

A trivia section similar to the one you're proposing was deleted from an earlier version of the entry. It had inane comments such as, "Harrison Ford's Indiana Jones character says, "I've got a bad feeling about this," the same line Ford spoke in the Star Wars films." Please, for the love of God, don't construct another trivia section. This entry is getting lots of hits and edits, and a trivia section will be promptly deleted by vigilant Wikis. Kinkyturnip (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

References to other films isn't trivia, isn't it? I know the last time we saw that warehouse was at the end of Raiders, and that's significant Katana Geldar 03:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

They're not aliens

It is stated very clearly in the dialogue of the film that the beings are not aliens and that what is called a flying saucer in the article is something other than that. It should be changed to suit the reality of the story. --Bentonia School (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

They're still not from planet Earth. Alientraveller (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly right. And their "craft" lifts off the ground (whether it's "flying" or warping space to move the earth away from it while it doesn't move at all is irrelevant) and is in the shape of a disk (what most people would agree fits the definition of "saucer"). While "lifting disk" may be more technically accurate, people will definitely understand "flying saucer" more. ColdFusion650 (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreeded again. They are alien as they are different from us (human) and not from this planet, but my problem is the "extraterastrail", as they are pan or extra dimentional —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kornfrk (talk • contribs) 03:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial means not from Earth. It fits. ColdFusion650 (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Russian Communists

Must we have this section? Their claims are ludicrous. Everyone knows this is fiction and not reality and they are complaining as if this was a documentary. We might as well include any complaints by NAZIs about the first and third films if we are going to toss this in here. A.S. Williams (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The characters are Communists, but would they more accurately be described as KGB agents? This is one instance where George Lucas' ham-fisted script devices, i.e., telling the audience exactly who the villains are by having a character shout, "Russians!" (as Indiana Jones does), would have been useful. (Yes, I know who the screenplay is credited to, but it's got Lucas' sloppy style written all over it.)Kinkyturnip (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

What does that have to do with Communists complaining about the inclusion of KGB agents in the film? Where do you get the idea that Soviet Union military units would be comprised of anything other than Communists? This section should be removed as it adds nothing of note to the article about the film. The criticism is unfounded.A.S. Williams (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

My point is this: if the plot summary states the infiltrating troops are KGB agents instead of Communists, this potentially defuses the argument by making the point moot. I can't state this more clearly. Do you copy? Think of an example from a logic course: all KGB agents are Communists, but not all Communists are KGB agents. Kinkyturnip (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you can copy this? "The Communist Party of the Russian Federation... accusing the production team of demonizing the Soviet Union and of provoking a new Cold War." Key words here are Communist Party of Russia, Soviet Union. This is a group that longs for the glory days of Stalin. Their criticism is unfounded and should not be included. The point is not whether they are KGB agents or Communists or whether communism has ever technically occured in this world (it hasn't), but rather, is this relevant to the article, and it is not. The criticism is not valid because this film is a work of fiction, if it were a documentary, the criticism could be included. Is that logical enough for you? A.S. Williams (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What about just calling them Soviets? That's what they are, aren't they? Katana Geldar 03:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You're comparing communists with Nazis?.. Probably there's no point continuing the argue started after that statement. VZakharov (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In that it would be just as ridiculous for real life Nazis to complain about a work of fiction not being accurate, yes I am comparing them to real life Communists complaining about a work of fiction not being accurate. Notice that I am not saying that Nazis and Communists are the same thing, just because Nazis killed millions of people and communists killed millions more, it doesn't mean they believe the same things. Is that better for you? A.S. Williams (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, two ridiculous political parties, but opinions do not matter. WP:NPOV. If this political party takes a intentionally fun, politically incorrect film seriously, then let their idiocy be stated. Alientraveller (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, Commies killed far more people in the 20th century than the Germans so it's unfair to Germans. And yes, the section is ridiculous and should be removed. Commies don't deserve to have their opinion heard. It's as ridiculous as putting Nazi concerns up. JettaMann (talk) 05:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Not That I disagree at all, but calling them 'commies' makes you sound like a 1950s redneck and draws away from your actual point. Nar Matteru (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A few comments on all this. Of course not all Communists were KGB agents, there were communist Russian politicians, grandmas, mailmen, and puppies. The KGB were an offensive branch of Soviet Russia, so it makes sense that they would be sent if Russia needed something done by force. Saying that the writers actually believe there was a vast Red Conspiracy like in the movie is like saying that they actually believe Erich von Daniken and David Icke were right, because aliens came down as gods (like in the movie!). It's Indiana Jones, how can it not be rife with cliches and exaggerations? It doesn't matter if the criticisms are unfounded, because they exist and have been reported on. Finally, the nazi comparison only works in that they are both b-movie simplifications of generic period bad guys. If an Indiana Jones movie took place in the present starring Indy's descendant, no doubt it would be Fundamentalist Muslim terrorists looking for Zulfiqar or something. 24.174.80.186 (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Trivia/Notes

