# Talk:The Brute Man

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Brute Man/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Erik (talk | contribs) 14:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I will review this film article for Good Article status. As the whole, the article looks well-structured and well-referenced. I do have a few questions and suggestions about the article.

The infobox's "Starring" field and the lead section's stars are inconsistent. For example, Patrick McVey is mentioned only in the infobox. In the lead section, can the identities of the stars be more restricted? It does not seem like they were all "stars" of the film. In addition, I would recommend separating the "blind pianist" plot from the string of names.
I fixed the infobox. I should've caught that myself, but that infobox stuff was there before I worked on the article. McVey it appears had one tiny, uncredited part (if that) so he shouldn't have been in there. I also reworded the first paragraph as per your suggestions. — Hunter Kahn 03:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Has an actual "Cast" section been considered? I know that in the past, it was encouraged to merge a basic cast list to the plot summary, but the drawback of this is that a reader has to pore through the summary to identify actors and their roles. Any chance of a basic cast list? You could also do a table like at Never Let Me Go (2010 film) or Black Swan (film). Tables are usually avoided to encourage novice editing, but this article is already well-developed. If names are put in a cast list, you could just have surnames in parentheses in the plot summary.
Personally, I would rather not have a cast list because the only major cast is already mentioned in the plot summary, and I don't think it's needed to rehash them. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film)#Cast includes this as a possibility, and it cites the FA Tenabrae as an example. My own film FA, Tender Mercies, also follows this practice. If you really feel strongly we can discuss it further, but I think it's alright as is. — Hunter Kahn 03:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The length of the plot summary is over 750 words, and this appears to be a particularly short film. Per WP:FILMPLOT, the range is 400 to 700 words. Would it be possible to summarize the film further, especially toward the lower end? The goal of a plot summary is to provide sufficient context for the reader to follow the real-world context in the article.
I shortened it a bit so it's below 700 words. Can tighten more if you want. — Hunter Kahn 03:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
There are some red links in the article. Do you see these red links truly becoming blue links at some point? If not, they should be de-linked.
I de-linekd them for now. I may take a look at them in the future and create articles if need be. If that happens, I'll readd the links. — Hunter Kahn 03:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
"...especially the Universal Pictures horror film Bride of Frankenstein (1935)" Why "especially" compared to City Lights? Seems like there were similar comparisons.
Dropped the "especially", which is sort of POVish anyway. — Hunter Kahn 03:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The last paragraph of "Filming" seems to have two disjointed parts: one about Hatton's acting, and another about crew contributions. Not sure if there can be a good transition between the two parts; any way to reorganize?
I tried moving the acting stuff up to the end of the first paragraph, which talked about the filming of the Creeper scenes. I then moved the Maury Gertsman photography stuff into the paragraph with the editor, composer, editor, etc. stuff because I thought it worked better having the crew all together. I think this fixes the transition problems, but let me know what you think. — Hunter Kahn 03:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
In the "Mystery Science Theater 3000" section, I am not sure if this is a reliable source, especially to make the claim that one of its moments was notable on the TV show.
Yeah, unfortunately I remember reading an interview with Mike Nelson himself talking about this back in the day, but now for the life of me I can't find it anywhere. I've searched all over but sadly can't find another WP:RS for this, so I'm going to have to drop it, which I've now done. — Hunter Kahn 03:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Please let me know if you have any questions!
Reviewer: Erik (talk | contribs) 14:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I'm happy to do more if further work is needed! — Hunter Kahn 03:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the speedy response! Your preference is fine about the cast, but it's worth noting that WP:FILMCAST is the most dated section in the guidelines, and it's in need of a revision at some point. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This film features unique settings in 40s LA. The Angels Flight tram, taking passengers for free up a very steep grade in downtown LA. (Long gone).  And the Bradbury Bldg, the first galleria bldg in America (skylight at the top for natural lighting in a multistory structure). In the latter, we see the ornate elevator and upper story, from which the Brute Man tosses a victim.  It features many decades later in Blade Runner, in the climax and earlier.  It is a shambles, as it was at the time. In the late 80s, I trespassed in it, and it was still a shambles. I believe it has been rightfully restored now. Edgarpym (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Adding to my previous comment about Angels Flight and Bradbury Bldg, low budget films shot in location in LA, to reduce cost, often captured remarkable setting footage of the city, woefully unutilized by expensive feature films of the time. Edgarpym (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Regarding availabilty of a good quality DVD--I found mine on CHEESY FILMS--which is not mentioned in t he article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.23.5.10 (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)