Sentences with phrase «of anything in this film»

What is the true meaning of anything in this 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.

The film boasts an accumulation of black artistic talent unlike anything we have witnessed in recent cinematic history.

But if the story told by the film - makers is even close to accurate, the world the workers live in is anything but sane, and they're struggling, after all, to feed their families without the help of the power - brokers who see them as mere pawns in a very high - stakes game.

Trump's longtime personal attorney Michael Cohen paid Daniels, an adult film actress, $ 130,000 in exchange for her signing a nondisclosure agreement in the final days of the 2016 election that kept her from saying anything about an alleged affair with Trump.

In these films, there's no need to see anything past the moment where the couple finally gets together, because getting together is the end of the story.

I used to do stop motion short films in college, but have been too afraid to do them for the blog (the quality of my old videos werent anything to brag about).

«Anything over 50 yards is rare in a game,» says Broncos offensive coordinator and quarterbacks coach Gary Kubiak, «but I did see film of Vick throwing a ball 75 yards.

He shouted «listen up all of you, I am recording this, I have your faces on film now, and I know where some of you live», at that moment he aggressively pushed the phone in someone's face and then said «and if I hear that anything is said against the holy Prophet Mohammed, I will hunt you down.»

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».

During an early screening of Roland Emmerich's latest disaster flick 2012, which opens today, laughter erupted in the audience near the end of the film thanks to corny dialogue and maudlin scenes (among the biggest guffaw getters: a father tries to reconnect with his estranged son on the telephone, only to have the son's house destroyed just before he could say anything).

We've been trying to make materials, compounds, anything that can be useful to improve the processes to make thin films that find application in a variety of electronic devices.»

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.

All the more reason that I was drawn to a number of features in the fashions I saw in this classic film — fully appreciative of the fact that the two gorgeous women wearing them had no need to cover anything whatsoever.

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.

Trying to underplay conventional plotting as much as it can, this film is seriously meditative upon the life of a man who we barely known anything about, and makes matters worse by portraying gradual exposition in too abstract of a fashion for you to receive the impact of the would - be remedies for characterization shortcomings that do indeed go a very long way in distancing you from a conceptually sympathetic and worthy lead.

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.

The flash - forward right at the end of the film, when Harry, Ron and Hermione are middle - aged parents waving off their kids at King's Cross, actually affected me more than anything they did in the previous seven films.

Though he never wrote anything directly for the screen after 1965, Richard Rodgers was well represented in films by his previous body of work, including filmizations of On Your Toes (1936) Babes in Arms (1939) Pal Joey (1957) and all but three of the Rodgers and Hammerstein stage collaborations.

Released on the sudden and unexplainable popularity of star Ashton Kutcher, the film is ultimately a realization that Terence Stamp, regardless of the great performances he has given in the past, will never be fully respected by Hollywood and given anything unworthy of his participation.

In one of the strongest scenes in this final film, a character tells Harry about the importance of words and how things that exist only in the mind are as real as anything elsIn one of the strongest scenes in this final film, a character tells Harry about the importance of words and how things that exist only in the mind are as real as anything elsin this final film, a character tells Harry about the importance of words and how things that exist only in the mind are as real as anything elsin the mind are as real as anything else.

The absence of anything traditionally «painterly» reflects an ambivalent attitude toward the kind of capitalistic pro-growth machinations on display in the film.

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?)

Of course, there is a very small percentage of people who may be disappointed there are no car chases or robots, but if you're looking for something fresh - unlike anything you've ever seen in the theater - then this film is for yoOf course, there is a very small percentage of people who may be disappointed there are no car chases or robots, but if you're looking for something fresh - unlike anything you've ever seen in the theater - then this film is for yoof people who may be disappointed there are no car chases or robots, but if you're looking for something fresh - unlike anything you've ever seen in the theater - then this film is for you.

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.

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.

Smith shows the grasp of character and offbeat humor that really registered in «Clerks,» and a subtler mastery of film fluidity and professionalism than anything in the cheesy, amateurish «Mallrats.»

