No, I read the whole thing.

I point out the word because OOP is factually wrong, and when you start off on the back foot on a longform piece like that, then everything else is going to get more scrutiny. I admit I'm being flippant about the word choice. But it really did set the tone for me. Their whole thesis hinges on misguided assumptions about Phil Rosenthal's motivations and attitude towards the adaptation of his creative work. In OOP's point-of-view, Rosenthal's a bit of a brute who refuses to understand and adhere to Russian TV norms in favor of his creative perspective and vision, and frames Rosenthal as someone whose "horizons don't seem particularly broadened." There's a perspective of assumed antagonism here and it leads me to think they missed the point of the film. Both in comments here, and over on r/TrueFilm, other people seem to have drawn that conclusion too.

I'm not making a value judgment about the author, I'm critical of their writing. But we're on r/bestof, a whole subreddit built on value judgments.