Not exact matches
One example I can't help but think for this
point is the
film Memento and it's subsequent praise & criticism for it's
plot structure.
By mapping those emotional responses to the corresponding
plot points, the studio gleaned objective data about the
film — something that would otherwise be judged subjectively.
Rather than hitting all the major
plot points of Jobs» life, the
film presents fictionalized versions of behind - the - scenes looks at three product releases from 1984 to 1998.
Editor's Note: The following interview with Noah screenwriter Ari Handel contains some minor spoilers and discussions of items that deal with major
plot points in the
film.
The
plot is loosely held together by quite a bit of setting up and falling down, devoting much of its runtime to making you want to care about what the Pentagon Papers are, how the newspaper operates, and what's clearly at stake, before finally getting to the
point where everything finally comes together, which is when the
film is at its sharpest.
I've said many times in my reviews that many of the best
films in any genre use their premise to create subtext, almost to the
point where the superficial
plot is no longer the most relevant or appealing aspect.
The
plot is far greater than the delivery, making the
film a strong vehicle for a
point, but not a spectacular item on its own.
Their fabricated stories occasionally dissolve into something much more honest; Jack, perhaps the most emotional of the brothers, is a short story writer, with suspiciously familiar
plot points and characters he insists are fictitious (from the short, Hotel Chevalier, which accompanies the
film at the festival, we know this is not true).
Let me
point out the
film's
plot threads to you and you tell me if it sounds like it'd be an interesting movie.
It's sort of a smorgasbord of 90s indie cinema
plot points, but the go - for - broke attitude leaves the whole
film a stale, mediocre mess.
While both installments were treated as thematically and stylistically separate entities, as opposed to a single finale story that was just split in half and to be continued, the exclusion of certain
plot points from both books made both
film adaptations feel as though they were lacking in emotion.
Solid cast - Sally Hawkins and Bob Hoskins - but this
film's beginning is brutally boring, and in all it's too didactic, moving slowly and belabouring most
plot points.
Much ballyhooed for its on - location
filming in and around the United Nations building in Manhattan «The Interpreter» works better as a captivating drama than it does as an espionage thriller due to some sticking
plot points that prevent the audience from
That scene sets the stage for the
plot of the
film, which surprisingly, takes place over a very concentrated
point in time — only a month, really — when the Civil War was limping to an end, and Lincoln was rushing to pass the 13th Amendment to ban slavery.
There are plenty of
plot points that don't bear up to closer scrutiny in the aftermath but a big part of the
film's success is a result of pairing Bateman and McAdams.
Like Gleeson and Byrne, Gluck seems to recognize his
film's inherent frivolousness, frequently calling attention to some of the screenplay's
plot mechanics and hacky tropes — at one
point even hanging a lampshade on Peter's famous blue jacket, in acknowledgement of the object's trite value as an emotional symbold.
Unlike franchises overexplained to breaking
point, the sequel repeats the no - frills
plot of the first outing with no further depth — which means that as a
film, it needs to work as an engine, primarily, to scare us into submission.
Sicario is a well written story, however the
film does fall short in some scenes with slow moving
plot points and a handful of unnecessary scenes.
That was obviously one of the high
points of the
film, but what makes the
film good is the elaborate
plot twists that the
film offers to the unsuspecting viewer.
With all of my complaints about how this
film all too often discards promising
plot areas to spark a sense of unevenness, hurrying, outside of that area of storytelling, is hardly a big deal, so what this series really has to worry about is, of course, bloating, because all of this unevenness, as well as repetition, could have perhaps been avoided if this saga wasn't just so blasted overblown, not necessarily to the
point of falling flat as too sprawling to stick with, but decidedly to the
point of feeling rather overambitious.
For the remainder of the review, you'll find highlights or tidbits that don't give away any
plot points that merely serve as an enticement to see the
film.
Audiard's
film is muscular and brutal, and the
plot points can be about as subtle as Schoenaerts» fists, but I liked this
film, and liked watching its characters dance around the improbable details while they found their hearts.
This can detract from the pacing at some
points, especially since the
film tends to intercut between the revelations of Harry's past, and his friends» efforts to destroy the items which, by comparison, seem far less integral to the
plot.
