Talk:Watermark (2003 film)

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

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Watermark (2003 film) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Reception

The "Reception" section of this article has recently been removed because it consists solely of negative reviews. Rather than removing the negative reviews, please add any positive reviews that might be found to balance the section. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a critics poll table in Metro Magazine, no.142, 2004 Fall, p.208(1) (ISSN: 0312-2654).

From it:

THE PANEL 1 DOUGAL MACDONALD THE CANBERRA TIMES 2 JULIE RIGG RADIO NATIONAL 3 TOM RYAN THE SUNDAY AGE 4 ANTHONY MORRIS FORTE 5 ROCHELLE SIEMIENNOWICZ (sic) THE BIG ISSUE 6 MADELEI ...

WATERMARK Georgina Willis -- 5 2 -- 4 -- 2 ...

Trying to interpret without the mag, Julie Rigg from Radio National gave it a 5/?. Tom Ryan of the Sunday Age a 2/? Rochelle Siemienowicz of Big Issue 4/?. Someone else 2/?.

Scores are not all out of 5 as the previous film in the table got 6 6 5 5 -- --.

That's 3 or four more reviews that it got at the time

From that info I found [1] where Rigg comments on the film but not a full review. And then [2].

It looks like there is at least one non negative review out there. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waterfake

There is a highly questionable overly positive "review" appearing out the on web. According to Indiewrap that review was written by Joseph Brown [3] and posted 23 August 2024. Funnily enough two days after this page was first whitewashed. According to USA Wire that review was written by Hassan Javed or Andrew Johnston https:// removed .com/watermark-revisited/ and posted 20 September 2024. Funnily enough the same day this page was next whitewashed. Looks like someone is trying to rewrite the past ahead of a planned rerelease. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Duffbeerforme: What's "https:// removed .com/watermark-revisited/"? Was this originally a link to a WP blacklisted site? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. USA Wire. duffbeerforme (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd love to positive reviews in reliable sources, but that ain't one. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]