Example collocations logo

Characters in sentence

10488 examples of Characters in a sentence

While this is what happens in real life, we don't expect this to happen to our favorite film characters!
Two or three of the characters could be dispensed with, while two or three other characters could be given more prominence.
After missing out on this innumerable times on TCM UK, I decided to check it out given its sci-fi/adventure/camp pedigree: I knew I’d be in for a thoroughly silly ride – but it was also astoundingly bad! Anyway, perhaps appropriately given the characters involved, the script rips off many sci-fi titles then of recent vintage – SOYLENT GREEN (1973), ZARDOZ (1974), LOGAN’S RUN (1976; to the extent that it was filmed on some of the self-same sets!), STAR WARS (1977), ALIEN (1979) and MAD MAX 2: THE ROAD WARRIOR (1981)!
While casino staff may very well be a different breed to the rest of the world they are nowhere near as witless and booooring as the characters presented in this script.
For example, one of the laziest copouts for a filmmaker involves forced verbal exposition where characters basically explain everything for the viewer even when the constructed scenario is totally artificial.
The cast is made of unknown actors, which will probably remain unknown since they don't even play characters.
see, this movie is really terrible, the acting is pretty good, but the casting is awful gear and Willis did their best to play these characters they simply cant play.
now, this movie has no plot, or rather, there's something that tries to pass off as a plot: there's a mean hit-man (Willis) who is cool dangerous and sophisticated (actually he's none of those things, but from some dialog between the other characters, you are supposed to get this impression), so this hit-man is on a mission to kill someone, now there's an ex-IRA prisoner who is kind and nice and very likable (gear) who the FBI release from prison so he will help them.
The characters?
The characters feel wooden and lack personality, and the drawings look a lot different than that in the first.
As the DVD played on, i found myself caring less and less about what might happen to the characters and just hoping the film would end soon.
Besides the story and the characters mentioned above, the picture quality is poor in this one too, probably one of the worst in those direct-to-video products that Disney has ever released.
There's a "Wizard Of Oz" kind of feel to the story, in that the characters in the dream are all the equivalents of real-life acquaintances of Jack, and the movie opens in black & white and shifts to colour during the dream sequence.
The characters are clichés and stereotypes, and are intentionally paper-thin in order to make fun of the characters they're based on... problem is, it doesn't work.
Basically, the idea in this film is that these characters insatiable drive to find comfort, security, and pleasure in sexual acts is actually the unhealthy motive that makes them so unbearable to themselves--which they hide from themselves with more sex.
The reason that the original version worked so well was that the characters were dealing with "man" problems.
It gathers a set of awkward characters united by unbelievable links.
All the characters (apart from Bronson's Paul Kersey, of course) exist merely to be killed, either as "provocation" (the good guys) or as "retribution" (the villains).
Instead of all the pointless padding, Shiban should have paid more attention to building up tension and make his lead characters a little more likable.
Jarman tries to change the personalities of the characters for a start.
I also disliked the characters, the main actor (Adam Grimes)tried his best, and for a comedy like this that doesn't have to be much, but when surrounded by so many other bad actors he had no hope of making this film good.
This movie has nothing going for it if you take it as a serious movie, this is often the case with movies of this genre, but most movies of this nature can be watch as if they are a comedy and you can laugh at how pathetic the characters and situations are and almost get your times worth.
I'm sure some people will enjoy it, and find it powerful, or have some sort of personal connection with the characters and story, but from an unbiased stand point, it's not very well done.
There is a LOT of repetitive dialogue in this movie about "cold spots" (signaling the presence of a ghost), and characters praying to surround themselves with white light to protect themselves.
In the end, no real front story ever develops and the characters themselves are artificially propped up by monologues from third parties.
The film has great actors, a master director, a significant theme--at least a would-be significant theme, undertone of fifties existential world-weariness, aerial scenes that ought to have thrilled both senses and imagination, and characters about which one might deeply care.
They change the roles and looks of major and minor characters alike for no good reason.
Most of the time, each character simply states their basic motives, the other characters respond with theirs, and that's that.
The characters likewise are one-dimensional and flat; unfortunately I don't know whether Lumumba was actually a freedom fighter passionately devoted to ideals of Congolese unity, but after an hour or so of the movie I certainly didn't trust it to tell me so.
These aren't characters.
BackNext