In a less well - written film, Cody and Reitman could have lost their way with the path the film takes, and while it feels like a bit of a jarring bait and switch in the moment, it never cheapens anythinIn a less well - written film, Cody and Reitman could have lost their way with the path the film takes, and while it feels like a bit of a jarring bait and switch in the moment, it never cheapens anythinin the moment, it never cheapens anything.

Issues regarding pacing and structural tightness are among the more considerable in this film, which promises to be rather extensive as a biopic, only to succumb to anything from repetitious filler, - at its worst with the forceful and recurrent insertion of a recital of Oscar Wilde's own short story «The Selfish Giant» - to meandering material whose being backed by steady directorial storytelling by Brian Gilbert leads to moderate bland spells.

Evenly matched with the vocal performances of several actors, they are stunning, and profoundly different from anything you've heard in a Disney film before.

The idea of young black girls seeing this film and being inspired by Letitia Wright's Q - like gadget - crazed scientist Shuri or Danai Gurira's none - more - badass and effortlessly movie - stealing General Okoye is more thrilling to me than anything that happens in the actual movie.

With just the right amount of characterization, the cast in this film pull off performances that feel more real than anything.

It's just that the film feels so unusually empty; even if he has subtly snuck his usual hallmarks into the mechanics of the narrative itself, he's populated the foreground with characters who never come alive as anything more than archetypes, who trade in so much exposition it's hard to see how any audience member could be overwhelmed with confusion at the story being told.

While the respectable result is a more meaningful film than just about anything Mandoki worked on during his 17 years in Hollywood («Angel Eyes,» «Message in a Bottle»), pic suffers from an overindulgence of triumph - over-adversity cliches and a meandering narrative.

If the secret police ever want to get anything out of me, all they have to do is sit me down in front of this film.

Mercifully light on the soppy sentimentality that often weighs down most kiddie flicks, Peter Rabbit is a fast - paced, gag - a-minute affair that at times recalls the films of Zucker - Abrahams - Zucker in its willingness to do anything for a laugh.

Whether gracefully gliding across the stage in dance, pounding the boards in a play, or lighting up the screen in such popular films as Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, the multi-faceted Saldana seems capable of achieving anything she puts her mind to.

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.

Yes I dislike the way Legolas is portrayed in these films, as if he's some kind of invincible super God - like character who can do virtually anything such as defy gravity.

In the film's final act, the screenplay serves them up what might otherwise be a moment of real conflict, but Roth's direction seems so blithely uninterested in anything but eagerly justifying Willis» violently sadistic rampages that the scene plays as limp and useless as a vestigial taiIn the film's final act, the screenplay serves them up what might otherwise be a moment of real conflict, but Roth's direction seems so blithely uninterested in anything but eagerly justifying Willis» violently sadistic rampages that the scene plays as limp and useless as a vestigial taiin anything but eagerly justifying Willis» violently sadistic rampages that the scene plays as limp and useless as a vestigial tail.

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.

Rarely are female leads given anything of substance to do in action films, so I applaud Besson for writing this role for a woman.

Yet an actor in a Cameron Crowe film must be prepared to do things that fly in the face of conventional narrative: his characters are forever addressing the camera and declaiming their innermost thoughts in voice - over, the cumulative effect of which is an anything - can - happen atmosphere and characters of substance etched in lightning - quick vignettes.

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.

As Abraham Lincoln, Daniel Day - Lewis is nothing short of mesmerizing, even in this brief introduction, and in a way this sequence is evocative of the film as a whole — it's overtly chatty, with little interest in anything beyond the dynamics of two people communicating with each other.

If Rampage's giant monsters stand for anything — and giant monsters usually do, even in films as silly as this one — it is the destructive self - interest of the monstrously rich, and there is an unexpectedly topical plot thread here about billionaire grifters in gilded office blocks getting their FBI - mandated just desserts.