This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Science Fiction Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Parts of the article have been taken verbatim from a Slate FAQ. While the source is linked directly (not as a proper reference) in the article, the copied text is not marked as a citation and would in any case probably have to be paraphrased as it is too long. -- 88.72.239.88 ( talk) 22:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply

From reading the reception section, it really gives the impression in the opening paragraphs that the movie is universally well-received. If you look at metacritic.com ( http://www.metacritic.com/movie/upstream-color) at the user(i.e. viewer) reviews, this movie gets generally mixed reviews. I have heard it's awful from many sources, and read many critics reviews that dislike the movie, yet the article is very bias in this instance; no? 194.46.173.157 ( talk) 23:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

If you look at the link you yourself provided, you will notice that the film has a rating of 81 (out of 100) which is interpreted by Metacritic as having "universal acclaim" based on "27 critics". Timbouctou ( talk) 23:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

True, from pretentious asshole critics. Viewer reviews are SIGNIFICANTLY different. I've modified the article to represent such. 194.46.173.157 ( talk) 23:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Per WP:MOSFILM, we only include reviews from legitimate film critics, with very few exceptions. Viewer rankings can be used only when part of a poll by an actual polling firm, such as CinemaScore. User rankings are never to be used. Woodroar ( talk) 23:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/jan/23/sundance-festival-upstream-color-first-look-review 194.46.173.157 ( talk) 00:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply

That's one negative review, which is already in the article. There are others, of course. But keep in mind that 113 out of 133 reviews (84%) at Rotten Tomatoes are positive, earning it a "Certified Fresh" label. And Metacritic gives it a score of 81, which they call "Universal acclaim". Woodroar ( talk) 00:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I've also reverted. I don't have a problem with including the source or adjusting the wording, however the source says "generally positive reviews" which isn't the same as 'mixed'. PhilKnight ( talk) 01:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply