Sentences with phrase «viewings of the film did»

However, my two viewings of the film did provide a slightly different and deeper appreciation.

Not exact matches

Does anyone else see the humor in the creationists debating their point of view over the Internet (invented by science), filmed on cameras (based on science) in a hall lit by electricity (harnessed by science).

The message of the film places virtually no value on human life, and the movie itself does» t care at all for its audience, save for the pain it can cause in the viewing experience.

Baroness Kidron's 2013 documentary film InRealLife, in which she interviews several teenage porn users, offers a chilling insight into the entrenched depth of their engagement with porn and what it's doing to their views of relationships, women and the world.

The opinions expressed in Fresh Food Matters films do not necessarily reflect the views of Sub-Zero, Inc..

Here's another view of the incident, but sadly it doesn't look like the person filming got the memo about vertical videos or zooming in.

I don't agree with all of her views - anyone who has watched the film Darkest Hour will wonder just how anyone could have thought appeasement was the right approach.

LOS ANGELES, CA — Adult - film actress Stormy Daniels released a sketch of the man she said threatened to hurt her if she didn't keep quiet about her alleged affair with Donald Trump Tuesday during an appearance on The View.

The researchers then used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to scan 21 of the participants» brains while they viewed pairs of short film clips showing classmates of varying status within this social network, telling them all they needed to do was indicate whether the clips in each pair were the same or different, and that this task was unrelated to the first part of the experiment.

Looking to the other work done at and to support the Green Bank Observatory, the accomplishments of the past year include: hosting more than 2,000 visitors to view the solar eclipse, painting 84,000 square feet of the GBT, hosting 900 visitors at our annual open house (and launching 150 rockets in two hours that same day), releasing our new visitor reservations system, and hosting more than 30 film and news organizations.

Although audience voting doesn't factor in to the jury's selection of the winners, voting will count for «Audience Favorite» designation, so view the film, vote and and tell your friends.

From this point of view the film is attempting the very same thing that Mark Gatiss and Stephen Moffat attempted with Sherlock, or that Kenneth Branagh was doing when he made his great Shakespeare adaptations.

The individual instalments of The Lord of the Rings trilogy, for instance, are perfectly successful films in whichever order you choose to view them - and it is interesting that the same critics who defended Kill Bill did not necessarily take the same line with Peter Jackson's work.

The film does clearly want to state that the kids need help, as cases of suicide and violence are common and cleverly chosen as a way to enforce the view of the institution and not theirs of the way that they are treated and how much they need to be rid of their sickness.

just came back from reading The Subtle Knife review / essay on District 9 and it was extremely well - done, and gave a nice, quick view into South African culture / history / outlook which enhanced my memory of the film.

Just as Jason Reitman's «Up in the Air» — a film that took a mildly more sanguine view of the past decade's far - reaching financial crisis — made its viewers endure repeated scenes of humiliating personal disenfranchisement at the hands of corporate America, so does «99 Homes.»

If I remember correctly after only one viewing of the film he also never said he didn't care about people.

But Mr. Berg's listless direction brings the film so little point of view that it doesn't much matter who lives or dies.

The record of his visit to the nearby Klan stronghold of Cottonwood, for instance, consists mostly of brooding shots of trees — their past use was much on his mind, and he didn't expect the people would want to be filmed — followed by a view of the two - lane blacktop along which he fled after two boys approached him, called him by name, and instructed him to wait because some people were coming to see him.

It does have a few holes story wise, but the performances from Granger and Walker alone make this worthy of a view, and it is not hard to fall in love with how Hitchcock shoots his films, as well as the music he selects to raise the hair on the back of your neck at the precise, appropriate time.

And yet these weighty themes don't manifest themselves organically, with the characters drawn in a manner that makes viewing the film as either of the above allegories a trying exercise.

Schrader, whose strict, Calvinist parents did not allow him to see films until he was eighteen, unwraps the story as though a reflection on his own upbringing, entertains a view that actors should not over-emote, that more naturalistic performances would evoke passion in the audience more than a display of firecracker exhibitionism.

The joke here is that rednecks are considered a joke, but the film does not take that limited view even for the sake of a cheap laugh.

Unfortunately, the film does not fulfil its potential and slides into a predictable, formula ending, but the skillful direction and the good performance of Busey make this film well - worth viewing.

Late in the film the head of the Democratic party proclaims that he doesn't understand God's plan - of course he doesn't have the perspective of the true insiders who shape and twist fact and fiction to achieve their desired goal... from the campaign manager's point of view, God's plan is all too obvious and the morality... win at all costs as long as you believe in the cause.

All the same, Bulworth is a film that swerves to the left of conventional liberalism, viewing, as it does, corporate America and Congress pretty much as corrupt institutions which, Beatty seems to suggest, ought to be paying more attention to hip - hop culture.

What made the first film work as well as it did was the way Hirst took and reworked historical facts to suit the rise (or decline, depending on your point of view) of an innocent, love - hungry young woman into a cold, sometimes cruel statue of a queen.

«Persepolis» pulls off something that's not easy for any film, even a live - action one, to do: It gives us a sense of how a kids» - eye view of the world — particularly the way kids are capable of grasping the idea of injustice, even when more delicate political arguments are beyond their reach — can emerge and grow into an adult sensibility.

On a purely narrative level, however, the introduction of some of the villains feels somewhat awkward, as the film has to abandon its point - of - view close to Ruth to show what kind of people they are before they are set onto a collision course with Ruth and Tony, which doesn't quite feel organic.

Glazer set out to make a film showcasing our world - its people, places, and things - from an outsider's point of view, and boy howdy did he deliver.

«I happen to think «Husbands» is a very fine film that has to do with what's happening today from our point of view, you know, three guys that have lived part of their lives and...

I also didn't know much about how it was made until after I'd watched it, so it's a case of my opinion of the film becoming more positive a day after viewing.

«I happen to think «Husbands» is a very fine film that has to do with what's happening today from our point of view, you know, three guys that have lived part of their lives and don't have their youth to look forward to.»

His subsequent career as a director did not quite hit the heights of that first film, but what followed still proved Hopper to be a fascinating filmmaker with a unique point of view.

And yet, and yet... a 1994 viewing of the film confirms my original opinion, expressed in 1969, that the movie as a whole doesn't live up to its parts.

Unfortunately, by ditching the high ground in favor of not - especially - convincing theatrics, the potency of the film becomes diluted to the point where we're viewing the infiltration of these secret cell groups as a fantasy, and therefore don't buy many of their tactics and plausible enough to keep us on the same edge we'd be teetering on if we felt the authenticity through and through.

The film doesn't get involved in Clough's personal life but focuses on his career with both clubs, starting off with Clough viewed firstly as a small - time Second Division manager then an arrogant manager on top of Division One.

Although it does not reinvent the wheel, Bryan Singer's film does the job of creating an enjoyable viewing experience.

The film presents a lot of statistics — almost more than can be taken in on one viewing, in fact — about the state of manhood in this country, but it also shows examples of what parents and teachers and coaches and other role models can do to raise men who can be strong and powerful without shutting off their feelings.

But the strength of a film like this doesn't lie in surprises or sudden turns; its strength lies in its relatability and the questions it forces you to ask yourself during and after the viewing.

I admit I really didn't enjoy this one upon a first viewing, but after watching the director's cut of the film, which is far superior, I really got into this one.

I didn't want to be a character in the film — I don't find myself that interesting — but I wanted you to feel like you were there, with a ground - level view of the drug war.

I've seen four of the five foreign film nominations this year and they are so gloriously diverse, hold such promise for the future that you could do worse than starting your Oscar viewing here.

The film is very much a festive follow - up to director Michael Dougherty's vastly underrated 2007 Halloween film Trick r» Treat (which I stupidly didn't spotlight in my October Horror series) so fans of that film's darkly comedic tone should be right at home here, although, in my view Krampus is not quite as good as that earlier effort.

The outspoken Robbins consciously avoided politics while talking about the film, as if he didn't want his own views to get in the way of the film's non-partisan story.

The film certainly has quite a few problems (Lin Shaye's voice dubbing in the prologue and frequent lazily - written exposition dumps spring to mind), but on a repeat viewing I realized that it does plenty of things right (everything Patrick Wilson, the time travel reveal and the climax).

A repeat viewing feels necessary to watch the film with fresh eyes after the truth is revealed, and if mandatory repeat watching isn't the mark of a good film, I don't know what is.

With Krieps on board, it also somehow feels like the Hitchcock movie Audrey Hepburn didn't get to make but clearly channeled through the unique mind of Anderson, a film - savvy writer - director responsible for such fever dreams as Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Inherent Vice, and of course There Will Be Blood, his previous adventure with Day - Lewis that also felt like a movie stitched together out of something not easily explained on first viewing.

With the film giving us even more of a point - of - the - view of these deranged killers, who are later targeted by the sheriff, we still don't condone their actions but they show a bit more vulnerability than before.

You are still able to enjoy the film and it's many references back to the original «The Wizard of Oz» story, but it just didn't pack any magic to my viewing.