Why doesn't there seem to be an agreement whether or not to include some kind of trivia/notes section. I believe it good to draw attention to the references between the other films and pointing out interesting tidbits in the film. Since it is good to keep the plot summary simple, integrating them into the plot summary is not the best, but mayb putting it in a subsection bellow the plot is a good place to include it, or in a new or different section all together. Any discussion on the matter? Ssilipino (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is: Kinkyturnip (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

How is the Ark of the Covenant essential to the plot of film?

People keep obsessively inserting this into the plot summary, yet the Ark has nothing to do with the plot of this film. It was an essential plot element of another Indiana Jones movie, and that's where it belongs, not here. Cripes! It's about as relevant as the wind blowing Indy's hat off his head — which people also keep inserting. Part of being a good writer is having editorial judgment and being able to demonstrate restraint about what info to include in a plot summary, which should be no more than 700 words, according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Kinkyturnip (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The plot section is not for what happens in the movie. It's for what the movie is about. If you don't understand the difference, please log off until you do. ColdFusion650 (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Movie Mistakes

The section "Movie Mistakes" should really be removed. For no other reason, it is just copy and pasted word from word from the article that is used as its "reference". But, aside from that, the article used itself is just a rant from a single individual, not a source of especially relevent information. The section either needs to be removed completely, or re-written so it is no longer just a copy/paste job from a random website review.Rorshacma (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Rorshacma (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me just clear something up for you. First of all, the information in this section is all true. If you check the site listed as a source and watch the movie, you will see that. Second of all, it should be included because these are mistakes that anyone could have fixed by simply looking them up. But since these mistakes are now in the movie, some people will think them to be indeed factual, which could affect them even more negatively if they happen to be in school learning about subjects related to these mistakes. Third, i did as best I could to rewrite the improtant information in the article, and if you think you can rewrite it better, then go ahead, but still leave in all the information. And fourth, I am a Peruvian myself, and do you know how it feels lik to be a Hispanic who is stereotyped as a person who is from a country that is made up of all Native Americans dressing in traditional native clothing and listens to mariachi and ranchera music (which is actually mexican music), when there are more hispanic countries than just Mexico? All I was trying to do was make these mistakes known, because since a lot of people will be watching this film, I dont want these mistakes to add more to the misconception of hispanic people. Overall, I still thought this movie was good, though it would have been better if it hadn't been for all these mistakes. -JJVrocks (talk) 07:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you were offended by the movie, but that really doesn't make any difference as far as the inclusion of the section in this article. The fact still remains that the section is just a copy-paste of another source, which I am fairly certain is not supposed to be used in a wiki article. In addition, the article itself, which is quoted word for word, is itself mistaken. For example, it makes a big deal about how the Nazca Lines are not used for burial, and are more ancient than conquistdors, etc, however, the movie never said they were. The burial site was NEAR the Nazca Lines, and thus used as a guide to locate them. The movie NEVER said anything about the Nazca Lines specifically being created for the sake of 16th Century Europeans, as the article seems to being implying. In addition, it takes issue over the conquistadors being burried in the style of the Nazca culture, when the movie specifically states that they WERE most likely found and burried by the Nazca, thus not making that a mistake at all. In all honestly, while the article does make a few valid points, such as the improper music playing, a large part of it is over-exhaggerated or just plain wrong. Thus, as I said above, in order to meet Wiki's standards, that whole section either needs to be removed, or completely rewritten to A. Not be a copy/paste, and B. Not include the things that the article itself was wrong about.Rorshacma (talk) 07:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

