Sentences with phrase «n't anything in the film»

Not exact matches

My colleague, Kirsten, had to sign an NDA promising she wouldn't reveal anything about Smith's character ahead of the film release in order to receive a making - of book on the film.

«As the actor in the film, you just have to step away and say, I don't know anything, really, and whether any of it is true or false.

Im not a film junkie or anything so i def appreciate the in depth scouting articles like this.

I'm not sure there is anything creepier than children in horror films, there is just something about taking that innocence and turning them into something dark and sinister that doesn't sit well with...

In a recent YouTube campaign film, he complained that «we have gone down the road of mediocracy and compromise, we don't like the idea of excelling of anything because we worry that it implies that somebody is less good».

Another advantage of this light - based processing is it doesn't require anything to come in physical contact with the film being treated — for example, there is no need to attach electrical contacts or to bathe the material in a chemical solution.

Oscar nominations were announced yesterday morning, and shockingly, Jessica wasn't nominated for anything this year, despite the fact that she appeared in leading or supporting roles in at least three extremely Oscar - buzz - worthy films in 2014.

While Yates doesn't do anything shockingly out of turn with the film, I found myself struggling to connect with the epic, symbolic conflict and was more interested in the smaller moments.

Not even Donkey, infused with serious panache by Eddie Murphy, so fabulously fast - talking yet obtuse in the first and second films, can muster anything, even while sparring with the previously entertaining Puss in Boots (Antonio Banderas).

Once the fear has passed, just in time for nap, visual and musical style are sometimes played in an immersive fashion by highlights in a directorial performance by Nicolas Winding Refn that bring some life to the film, though not as much as John Turturro's inspired lead performance, which does about as much as anything in bring the final product to the brink of decency, which is ultimately defied by the serious underdevelopment, overambition, monotonously unfocused dragging and near - punishingly dull atmospheric dryness that back a questionable drawn non-plot concept, and drive «Fear X» into mediocrity, in spite of highlights than can't quite obscure the many shortcomings.

There are, one assumes, whole swaths of the book that develop Jack as an emotional character while he's not doing much of anything, but that doesn't — can't — work in a film.

I can't fault anything on display in this film whatsoever, all the visuals, locations, props, sets, costumes, weapons etc...

If you're still at a loss as to what makes the movies so popular, you're not likely to find anything in this third film to clue you in — in fact, it may give you a headache.

The film doesn't use sound anything like as effectively as Leone, but the fight scenes feel brutal and realistic, particularly in the final showdown (s) between Carver and Gideon.

This is not to say the «other» is always morally superior or anything, but it's a crucial fact in understanding apartheid that, it bears repeating, it was the NATIVE population, the MAJORITY of the country (do the aliens outnumber the humans in this film?)

Turtorro can not save this film, but so help him, he tries, and he goes further than anyone or anything in bringing life to this bore, which still has enough other strengths at its back to be brought to the border of true decency.

With this movie, he just doesn't deliver anything worthwhile for fans, and it's a shame because if the story would have been a bit more developed, then I think that the film would have succeeded in being a memorable action film.

If there are truths about Nick Cave to be found in this film, I don't know that they will reveal anything he doesn't want revealed.

But while The Sword in the Stone gets a pass on entertainment value if nothing else, the same can't be said for this film, which more than anything else is shapeless and a little boring.

I would have liked to have seen more in the way of extras however, the quality of the film is such that, I'm not really feeling as though I've missed anything by not having a wealth of extras to explore.

He nails the time period, the locations are perfect, the young actors are amazing (not over or underplaying anything), the cadence is on the money, and the adults are much more genuine and sincere than they have been in other W.A. films.

I think this film had the potential in being a great film, but it simply doesn't deliver anything good for the entire family.

People like Daniel D obviously don't know anything about film, and look for improbabilities in a narrative to decide wheather its a good movie or not.

Nobody has ever seen anything like «Black Panther» — not just an entire civilization built from the metal stuff inside Captain America's shield, and not even just a massive superhero movie populated almost entirely by black people, but also a Marvel film that actually feels like it takes place in the real world.

Without ruining anything in the nearly two - hour film (if you know the history, I am too late,) I can say it is an ambitious sequel, has its moments, yet does not always have the energy or flow of the first film despite the return of the same director.

A lot of scenes in the film just don't make any sense and don't add anything to the thread of a narrative that runs through it, but they are striking and do have an effect on you, which is perhaps the purpose.

Even though the 2003 comedy scored a 14 % on Rotten Tomatoes, I thought that this was an excellent film and a great attestment to the message, «Don't let anything stand in the way of your dreams.»

But in the context of the film, what's of course a striking and great - looking aesthetic isn't grounded in anything more than a desire to rustle up some novel effects, and that emotional paucity shows.

Put together, REBEL IN THE RYE feels more like an HBO film that a real, big - screen feature - not that there's anything particularly wrong with that.

Nothing gets resolved in the end, and the character doesn't do anything except mouth off for the entire film.

