Sentences with phrase «interesting character in this film»

And then there's Hill House itself, the most colorful and interesting character in the film.

What does it say about Solo: A Star Wars Story that the most interesting character in the film is one with no previous connection to the series?

Her young son Cid, played very well by Pierce Gagnon, is one of the more interesting characters in the film.

To be honest, though, the most interesting character in this film about Whitey Bulger is not Bulger himself, but rather Edgerton's John Connelly.

Waste of a good cast excessively violent and obssesive period detail cant disguise some poor performances Guy pearce is ott, shitloaf out of his depth and goldman phones in his performance the girls do better with crumbs... chastain is the only interesting character in the film and put another great performance the great Mia recycles her sissy southern drawl to good effect but it just boys with guns with a corny ending

The most interesting character in the film is Janine, the emblem of crooked momism.

Jean is the most interesting character in the film because she is unpredictable; John and Vivian seem locked into their destinies.

Probably the more interesting character in the film is the FBI agent who helped Bulger avoid investigation and prosecution for many years.

Not exact matches

According to the movie's screenwriter Michael Bacall, Depp was interested in filming a cameo in the remake, but wanted to make sure that his character had closure.

And while Fiennes is great fun to watch in the role, we realize that Voldemort isn't a terribly interesting character, which is a good analogy for the film.

Bullet to the Head is a wasted opportunity to make something quite interesting and worth your time, but instead it just takes bits and pieces to create something that in the end is not worth watching because the film lacks a good story, effective action and more importantly good performances and interesting characters.

The point is that, yakuza films have always been a topic that I'm always interested in watching because, as I see it, it's almost impossible to tell a movie in these setting with these types of characters.

While «Other People» begins with a big moment — daringly, THE big moment — then flashes back to a year earlier, the film is more interested in the mundane ways the characters relate to each other and in the minutiae of their lives.

But the novelty of this has certainly worn off a bit and in the interests of both retaining fan favorites and introducing new personalities, this third film feels a little crammed with characters all vying for the same kind of calculated jokes.

In the end, this is again a very good horror comedy which needs to focus less on the main characters (lets face it, they are cliches and the interest of this whole movie is to the idea behind it) and more on the variety of monsters that were created for this film.

At times this can be a very gut and heart wrenching film, and really awkward and uncomfortable, but it is presented in a respectful manner with characters that are very well developed and interesting.

Too muted and pensive to work as a thriller, too withdrawn to be a character study, and too cold to evoke any sympathy, the film is instead a dull and alienating exercise in how to take a strong actor and interesting premise and mostly waste them.

Aside from this being a lot less interesting than the original stories, it also gives us a film with more characters than the story has any use for, and that in turn makes what there is of a story feel baggy and drawn out.

There is, as such, little doubt that the film takes a serious dive in its increasingly underwhelming third act, with Ganz and Mandel's script emphasizing elements that couldn't possibly be less interesting - including Chuck's decision to break away from both Long and Keaton's respective characters (ie it's a twist on the dreaded fake break - up cliche).

But along with the action, the film portrays some positive character development as Charlie and Max's shared interest in robots contributes to their growing relationship.

The script is phoned in and rather than focus on the Autobots like in the cartoon the film focuses on the poorly written human characters who aren't that interesting.

Where those previous films felt compelled to lunge for edginess (read: sneering raunch) as chaos dutifully descended on characters they didn't like very much — and weren't particularly interested in getting audiences to like, either — Game Night takes care to locate our sympathies with Bateman, and McAdams, and its cast of charming ringers.

There's no real suspense, of course, as we know the outcome, but the swift and observant storytelling sustains interest all the way in a film that doesn't overstay its welcome despite its vast cast of characters and the considerable ground it covers.

That she's a relative outsider in her own community — partly because she makes no attempt to fit into the rigorous role her somewhat wealthy family wants her to embody — makes her character even more of an interesting character exploration in Michael Pearce's new film Beast.

The film offers interesting characters, but raises more questions than it answers, leaving the film in a bit of a meandering spot.

There's little doubt, ultimately, that the character works best in extremely small doses and yet much of the narrative is focused entirely on his somewhat obnoxious (and completely unsympathetic) exploits, which ensures that large swaths of The Disaster Artist completely fail to completely capture and sustain one's interest - although it's hard to deny the effectiveness of certain making - a-picture sequences in the film's midsection (eg the shooting of the infamous «oh, hi Mark» scene).

He was a pretty interesting character, why there wasn't more of a focus on Eric in the second half of the film, I don't know.

The makeup artists in Perfect People do such a remarkable job in turning the dazzling Lauren Hutton and Perry King into baggy old frumps that, once the characters return to their «normal» selves, interest in the story lags and the film loses its comic momentum.

While the attack on the train is compelling and one of Eastwood's best sequences, unless you are interested in a travelogue of major European cities, the rest of the film which fills in the character's back story, does not rise to the same level.

