Talk:Images (film)

Information added finally

Added my own synopsis, followed by awards the film has either received or was nominated for, then added trivia accumulated from Rogert Ebert's review and also fror IMDb.com, and then added technical details also derived from IMDb.com. - User:Schwenkstar

Fair use rationale for Image:Suzzanah York in Images.jpg

Image:Suzzanah York in Images.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Images 1972 Screenshot 2.jpg

Image:Images 1972 Screenshot 2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

The following is trivia. Such information needs to be well sourced and then integrated back into the article.

Extended content

Reportedly, the film's original negative was burned by Columbia Pictures. This rumor, long believed to be true, has turned out to be false. MGM's home video wing released a DVD in the fall of 2003, apparently from a new print struck from an existing negative.
Susannah York is accredited for writing the children's story that she reads throughout the film's duration.
The name of the five main characters are actually taken from the names of the actors who portray them, only having rearranged their names (for example, Susannah York plays the character Cathryn, while Cathryn Harrison plays the character Susannah).
Film critic Roger Ebert provides some background upon the movie in his review:

Altman shot Images (1972) in County Wicklow in Ireland during the wet autumn months of 1971, and premiered it the following May at Cannes. It won Susannah York the award for best actress (it's the role she's most proud of), but left its Cannes audiences mostly confused. It isn't the sort of film you feel affectionate about. It's complex and cold, although not nearly as hard to understand as some of the first reviews suggested.

Columbia picked up the distribution rights (Altman was a hot property in 1971) and entered Images in the New York Film Festival. Inexplicably, neither of the two principal film critics for the New York Times (Vincent Canby and Roger Greenspan) chose to review it, and it was dismissed in a blistering and largely unperceptive review by Howard Thompson ("a mishmash"). And that was that." [It is] "an intelligently constructed and spectacularly well-photographed film."^[1]

Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide honors the film with three and a half out of four stars. He describes the film as "difficult but fascinating" and that it may be "off-putting at first, but worth the effort to hang on."

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trivia sections) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film) for more explanation. BOVINEBOY2008 07:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Roger Ebert, "Images" Review, Chicago Sun Times

[rog1-1] Roger Ebert, "Images" Review, Chicago Sun Times

[1]