Talk:Burn After Reading

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Burn After Reading article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 1095 days

Film: British / American

	Film portal 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 British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2020. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Queen Mary, University of London/Research Methods (Film) (Spring 2020)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

Another error in the plot summary?

The plot summary states: "Harry realizes that he is being tailed by a divorce lawyer hired by his wife. Depressed, Harry meets with Linda ..." Surely the private eye whom Harry spots, chases and wrestles to the ground, thought he was tailing Osbourne Cox, but Harry had moved into Osbourne's house, and he was tailing Harry by mistake! Harry's wife was not suing for divorce; Katie Cox was! That mix-up is one of the many mix-up jokes. Arrivisto (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant observation! Too tired to edit it in tonight IM Serious (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, i think Harry was the proper target because the detective had been spying long enough to know who he was after and Harry's wife had her secret affair who she might have been trying to legitimize: IM Serious (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The New Republic "opinion"

Jeet Heer's evaluation has no place in this article. 2603:8080:1600:F9CD:A59E:7779:3DE1:AC43 (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because you disagree with it? Because you think The New Republic is not a valid source? Your comment here consists of a single sentence with zero specifics to back up your argument. That's not enough. Barte (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Burn After Reading

Another error in the plot summary?

The New Republic "opinion"

Navigation menu

Search