(reply to JJ) Seriously, calm down or you'll give yourself a stroke. You don't see me going crazy over Dogma because I'm Catholic. Let's not go the "Ya'll know what it feels like to be a _____." At least your ethnic background doesn't go around putting screen doors on submarines (I'm part Polish). You're complaining about minor concerns in a movie dealing with interdimensional beings with selectively magnetic quartz skeletons (um, yea, we can drag gunpowder from across the hanger, but has no problem being loaded onto a metal truck? Inverse square law much?). So there's some artistic license and suspension of disbelief, which is standard practice in a movie. That doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. I highly doubt most of the viewing public can differentiate, little less cares, about the differences between music styles. They hear ranchera or mariachi and think "South." JPINFV (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not whittle down Movie mistakes section to 2-3 sentences and move it under Controversy section immediately below? Kinkyturnip (talk) 08:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Continue fighting amongst yourselves. But please be quiet. Some of us are working. Thanks. Kinkyturnip (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

There should only be a 'Controversy' section if there is some media covered controversy, not just a few people on Wikipedia. (For the record, I'm Hispanic, and wasn't offended by the movie.) ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 07:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Box office

I see that in the page it says that it "has fallen to number 3 in the box office"... but how? I see (on http://www.boxofficemojo.com/) that it is indeed at number 3, but condisering the weekly chart from Friday to Thursday... and since the movie opened on Thursday I think that hardly counts as "fallen", it just entered that particular chart on its last day. Or I'm missing something? Laz (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If anything is unsourced, remove it. Alientraveller (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Trivia/OR/Your favorite detail just got removed

I figured that with everybody being mad about their favorite original research/trivia being removed from the article, I would create a catch all discussion that will cover most of it.

Leroy from Wasau: Why did you remove what I just added? I spent a lot of time on that. You said it was uncited, but my trivial element/movie mistake is right there in the movie.
ColdFusion650: Prove it.
Leroy: Oh come on, it's obvious.
ColdFusion650: Then you shouldn't have a problem proving it.
Leroy: Fine I just added a citation.
ColdFusion650: That's IMDB, Scooter. It don't exactly count. You probably just logged on and added it there.
Leroy: You know what, this is why Wikipedia is going down the drain. I'm leaving.
Leroy: Why are being so mean to me? It's just your opinion that it's uncited.
ColdFusion650: I thought you said were leaving?

If you are just going to post something like this, please don't. We've all heard it before. ColdFusion650 (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to post something like you just did, don't. This isn't a forum. --Pixelface (talk) 06:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Continuing on that rationale, the whole plot section is uncited and is therefore original research. 81.107.101.18 (talk) 11:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The entire movie is implicitly cited. See any article about any film.

And just to show how good I can predict people's actions, I got this on my talk page a few hours ago.

why i bring up the hat thing: i tihnk it is an obvious forshadowing to lucas' plans to bring lebouf in as ford's replacement why do you keep removing it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.166.178 (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC) (cross posted from User talk:ColdFusion650)

Spooky isn't it? ColdFusion650 (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection

It seems that this article is being vandalized all the time. I think we should "semi-protect" it.Monzonda c",) 23:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

        I concur. I just stumbled upon "stevo,,,,,

my email dollymoose@yahoo.co.uk come try and sue me over indy 4 if you dare.....

ooooooooooooossssssaaaaaaaaaa". Seems like someone's pirating Indy or something of the sort and challenging Steven Spielberg. That's as far as I can figure, but honestly this makes no sense to me. I'm going to set the article straight, but we really do need protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.185.196 (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Cut?

