The reviews in the "Critical review" section should be in the past tense, as they were made in the past. Some are in present, while a couple even alternate back and forth. Go back through and make sure the reviews are in the past tense.
In the "Critical review" section, ...when it described Duke basketball head coach Mike Krzyzewski recruits as Uncle Toms → Is it Duke's recruits, or is it Krzyzewski's recruits? If the latter, then add an 's at the end there.
I don't think the quote box in the "Ratings" section is necessary and seems to bork the article's layout by unnecessarily sandwiching text between that quote box and the Fab Five image there.
The "Ratings" and "Story" sections should be switched in order. It seems more logical to go into the story and then go into how the film was received (i.e. ratings and critical reception).
While I saw no problems with most of the sources (they all seem to be in the citations given), refs
12,
13,
15,
22, and
23 (almost all of them except one are from the Forbes.com website) are deadlinks and need to be fixed.
On hold pending improvements to the issues mentioned above. Otherwise, the prose is pretty good (I'll make a couple more copyedits in there), and the coverage is also good. –
MuZemike20:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)reply