Talk:Rex Reed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Village Voice article was a parody[edit]

In the article that lists his reviews of four movies, insulting the originating countries' cuisine, only the first item (from the Oldboy review), was real - the rest were parodies. Google searches on phrases from the other three reviews return no meaningful hits, and this Gawker post confirms it. Korny O'Near 19:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Miami Vice controversy[edit]

Is this even a controversy, or better yet: is it even notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? So a guy got his feet stuck: who cares? I've done that, too. Besides, a blogger isn't exactly a recommended source. I've removed this information per this edit but invite others to discuss otherwise if they feel that the info should be included. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 18:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Oldboy Review[edit]

As an editor with strong interest in Korea, I found Reed's review of Oldboy to be racist and ignorant both of Korean culture and cinema, and of American culture and cinema. (I do plan to put it into the Oldboy article as good example of ignorant film-reviewing.) However, I question whether the review warrants an entire section in his biography. If the editors of this article feel it does, HERE is an article that puts his review (and its cultural ignorance) into some perspective. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


Should this be in the controversy section: (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

cabin in the woods[edit]

the cabin in the woods section is pretty much OR right now. I didn't take it out because his review is getting media coverage that comes to the same conclusion, but it will need to be rewritten or at least sourced (citing the review itself as an example of how the review is controversial is nonsensical). Here's something to get you started and move this article back toward an encyclopedia and away from a raging facebook post:

Wickedjacob (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

nothing here supports that criticism of Reed's review of Cabin in the Woods deserves special attention. I can find numerous similar incidents of complaints of Reed and all other major movie reviewers. Major movie reviewers get these kinds of complaints all the time. There is no reason to include this one over any of the others. Also, it is Cabin in the Woods that Reed reviewed, not Citizen Kane. BashBrannigan (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I disagree but not worth the battle. Wickedjacob (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It's your favorite movie isn't reason for inclusion[edit]

There's an obvious trend in this article for editors adding reviews of movies by Reed for which someone has criticized. The problem with this is that every review by Reed has received criticism from someone. In the time I've been monitoring this article there's been at least three: Cabin in the Woods, Old Boy and just now Identity Thief. Bias is at play here as editors are selectively adding negative reactions for movies that mean something personal to them. However, criticism of individual reviews is par for the course for reviewers and not at all notable. It's a pain in the neck to explain to editors this and the solution might be to just let editors add them at will and eventually it will become absurd as the article is filled with them. BashBrannigan (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I do think there should only be a few reviews that are notable enough. Unless there are way more major controversies that have happened than his reviews of Oldboy and Identity Thief, then I think they can stay. He respectively insults a nation and a famous actress. These reviews aren't about his opinions on the films themselves and what the plots are.--EclecticEnnui (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I see your point that the criticism isn't directly related to the film itself and in that case an argument could be made to include. But I think it could get out of hand as Reed has a reputation for inflammatory reviews. I think I'll just let these go and see how many are added. BashBrannigan (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason not to have controversey sections[edit]

They become dumping grounds for slow news day items. If his recent review turns into anything larger, maybe revisit in 6 months to a year. --Malerooster (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed the stuff about Tomei. One site is dead and the other confirms that this is gossip/rumor material. --Malerooster (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


The first section, "Life," that follows the Table of Contents recounts at length Reed's shoplifting arrest and subsequent dismissed case. The section has little additional information other than his birthplace, and where he presently lives. The section preceeds the article's lengthy description of his long career and controversies.

Even if he had been convicted of a minor crime such as stealing a few CDs, I don't think the placement of the incident at the top of the article would be warranted. The fact that the case was dismissed makes this placement an even more dubious proposition.

Reed has had a long career. One alleged shoplifting charge of under $100 in merchandise is a small footnote to the arc of his life; not its most significant event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

This guy is an idiot[edit]

Enough said. Sounds and looks like one as well. --2601:40E:8100:9E7D:21F:F3FF:FED8:B336 (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like original research to me. Might be a better fit over on IMDB.2600:1014:B116:7957:0:4B:B31C:C401 (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rex Reed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)