I don't know how nerdy the people in this film are in real life, but most everyone in this cast is some kind of a reject who has done hardly anything before.

I am frustrated by the lack of modern - or future - set films without strong female characters, but I'm aware that, historically speaking, women haven't been given much training in warfare or an equal share of about anything.

I'm not selling anything, and my review is not some decree from on high, it's an attempt to parse out my ambivalence towards the film in question.

If you're in the mood for something fun, then give this one a shot, just don't expect anything great with the film.

If there is anything I didn't like about the film, it's Cameron's lack of realism when dealing with the roles of children, especially Jonathan Lipnicki's (Stuart Little, The Little Vampire) character as the boy that Maguire forms a bond with, as he's too unrealistic in demeanor and too strange looking to buy as a real kid, and for that matter the same goes for Tyson Tidwell's (Suarez, The Ladykillers) demeanor (son of Rod) as well.

And just as with those films, my mind couldn't help but wander adrift in a sea of thoughts that had nothing to do with anything taking place on screen.

I'm not even of the school that thinks the Zimmer approach is fundamentally wrong for a film like this — it's just that in this instance, he (assuming he actually had anything to do with it) certainly did get it wrong.

That's not to knock these films on quality or suggest that anything with name actors is merely mindless escapism: Fox Searchlight's thriller The East efficiently mines suspense out of Brit Marling infiltrating Alexander Skarsgaard and Ellen Page's eco-terrorist group (at least until it goes south in its last third) and the Paul Rudd - Emile Hirsch two - hander Prince Avalanche makes the most of its pastoral settings and gently bro - centric chattiness, to name just two.

When it comes to «Marvel's The Avengers», they are the hottest ticket in not only film this year but also anything having to do with media in general.

As upsetting as the scene was (I'm intentionally not spoiling anything), it was still extraordinarily powerful and went a long way toward explaining Magneto's behavior — in all of the X-Men films, not just this one.

I had not seen her in anything before this film, so I had no expectations of her at all.

But truthfully, it isn't saying anything about the relationship between the media and society — and the toxic and symbiotic voyeurism that fuels it — that hadn't been said already, decades earlier, in eerily prescient films from «Ace in the Hole» (1951) to «Network» (1976) to «Broadcast News» (1987).

I don't know if that amounts to anything considering the films in the same category - «A Walk to Remember, «Whatever that Miley Cyrus film was called», «Message in a Bottle», etc..

A few unexpected minor pleasures: the time - travel flick Predestination, an adaptation of a Robert A. Heinlein short story that's one of those rare sci - fi movies that feels like it was made by people who read sci - fi; the horror Western Bone Tomahawk, which feels, in the best way, like someone filmed a first draft script and didn't cut anything, all its little quirks of character kept intact, narrative expediency be damned; and In The Heart Of The Sea, the cornball sea adventure of which I enjoyed every minutin the best way, like someone filmed a first draft script and didn't cut anything, all its little quirks of character kept intact, narrative expediency be damned; and In The Heart Of The Sea, the cornball sea adventure of which I enjoyed every minutIn The Heart Of The Sea, the cornball sea adventure of which I enjoyed every minute.

While I'm not entirely sure I can add anything to the critical conversation around the film in the many months since it was unleashed upon the world, I can certainly add my approval.

The trailer indicates that Ridley's film is as much a work of Impressionism about Hendrix's experience performing as part of the 1960s London music scene as anything else - a sentiment backed up by the early reviews, with the Seattle Times» Moira Macdonald calling the movie «a mood piece, not a biopic» in her overall positive critique.

If anything, the tiny - budgeted film (though not that poor considering the filmmakers licensed a David Bowie song) is a sizzle reel for Josh Trank who shows he can do on a fraction of the budget what many directors in Hollywood can't do with hundreds of millions.

See Also: There's not a lot comparable to «The Lobster» in Farrell's (or anyone's) filmography, but to see him ugly up to more grotesque effect, you could always check out «Horrible Bosses» which is fun enough until it loses steam, while the black comic vein of Lanthimos» film is maybe closest to a more surreal take on Farrell's collaborations with Martin McDonagh («In Bruges» and «Seven Psychopaths») inasmuch as it's close to anything at alin Farrell's (or anyone's) filmography, but to see him ugly up to more grotesque effect, you could always check out «Horrible Bosses» which is fun enough until it loses steam, while the black comic vein of Lanthimos» film is maybe closest to a more surreal take on Farrell's collaborations with Martin McDonagh («In Bruges» and «Seven Psychopaths») inasmuch as it's close to anything at alIn Bruges» and «Seven Psychopaths») inasmuch as it's close to anything at all.

If you haven't heard anything about it or you want to learn more, here I share with you some things I learned about the film when I visited the set in Albuquerque, New Mexico, as well as two brand new images from the film below!

As for the rating, anyone who knows anything about The Hunger Games should know that this doesn't lend itself towards light material — this is one of the darker «PG - 13» films to be released in a long time.