This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.
Does it seem disingenuous to anyone else, for a movie that scored so low on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, to list three positive reviews and only one negative review? It just seems jarring, the first half of the paragraph makes After.Life seem very well received and then it's followed by "Oh wait actually..." ... it makes the wikipedia article seem like the blurbs on the back of a DVD case.
Maybe this is standard for movie reviews listed in a biography page, I don't really know... Garglfluz (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I feel that the entire page reads like a PR piece. It was obviously written by Agnieszka or someone involved with her management. I think that the whole page could be stripped down to about a paragraph of useful information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splice1234 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)