Talk:Anthropoid (film)

Reviews
, there have not been any major reviews of the film, although they will soon be forthcoming. Rotten Tomatoes is a aggregate site that usually does not have the same cache as reputable sources such as LA Times and The New York Times reviews. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * the "as of August 2016" isn't needed as its not a thing that updates often (like box office) and August 2016 is the month of release. Also my big bugaboo is the format of the layout, because website names aren't italicized, and "viewer reviews" are the audience ratings, not the percentage assigned to critics. TropicAces (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The As\of template is used when events are changing. It is deprecated when Anthropoid achieves a global release, on 12 August 2016. (Note: the date convention is DMY for international works.) Website names are the same as a "publisher" which is identified in every citation style guide as an italicized notation. I have been a reference librarian for 30+ years, and lately an editor for trade publications as well as a sometime author and filmmaker. I don't make these citation styles, I use them. As for aggregate sites which measure or compile audience and viewer opinions, this has long been a discussion at the Wp:Film group where many editors simply discard them because like Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb, these sites are not moderated or involve professional oversight. I tend to go to the TCM site for reviews as it links to authoritative and credible critical reviews in mainstream media, as well as having a review board and moderator. "Audience ratings" are notoriously easy to manipulate as fanboys and fancruft advocates have proven many times. Just check out some of the "cult" films to see how unreliable the aggregator sites can be. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * What part of the above explanations is unclear? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Accuracy
I am surprised that none of the reviews of this film that I have read have mentioned a historical inaccuracy at the start of the film. Describing the Munich agreement it states that the western powers ceded Czechoslovakia to the nazis, whereas the real agreement just ceded the Sudetenland. Admittedly, a few months later the nazis invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia, but that was not part of the Munich agreement. 94.116.4.210 (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As for the Munich agreement, western powers coerced Czechoslovakia to give up the borderland protected by fortifications in exchange for their guarantee of the new borders. But in fact they had no intention to protect the new borders as it turned out less than half year later. --Honzula (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

There was a reference to miles instead of kilometres, and when they looked through the binoculars they were not focused properly and it was not a complete circle. 109.233.19.35 (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There are far more serious historical inaccuracies in this movie, such as no German soldier was actually killed during the siege of the church; Jan Kubiš was professional soldier and was described as the "calm and confident" by his superiors, so no handshaking before every use of the handgun happened to him. But the biggest drawback of the film is the complete failure to portray the atmosphere in the Protectorate. It also failed to explain, why Čurda had betrayed his brothers-in-arms. --Honzula (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Look at a map. Just how were the Western Allies supposed to get troops into Czechoslovakia to help defend it in 1938 when all of the possible routes lay through countries that were either neutral or allied to Germany.