Talk:Somewhere (film)

References for use
Kollision (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Dorff interview:

Lacony
Stil and reasons are manking! Yes I would like to know more about this so boring hollywood actor. She, directing, is dealing with hype clischees in a way; I may start to believe in love again. Subjekt profil as a main lack in a real recognization, non dramatic, but laconic is poesie... Please ask to give more information!--Raskollnika (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Description of the film, plotting and/or story are a little less to me.

About the database links
I am a little confused about the exclusion of database links. Yes, they are already used as in-line citations, and they are not mandated in the MOS:FILM, but they are encouraged because they do provide real assistance to readers. If someone wants to look up the basic facts about a film, he/she can easily find them through a group of useful links in the EL section. The inclusion of them really does no harm to the quality of this article. - Artoasis (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is that there is no reason that they are automatic. According to WP:EL, only links which add something beyond the article should be included. The main information from Rotten tomatoes and box office mojo are already included in the text of the article. A reader wishing to go further can explore the sources used in the ref section. Unthinkingly including links does diminish the quality of the article - wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of such links. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, they don't add anything new, but they do offer a easier way to locate certain information. I know it's bad practice to add in-line references to ELs for most articles, but film articles are a little different, hence the guidelines at MOS:FILM. But if you insist on excluding them, it's all right. I only want to add them because I thought I could help improve this article. It's a very well-written piece. - Artoasis (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify: I wasn't accusing you of doing wrong at all. In fact, it's me who is going against the grain a little. My view is that those links are more useful on stubs and lower quality articles, but should be removed or incorporated as an article approaches B class. I know IMDB is popular among filmgoers, personally I don't think that much of it and prefer the review aggregations when deciding which film too see. I'm going to take my quest next to MOS:FILM (which is subsidiary to WP:EL btw), it's not written that clearly. Thanks for you kind words about the article. Best,--Ktlynch (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

model of car
anyone can add model of car he is riding in the film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.240.235.182 (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a place for us . . somewhere . . maybe over the rainbow
Somewhere is the first word in the lyrics of Over the Rainbow, the iconic popular song which has found legendary symbolism for dreams and wishes within the American experience.

It is also Somewhere, a song in West Side Story

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LgW0Rq4PJ0 | Barbra Streisand (excellent version - occasional poor sound quality)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurencebeck (talk • contribs) 04:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

"Critical reception" section
I am confused by this section's claim that: The film received mildly positive reviews from critics. then goes on to list more accolades than detractions. Would it not be fairer to say that the reception was mixed? POSITIVE: MIXED: NEGATIVE: Thanks for your attention, Wordreader (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2010 National Board of Review Awards, Sofia Coppola was given the Special Filmmaking Achievement Award for writing, directing and producing
 * Rotten Tomatoes - 72%, hypnotic, charming performances
 * Roger Ebert in Chicago Sun-Times - 4/4 stars
 * NYT - exquiste, mastery
 * Le Monde - positive review, daring film, delicate irony
 * France 24 - virtuosity
 * Richard Roeper - 10th best film of the year.
 * "Sight and Sound" - going in circles, delicate portrait
 * Metacritic - 67/100
 * Guardian - 2/5 stars, resembled "Lost in Translation" too closely, lacked emotional depth
 * BBC Radio 5 - self-indulgent and boring
 * Allociné - 2.9/5 stars


 * Hello, Thanks for your careful consideration of the article. I'm not entirely sure that the Metacritic and Allociné scores can be classed as negative. As you mention it's always a bit subjective trying to summarise critical reception of a film. I have a new source, strong which I hope to add to the article soon hopefully it will clarify the film's place in the canon. Best, Ktlynch (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)