"Spielberg has yet to decide if he will cut Nelson's scene." So did he or didn't he? The movie's out now. Wrad (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I have no idea what the guy looks like, and if he's an extra, even people who know what he looks like may not be able to pick him out unless they know where to look. ColdFusion650 (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will figure it out soon. Wrad (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"Universal Praise"

This is clearly not true and contradicted by the RT and metacritic information included in the reviews section. It seems like someone has made that sentence about universal praise hidden on the edit page though (obsessive fan or something?). Anyway does anyone know how to change it? DanyaRomulus (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Neil Flynn deletion

why is it ever time i add Neil Flynns character to the character list it gets deleted. his character has a name, and has a good amount of lines and shares a scene with the main character im not sure why it keeps getting deleted i think it should be included.--Jwein (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

We can't list every single person in the cast. It would be pages and pages (look at the credits of the movie). This is the main cast, and he ain't it. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Occupation of character "Mac"

Please take a look at the following excerpt from the beginning of this article. I did not see anything that said that Mac was an archaeologist, only that he was with the British MI-6, and that he was friends w/ Jones during WWII.

...and fellow archaeologist Mac (Ray Winstone).

Maybe a better description is "...and ex-British spy Mac (Ray Winstone)" or something like that.

Grammar and punctuation 101

The correct possessive form of Jones is Jones' — you don't need to add an S after the apostrophe; in fact, doing so is wrong because it's grammatically incorrect. It's a common mistake, like inserting an apostrophe into 1500s when talking about the 16th century, but it's wrong. So pay attention, class, teacher is getting cranky.Kinkyturnip (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Jones' is plural possessive. Jones is not plural in the article. Just because it ends in S does not make it plural. Single possessive of Jones is Jones's. Many people use Jones' instead because they think that Jones's sounds weird. It's like people thinking analogize isn't a word because it sounds really weird. You can read the relevant Wikipedia article on this controversy. ColdFusion650 (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I found there (note that Jones is used as an example, and that Jones' is mentioned first):

If a singular noun ends with an /s/ or a /z/ sound (spelled with -s, -se, -z, -ce, for example), practice varies as to whether to add 's or the apostrophe alone. (For discussion on this and the following points, see below.) In general, a good practice is to follow whichever spoken form is judged best: the boss's shoes, Mrs Jones' hat (or Mrs Jones's hat, if that spoken form is preferred). In many cases, both spoken and written forms differ between writers.

Thanks for clearing that up. Kinkyturnip (talk) 05:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The part I focused on (yes, it's the part that supports me, human nature) says this:

Traditionally it was more common to require and many respected sources still do require that practically all singular nouns, including those ending with a sibilant sound, have possessive forms with an extra s after the apostrophe. Examples include the Modern Language Association, The Elements of Style, and The Economist.

It just seems that Jones's is always accepted, and Jones' is somewhat controversial, or as controversial as a single letter can get. ColdFusion650 (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ants

(...)and several Soviet soldiers are killed by bullet ants.

I don't think those were bullet ants, but Army Ants. Can someone confirm that? Where the information about bullet ants come from? 80.101.122.48 (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's vandalism. ColdFusion650 (talk) 12:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Science fiction

I disagree that this film should be called a "science fiction adventure film" in the lede as it currently is. Even if you classify any of the elements of the movie as science fiction—which is itself a strech—that a movie contains elements of any particular genre is not enough to categorize the film as a whole into that genre. Please share your thoughts. Mike R (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)