It started about halfway through the film, the story dulled and I found myself not really interested in the characters as much as I was in the beginning of the film.

The line is funny and revealing: The film is smart enough to admit the monsters are usually the most interesting characters in these movies, but it's also smart enough to make the people interesting.

Both Thor and Thor: The Dark World presented us with something drastically different than what was before it, including expanding beyond the cosmos and accepting the God - like characters as normal, which really pushed the medium of comic book films, while also blending humor and action in a way that made the character both interesting and viable.

And that's not to say that this film had to have super complex characters, but at least give us something just a little more interesting to invest ourselves in these people.

I like the beautiful landscapes that they film in and the interesting characters.

Which characters in this film do you find to be the most interesting?

It's difficult to think of a director less - suited to take on the intricate, minutiae - obsessed writing of Peter Morgan than Howard — a director who, even in his finest films, has always been interested in the big picture first, with characters serving history rather than the other way round.

Indeed, almost every character in Paul Thomas Anderson's brilliant Boogie Nights could hold our attention in a film of their own, but it's Rahad Jackson, Night Ranger lover, who really piqued our interest.

The film is bolstered by her knack for dialogue and character, but also in not pressing too hard in order to get laughs that aren't there, letting smaller conversations play out naturally, and having supporting characters mirror the main story in a fashion which draws out interesting tidbits without stopping the overall momentum of the character's journey at large.

In their attempt to give a woman a diverse part, they end up flipping the film back in the direction of the male character, by default, because human beings aren't interested in one - dimensional assholes like MaviIn their attempt to give a woman a diverse part, they end up flipping the film back in the direction of the male character, by default, because human beings aren't interested in one - dimensional assholes like Maviin the direction of the male character, by default, because human beings aren't interested in one - dimensional assholes like Maviin one - dimensional assholes like Mavis.

When the film is about the specific individual characters, it's still interesting, but it takes the focus away for a spell on the thematic material, even if it seeks to expose how immoral the propagators of foreclosures - for - profit have to be in order to maintain their businesses in the face of daily suffering for many families in their broken communities.

if I was Canadian, and interested in horror films, I might defend the film — its definitely creepy, but also you have a film here where the protagonist has zero character definition and much of the very deliberate color grading and lighting makes the film look like it has gaping continuity errors.

Far more clever and witty than the knockabout silliness promised by the coming attractions, this is a film that is more interested in character comedy than slapstick and gives Melissa McCarthy the most appealing role of her career and allows Jason Statham to deliver one of the most unexpectedly hilarious comedic turns in recent memory.

While most everyone else in the film is a character type, either as an exhausted agent, a skeptical business suit, a cardboard Pakistani, or a trained soldier, Jason Clarke's «Dan» is especially interesting.

Characters must have personalities, interesting dilemmas and / or conflicts that captivate, yet this film rapidly introduces viewers to a multitude of characters in such blanCharacters must have personalities, interesting dilemmas and / or conflicts that captivate, yet this film rapidly introduces viewers to a multitude of characters in such blancharacters in such bland fashion.

TRAINSPOTTING is one of those films where I think a sequel in unnecessary, but I'm also very interested to see what has happened to the characters.

It is interesting that Miller mentions Justice League possibly being his only chance at playing The Flash onscreen, even though he probably just meant that getting to play the character in that film alone would have been enough for him.

In the 20 years since, his career has been defined by a remarkable wealth and variety of interesting characters and intense performances in films as diverse as Lone Star, American Beauty, Seabiscuit and CapotIn the 20 years since, his career has been defined by a remarkable wealth and variety of interesting characters and intense performances in films as diverse as Lone Star, American Beauty, Seabiscuit and Capotin films as diverse as Lone Star, American Beauty, Seabiscuit and Capote.

While «Farewell, My Queen» does boast admirable elements (more on those below) overall, despite some showy trappings it is a frustratingly empty experience, built around a character whose blankness is supposed to be a virtue, but ends up costing the film dearly in terms of identification and interest.

mmm... a protagonist who complete dominates a long film to the detriment of context and the other players in the story (though the abolitionist, limping senator with the black lover does gets close to stealing the show, and is rather more interesting than the hammily - acted Lincoln); Day - Lewis acts like he's focused on getting an Oscar rather than bringing a human being to life - Lincoln as portrayed is a strangely zombie character, an intelligent, articulate zombie, but still a zombie; I greatly appreciate Spielberg's attempt to deal with political process and I appreciate the lack of «action» but somehow the context is missing and after seeing the film I know some more facts but very little about what makes these politicians tick; and the lighting is way too stylised, beautiful but unremittingly unreal, so the film falls between the stools of docufiction and costume drama, with costume drama winning out; and the second subject of the film - slavery - is almost complete absent (unlike Django Unchained) except as a verbal abstraction

Much ado was made over the Roberts» character gender switch (man in the first film) to accommodate the interested actress.