Critics
in sentence
1600 examples of Critics in a sentence
Not one to tell endings ... so go see this movie ... and yes I will agree with one thing the
critics
got right ... the music is wonderful!
Also, noted
critics
like Mr Maltin and Roger Ebert have dismissed the film as a genuinely failed attempt to convert a play from stage into cinematic form.
The
critics
of 1967 hated it and the public stayed away - 1960s Australia, like 1940s USA, was in some ways the sort of place where conformity was important, whereas this film is very different to what those viewers would have expected, especially after reading the promotional posters.
Critics
of this show obviously don't get it--or haven't watched the show enough to give it a chance, because anyone with real comic and creative sensibility has to laugh out loud while watching.
When it opened in London during the Christmas season of 1969 this musical version of James Hilton's famous story was drubbed by the
critics.
OK,so this film is NOT very well known,and wasn't very well publicised.I discovered this fairly brutal gangster gone good movie by complete accident on one of Skys millions of movie channels late on some boring evening,but I'm glad i did!The opening sequence to this film is fantastically comical in a very dark way.This in fact sets what i think is the general tone for the movie.I think a lot of
critics
and movie fans that have actually seen this film have been a bit unfair to just write it off as a lower budget gangster movie in the Reservoir Dogs vein.OK,so there are undeniable similarities between Thursday and some other crime genre films that it has been compared to,but in all fairness,i think this film takes a much more darkly comic look at this type of film,and the end result is a engrossing,well made,funny,if not totally original film.Tom Jane is good in this,and deserves the recognition he will now hopefully get thanks to the The Punisher.His performance as the bad guy gone good is realistic,funny and just cold enough to make you believe Casey really was a bad ass before he reformed.Thats another thing that makes this film stand out for me,the characters.In Nicks gang you get the strangest trio of criminals ever assembled,a smooth,charismatic but very cold leader(Nick),a trigger happy blood loving sexually predatory bitch of a woman(Dallas)and a psychotic hill billy with brains with a penchant for torture(Billy Hill).Throw in the most bizarre police detective ever seen on screen,beautifully over played by Mickey Rourke,and you've got a recipe for...well for Thursday really.Its at times darkly comic,sometimes brutal,sometimes unoriginal,but always engrossing and worth watching.8/10
The trailer of this film is slightly misleading, and I guess it mislead
critics
and audiences into thinking it was "Atonement: Part 2".
Winner of The CEC Award for Best Foreign Film at The Cinema Writers Circle Awards, The Guldbagge Award for Best Actress (Liv Ullman, who plays Eva) at The Guldbagge Awards, The NBR Award for Best Foreign Language Film and Best Actress at The National Board Of Review and The NSFC Award for Best Actress, Best Director (Ingmar Bergman) and Best Film at The National Society Of Film
Critics
Awards.
Don't listen to what the
critics
have always said about this cute, charming little movie.
This is a truly incredible movie, worthy of all the praise the
critics
and those on this site have heaped on it.
Some
critics
were harsh on Arquette's performance in the film when it opened on August 25, 1995, deeming that she was "flat" or "dull" in the role.
When the advertising for Best in Show had the tagline "From the Team That Brought You Waiting for Guffman", a fair number of
critics
out there implied in their reviews that only people that are familiar with the film or its filmmakers and cast would have a good time seeing this film.
For shame, critics, for shame times two!
I totally disagree with the comments of one of the
critics
before me who bashed the film.
I had heard interesting
critics
on this movie.
What do you do if you're Aishwarya Rai, coming off of a blockbuster film like 'Devdas', with some skeptical
critics
still relentlessly unsatisfied with your astounding performance or convinced by your strong screen presence and stellar acting skills, what do you do?
Golan and Globus made this film for Bronson fans, not for the critics, and it works.
I'd like to know precisely how it happens that this has often led to both the big studios and some major
critics "
gunning" for the picture when it is at last released.
The movie supposedly caused quite a stir among the
critics
in Cannes, but for me the final scene was just a pathetic attempt for a newbie director to get himself noticed.
Copping-out by allowing friendly
critics
to claim that all this artless crap was a satire on mainstream film-making is no more than a safe get-out to offer those who clearly see Godard's poverty of intellect and arrogant contempt for his audience.
And by that I don't mean "sick and angry" about "the human condition" or anything so general and profound as that, because that is exactly the line that most
critics
have adopted in their fulsome praise of the film - "an ordeal to watch in its ruthless dissection of our emotional cowardice and cruelty" and so on - and, if it really managed to put across a universally or even broadly relevant message of this sort, then the director would have good reason to be satisfied with himself, however pessimistic his conclusions may be.
The problem, however, is that the director is clearly convinced - and appears to have succeeded in convincing generations of
critics
- that Alexander, Veronika and Marie are somehow representative of human beings in general and of the limits of human beings' emotional capabilities.
It's so funny to hear American
critics
and film people (like the completely clueless Quentin Tarantino) call this film a masterpiece.
The X-rated movie about sex change operations and Hollywood was an absolute catastrophe at the box office and was literally booed off the screen by both
critics
and audiences at the time of it's release.
After finally viewing this movie in its entirety, I am completely mystified by the adoration it has received by
critics
and online users alike.
I mean,
critics
hated Resident Evil, and while it may not be a particularly great film, I enjoyed it if not for the fact that it was just a fun zombie shoot-em up with a half decent plot.
I know most society says not to listen to
critics
and to judge for yourself but I could not express how much I hated this piece of junk like Ebert did and never since Ebert's review of Rob Reiner's "North" where he said he hated that movie ten times had I ever heard such a brilliant hatred movie review.
Having read during many years about how great this film was, how it established Ruiz among the french
critics
(specially the snobbish Cahiers crowd), when I finally watched it about a year ago, I found it pretty disappointing (but then, I guess my expectations were sky-high).
I'm sure that it was as revolutionary in film-making as all the
critics
say, but when it boils right down to it, it's just really really boring.
I am surprised that everyone (even the critics) seems to think this was a good movie.
Back
Next
Related words
Movie
Their
About
Would
Which
There
Argue
Should
Other
Point
Think
People
Economic
Government
Could
Being
Political
After
Really
Against