In terms of the broad concept, specific
plot points and some characters, the
film has close similarities to Let Me Hear You Whisper, which was aired as a TV production nearly 50 years ago.
At this
point we pretty much know the basics of the
film's
plot — there will of course be some surprises — but let's get official before I start breaking hearts with the synopsis:
These more - for - more genre epics try to fill every corner with hundreds of creatures (this
film contains over 600 various alien monsters) to the
point where is stupefies whatever
plot they are selling.
Because of the way the
plot is structured, a blow - out is unavoidable, and it occurs at the South by Southwest festival in Austin, Texas (weirdly graduated into a
film's pivot
point), where Jon's eagerness to sell out in front of cute, slack - mouthed publicists and Frank's paralysing awkwardness both lead to disaster.
The
film does not tie everything up, leaving certain
plot points unresolved for the audience to make up their own minds.
Instead of serving chills and thrills, the
film pounds us with an explanation that grows more convoluted with each
plot point.
At their best, the movies have been enjoyable ways to pass time, and at their worst, they've been riddled with
plot points that hark back to superior
films.
This
film starts off simple and sweet, but completely falls apart in a random mess of bad acting and stupid
plot points.
Each of these is a given, to the
point that these events, the most significant from a perspective of pure
plot to transpire in the
film, all happen offscreen.
Both offer better writing and performances, as well as bigger budgets, but through the addition of scratches to the
film print and the use of missing reels during key
plot points, the experience has been replicated as best as possible without alienating the mainstream crowd.
I did not buy the romance, and the
plot points were so farcical this
film was almost unwatchable.
The result is a stylistic and colorful
film (using modern music set to the old time theme, and a frustrating jump in time that often skips over major
plot points in favor of lining up the next musical number.
(It's true that the
film has more than its fair amount of exposition, and tangled
plot points that left me saying, «What?»
The
film has its problems, including a slow middle where it tries - unsuccessfully - to suddenly recap
plot points and resolve character motivations from the first three Craig
films.
Naked is a very inconsistent
film with dumb
plot points and an incredibly predictable conclusion, which sort of takes away from the comedy that does work, but I'm not going to be too picky about a
film like this.
The
plot serves to deliver the main
point of the
film: the exceptionally visceral action sequences.
The
film, instead, muddled that up with unnecessary characters and
plot points.
A melodramatic tone and fragmented
plotting undermines this
film's serious edge, almost losing the
point in the process.
And when I was watching that short
film in 2010, at no
point did I wish it would last about 88 more minutes, use a tired Ghostbusters
plot device, and have a leading role for Paul Blart, mall cop.
While almost entirely family - friendly, the
film deserves its PG rating: One
plot point near the very end would have totally freaked my tender childhood sensibilities.
«Now that doesn't mean what happens in the
film won't have ripples in the MCU, but the
film itself isn't relying on other
plot points in the MCU.»
Muller is particularly illuminating when discussing Otto Preminger's formal inventiveness — his long, subtle takes, his ability to create compositions that essentially edit the
film within the camera — and the various noir «types» that inhabit the narrative, such as the «bad cop» or the sickly neighbor who, in Muller's words, is often «waiting around to be a
plot point in a crime story.»
I like that feeling when I finish certain Grant Morrison comics; I don't like the feeling when I finish a crazy - looking
film that I want more out of than flashy visuals and a mix of horrific
plot points.
The
film itself is nothing new, and the
plot very predictable, but all the same it worked for me, and I must confess I had to hold back tears at a couple of
points (something which hasn't happened since In America — I dare you to keep your tear ducts dry in that
film).
Probably the biggest is an over-reliance on the original Star Wars trilogy which is evident in the way the key
plot points and character arcs in The Force Awakens unfold in situations strikingly similar ways to those in earlier
films.
You see I want to talk about the
film's structure, how its episodic and unfocused storyline actually
points toward its origins as a manga, and how while having little in the way of actual
plot the
film uses metaphor and subplot as text rather than subtext.
Various comments from directors of Marvel movies, characters rumors, and
plot points set up in more than a few
films, all seem to
point to the MCU being totally different after Infinity War.