Sentences with phrase «plot than a film»

Which may be more plot than a film like this needs.

Not exact matches

Since launching Raleigh Construction Company (now Raleigh Enterprises) in 1955, he has acquired, developed and managed more than 11 million square feet of real estate across the globe, reimagining dormant plots of land and run - down commercial buildings as resort hotels, residential apartments, office towers, shopping centers and film studios.

Like the «Basterds» scene, that's much longer than the typical film scene, especially one that doesn't exactly move the plot forward.

«The Interview,» the Sony Pictures film about a fictional plot to assassinate North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, opened in more than 300 movie theaters across the United States on Christmas Day, drawing many sell - out audiences and statements by patrons that they were championing freedom of expression.

New York Post's Kyle Smith claims that «there is more plot in the average Geico commercial» than in this film.

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.

It's difficult to critique this in a spoiler - free way, but to use the example of A New Hope, while the Death Star was a looming, terrifying presence throughout, the big threat to our heroes in this film seems to appear quite late in the day, and seems more important as a plot device to bring key characters together than a genuinely gripping menace.

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.

Why bother to nattily plot out the film's visual vocabulary when the story itself is treated as little more than ripped - from - the - headlines sensationalism, devoid of nuance and empathy?

There's an amusing love triangle (certainly more involving than what was witnessed in the recent «Twilight» saga), commentary on waning humanism through tyrannical rule, and an unveiling of the supremely negative influences of politically slanted media, primarily as it defines celebrity — but it's all buried deep beneath basic adventures of wilderness survival that are curiously manipulated back into the script for a twist and return to the first film's plot.

That's also true of the film as a whole, which is so elaborately plotted — crosscutting between past and future while keeping a good half - dozen subplots spinning in the air — as to seem more like a contraption than a movie.

I dare you to look up the plot of the book and tell me if you think that wasn't a better film than this drivel.

The characters are readymade jokes unto themselves, and the plots unfolding around them seem like little more than scenes found on the film's cutting room floor.

While weed was a big part of the comic misunderstandings that fueled the plot of the first movie, and works in similar fashion here as well, the fact is that both films operate on a higher plane than an awful lot of sludgy spliff flicks.

What this film seriously lacks in a coherent and discernable plot and character development, it more than makes up for it with tons of style, great cinematography, and well - placed tension.

And while this adaptation - written by Akiva Goldsman - contains many of the same beats and plot twists as Brown's book, the film never quite becomes anything more than a sporadically engaging but mostly dull murder mystery.

Nothing wrong with that, however considering that the plot revolves around a haunted house and Hearse, the film could have been much better than it is.

Rather than collecting a bunch of funny people together on a set and just letting them riff, the film establishes coherent characters and drops them into a twisty mystery plot that's tightly crafted enough to generate some real narrative momentum while never getting too bogged down in its own plot that it forgets to be funny.

While she's the reason to see this movie, the plot is also well - done, and is a more positive piece than most of the films in this genre.

as a kid i grew up with transformers for toys, but didn't watch the actual show (aside from beast wars) until last year, so i wouldn't consider myself a fan boy, but when a tv show based around toys from the 80's has better dialog, humor, character development, and plot than a high budget Hollywood film, you know something is wrong with the film industry.

However, the plot moves forward a bit quicker than it should and becomes more dramatised in it's second half and it is an undeniably predictable storyline but unlike his more recent films it's decently written, well intended and quite funny.

Well - observed but occasionally disjointed, it's a film that's more about thematic tone, sound and images than it is driven by plot.

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

To get a really good and entertaining film, you need: 1) characters you care about 2) a plot that is more than twenty words when boiled down 3) stunning action (on which Transformers delivers 4) believability and credibility And all Transformers has is eye candy.

The main plot is already ridiculous enough, but when you really deconstruct this film as a whole, the sub-plots are even more outlandish than the film itself.

A disastrous film that wants to be more complex than it should be, coming up with more and more unnecessary details at the expense of simple concision, and so the obvious, predictable narrative gets lost amid contrivances, implausible scenes and plot holes the size of Africa.

Closing, resolving, or at least acknowledging all those plot and character threads would appear to be an overwhelming task for anyone in any medium, and it's more than any one film can handle.

In fact there isn't much more to the plot than that; this film is all about attitude and atmosphere.

The film's world - building is more engaging than its plotting, which skews toward the generic as the embattled good guys set out on their last - ditch effort to save what remains of humanity; there's a sense, while watching Blame!

Critic Consensus: There isn't much to Sneakers plot and that's more than made up for with the film's breezy panache and hi - tech lingo.

The film's cool, sober texture and its clever characters are often more interesting than the larger plot.

Critics Consensus: There isn't much to Sneakers plot and that's more than made up for with the film's breezy panache and hi - tech lingo.

The film is fairly tolerable as these things go: Wilder takes time off from the steamrolling plot for improvised bits with some actor buddies (including Charles Grodin and Joseph Bologna), and the project as a whole is a lot less mawkish than we've come to expect from Wilder's directorial efforts.

His script is more ambitious than that of the average horror film, with a plot structured across different timelines, creating excruciating tension in the process.

With many noticeable green screen effects and animals that looked a little less than artificial, the visuals clashed with the plot of the film for me.

The result is a maddening film, not just for its endorsement of immorality, but for its lack of likable characters, and a plot that drags along in a way that makes it feel far more than its hour and forty minute runtime.

In extending a short story to feature length without embellishing it — at least in the plotting — Loktev suffuses the film with the kind of intimate, microscopic detail and observation that's more common to literature than cinema.

The youngsters» tug - o - war courtship is the film's everything — without it, the Byzantium would amount to nothing more than a good looking plot machine.

I won't give away much more plot other than it's a dark comedy because this film would suffer in my eyes if the audience knew too much about it.

The film looks fine from a technical standpoint, and things move along without too much muss or fuss, but likeable actors and competency in the lensing fall far short of turning this plot into something worth following for more than a few snickers at its expense.

This second act is a bit prolonged, carrying the film to a 116 - minute runtime and detailing more than necessary the cunning vengeance plot.

Even without having read Dan Brown's bestselling novel, it seems safe to assume based on both this film and Da Vinci that the author is more at ease with plot technicalities than character development.

If the film's plot would have been improved upon, and the cast would have put a bit more effort into their performances, then The Final Frontier would have been a much better outing than what it turned out to be.

At times, the film feels like its veering too close to fan service with call backs to other films in the saga that seem more catered to Easter Egg hunters than plot advancement.

(It's true that the film has more than its fair amount of exposition, and tangled plot points that left me saying, «What?»

The plot is thin but the film tries hard to present a believable experience for Bryan, and Neeson does his best to allow him to be more than straight «action man».

More character study than thriller (the title means «revenge»), this slow - burning Austrian film effectively holds our interest with its unpredictable plot, even though it's not easy to care where it's going.Tamara (Potapenko) is a Ukrainian...

This is very much a character - driven piece, rather than plot - driven (though there are some dramatic plot twists) and the problem with this film is that the characters are simply unlikeable.

The dialogue is more sensible than the plotting, allowing us to forgive the film's more serious trespasses.

The plot is meaningless, Lawrence — though great — is tormented for perceived enjoyment, and the overall impact of the film feels like we should be kicking Aronofsky in the balls rather than praising him.